BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Antartica and Artic, a paradise for oil mining

Why we should be concerned about Arctic off-shore drilling: No technology exists that would allow oil companies to recover significant amounts of oil from the ocean after a spill, especially in rough, cold seas. Due to the frigid climate and the sensitivity of Arctic ecosystems, the Arctic is unlikely to recover as quickly as another region might from a major oil spill. Extreme Arctic weather and the remote location make the effectiveness of planned safety precautions for Arctic drilling highly unpredictable. There are many several other ways to produce clean energy, and crude oil would not be a long term solution, as the world oil would last for about 50 more years(excluding the unknown amount of oil in Antartica and Artic). The solitude and unique continent of Antarrtica and Artic should be left to nature, there should be no oil drilling taking place there.
Antartica and Artic, a paradise for oil mining

1. Jesus will protect us. There's no need for green BS as the world has ways of fixing itself 2. Green is all bs. Its all a plot to control as proven by behind the green mask. 3. Oil and Antarctica have whats been called as a Post byproduct adaption. A post byproduct adaption is a way of naturally working out the problems in environmental problematic events. Such events have helped in the ecosystem collapse of 1966. The land had a massive forrest burn out. The ecosystem was failing but by a byproduct adaption land grew with forests. It makes sense even if your an evolutionist. Land would survive better if it had a byproduct adaptation embedded in the ecosystem 4. Green energy is very expensive and ineffective. Mockten proved there would be a mass energy outage leading to riots and widespread social chaos. 5. It kills jobs "for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain"s experience...reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average http://www.juandemariana.org... "Legally mandated measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are likely to have significant adverse impacts on GDP growth of developing countries [...] This in turn will have serious implications for our poverty alleviation programs." http://newsbusters.org... 6. Conservation The universe has a law of conservation. If there is something such as a loss of land, there will be a gain in oceanic sea rise. Just as the artic sea loss matched by Antarctic sea ice gain. In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported http://wattsupwiththat.com... Whenever there's an effect whats conserved? My arguments are solid how ya gana respond?
Antartica and Artic, a paradise for oil mining

As we all know, the world is a hungry monster for energy, and this world heavily relies on crude oil for energy, which is not a clean energy type. With the remaining oil reserves and including an approximated value for upcoming crude oil reserves but excluding Antarica and Artic, the world's crude oil would last us around 75 years. But this monster is becoming more and more hungrier for energy, thus lets take it to be 50 years. Now is it worth for us to disturb the natural wild life and scenery of the inhabited continent of Antartica and Artic. In my opinion, no. because crude oil is not the only type of energy in this world, there are many cleaner energy(renewable energies) like wind, solar, tidal and geothermal, but there is also one non-renewable energy, which have very less problemes, but when a problem occurs it causes big time problem, this is nuclear energy, but under proper and sophisticated supervision there would be no problem. Lets piturize this, we mine oil in Antartic and Artic for oil, which would create more green house gases as there is an availability for oil, but these gases would also affect Antartica and Artic creating it warmer for its existance. Then in this type of case, the whole continent would be extint destroying life, study of that unique continent and making it more difficult to mine oil there. It is very well admitteed that Antartica and Artic has a unique unbelievable untamed beauty like the Northen Lights, etc. And goingn ahead to do this while alternative options are available seems like a stupid decision. I am hoping to see challengers to my debate.
Microsoft computers are better than Macs

Now, let's get back to the basics. What is the most important is the cost. On average, a good Windows computer costs $500-$1000, a Mac computer costs $1200-$1700. Windows computers are much more familiar. On Apple you don't know where the home is; is it the Mission Control, Launchpad, or the Dock? All Windows computers are familiar to consumers. Even though Apple is "ground breaking," all windows OS are refinements, not re-imagined, that means that Windows computers are better but recognizable.
Microsoft computers are better than Macs

First of all, your statistics are way off. Apple is the fourth most popular computer brand, headed by Acer, Dell, and HP; which all use Microsoft OP. Apple has only 10.7% of all computer sales. Microsoft computers have more options than any Apple computer, since there are more makers of Windows computers than Apple. Apple computers have no Blue-ray drives or HDMI ports. Windows also has a host of installable software. Apple does not have as many options to install apps and programs into their computers. Windows computers also have Microsoft office, which runs better on Microsoft computers than with Apple. Finally, a lot of people, from teachers to gamers, said in a test that a Windows computer is better than an Apple. This test has even won over a long time Apple user too a Windows computer. Resources: http://www.popularmechanics.com... http://brandongaille.com...
food stamps should be provided by the government

You have made enormous claims with no evidence. I will refuse to believe any data unless I see it backed up by evidence. Additionally, it is easy to talk of large systems where people are given what they need, but it is hard to figure out how you could apply that system. You are wrong with your assertion of enormous wealth. We are a world economy, but we have immense debt, largely caused by uncontrolled government spending and borrowing. Obama has created over 6 trillion dollars of new debt, which in turn inflates our currency. You state that everyone should get food stamps. Where will that money come from? We already spend hundreds of billions in subsidizing the lazy maggots in our population. We could not afford to give money to all 320 million people. Furthermore, your plan would eliminate competition, and would also eliminate any need for higher quality food. As prices cannot be adjusted, quality will not increase, and it will create a giant monopoly based upon food, which we cannot have in a true free market. Very few die of starvation in this nation. Obesity is rampant in poorer communities, since cheap and affordable food is not filled with nutrients, but is rather filled with fat. This is basic economics. Unhealthy food is not exactly desirable, but it is in high supply, so it is cheap. Food that is healthy is desirable, which in turn drives up prices. Healthy food also requires more service, as it has to be grown seasonally, which also impacts supply. Growth hormones and pesticides cannot be used, which in turn means other, more cost-inefficient ways have to be used to create a product that is safe to consume. Need I remind you, people who make less than $50,000 dollars annually do not have to participate and pay their fair share of taxes. That means that they get to keep most, if not all, of their income. If they cannot budget dozens of thousands of dollars correctly then that is their fault, and they will inevitably suffer the consequences. On your remark about Walmart: If Walmart employees were useful and not easily replaceable, then their salaries would rise. A man with a Masters in economics could do the job of a cashier, but a cashier could not do the job of a man with a Masters in economics. That makes that educated man more desirable, more useful, and harder to replace, which in turn means that their salaries will rise so they do not leave and find work elsewhere. If people cared enough about themselves to get an education, which you can do under any circumstances, then we would be fine. There is over $130,000,000 of government funded and privately funded scholarships that are wasted each year. Work hard, work smart, and you will be successful. (When I say work hard, I do not mean working hard as a cashier, I mean working hard as an engineer, or software developer, etc. - a job that takes skill and a brain). Sources: [1]http://frac.org... [2]http://www.institutefornaturalhealing.com...
food stamps should be provided by the government

there is no plot to create dependency. that is an unfounded assertion by con. there is as far as is most apparent, a desire to feed people who would otherwise starve. even if so many use food stamps for so long, that only shows that the inability to work is systematic such that it creates long dependency. less than three percent of food stamps are fraudulent. corporations wouldn't get food stamp money unless they were giving food to people. somebody has to. and, companies like walmart wouldn't have employees getting so much in food stamps, if they paid their employees better. people might have money but that doesen't mean they can afford to eat. they have other expenses too. yet food is a number one requirement of life. if anything, food stamps should go to everyone, as everyone needs it, and they can comepte for all other wants and needs of life. con doesnt' respond to my anaology of immense wealth, and hasn't admitted that it would be permissibel to him that so many die of starvation in such a rich nation.
food stamps should be provided by the government

Food stamps, as well as all other forms of welfare, has always been a government plot to create dependency. Studies show that over 40% of food stamp recipients have been receiving food stamps for over 10 years, which goes to prove that people are ineffective at changing. When you create dependency, that makes the dependent person unlikely to become independent. Creating a system which rewards work with currency, rather then creating a system that rewards stupidity, laziness, and an overall lack of the will to get an education or a job, will ultimately become a failed system. The food stamp program is open to massive amounts of fraud. We have a system that tracks income and then pairs it with the amount of money that would cost to take care of yourself and your family. This system is open to large scale error as well as manipulation, as we can observe in many impoverished areas. Many are on food stamps because they are out of work. One of the main causes of an inability to be employed is health issues, the biggest one being obesity. A financed meal plan enables people to buy large amounts of unhealthy food, which in turn makes them unable to work, which makes the eligible to receive food stamps. One of the main issues with food stamps is that they are a large form of corporate welfare. Many argue that food stamps provide economic stimulus, but in fact, they do not. They not only create dependence for a large population, but they also create dependence for corporations. Food stamps is a direct way of transferring tax payer money straight to corporations, such as Walmart, which receives over $6 billion in welfare annually. [2] The eligibility of receiving a subsidized food plan is also able to be manipulated. Instead of based on need, it is based on want. People who can afford food, but are still eligible, decide to apply. The people that are cheating the system are only taking advantage of the morbid stupidity of the government. In a concluding sense, there should be no subsidies given to any group or any company that is paid for directly by tax dollars. Allow charities and churches to help the poor, because I cannot find any place in my heart as to why I should give up my income so someone whose life or death would provide no change in the nation. We need to realize that human nature and nature itself is based on survival. At this point, the weak prey on the strong, since the weak are plentiful, and the strong do not have as many votes as the weak. Sources: [1]http://www.freedomworks.org... [2]http://dailysignal.com...
food stamps should be provided by the government

the main point, is that if people dont have food stamps, they will die. and, crime will go up exponentially in their plot not to die. also, the USA is a land of immense wealth. if someone is born here, they should be entitled to a fair cut, at least a minimum. imagine all the world was owned by one man, except a small plot of land where a few reside. in the real world of natural law, the people can branch off and plant food. but in man made law, artificially created laws, they cannot expand due to the man's artificial claim on the land, and perhaps his ability to use the land using modern technology. this is an outlandish scenario, but as a matter of scale is no different than allowing people to die without food stamps. last, not all are lazy or stupid who get food stamps. there's some who are down on their luck, but then there's also systematic poverty, such as ghettos where jobs are very hard to come by and getting ahead is for an extreme few.
food stamps should be provided by the government

I have accepted the debate challenge. Let me state that the argument I am presenting is that food stamps should not be provided by the United States government. I am assuming it is the U.S. government that we are referring to here. In reality, food stamps already are provided by the government, distributed to the lazy and the uneducated who decide to have children even though they cannot take care of them. This all is supported by taxpayer dollars, of course. I will await your opening argument and then I shall begin my own.
Demons and possessions are genuine

This should prove to be very educational for us both, as well as all readers of this debate. I think it would be wise to actually define the term (Being possessed),(demonology), Genuine and (Demons), before we start. Possessed is defined in this debate as: To be spurred or moved by a strong feeling or madness caused by a supernatural being. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Demonology is defined in this debate as: The study of demons or of belief about demons. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Geniune: possessing the claimed. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Demons are defined as: An evil supernatural being; a devil. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I hope that these definitions will be satisfactory for my opponent in this debate. If they are not then He should make claim why they are not in his round 1. I think round structure should be formed as follows: Round 1 - Agreement & Definitions. Round 2 - Opening arguments & Rebuttals by Con. Round 3 - Rebuttals for both Pro & Con. Additional arguments are allowed for both. Round 4 - No new arguments are allowed. Closing Rebuttals & Statements. I do not think a rule structure is needed. I will just remind my opponent that if definitions are no brought up in Round 1, then no issues about them are premitted in following rounds. I again thank my opponent for this debate. I look forward to the chAllenge.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

The resolution is that: "Homosexuality Is Immoral".Rules:1. By accepting the debate you automaticaly bind yourself to the rules, definitions and the onus I have set.2. First round for acceptance only.2. No new arguments in the last round, only rebuttals, and if desired a summary.3. In round 5 a conclusion must be submitted, much like the reply speech in British Parlimentary (in essence you summarize the issues so far and show how these issues were tackled by you but not by your opponent).4. No semantic arguments. 5. All sources are accepted, even books, if the page or chapter reference are give. It is for the voters to decide whether those sources are respectable enough. 6. No moving from the topic, we are not discussing gay marriage or laws, we are discussing whether homosexuality ought to be. 7. Con must provide a counter-argument seperate from rebuttals, the failure to do so should result in loss of voter points. Definitions:1. Homosexuality is the act of engaging in sexual activities with a member of the same sex 2. Immoral means that engaging in such an act will not yield the summum bonum, that is the "highest good". In essence that homosexuality ought not to be. Onus:1. The onus of proving that homosexuality is imoral rests entirely on the proposition. If the opposition show that the argument is illogical (it goes against the rules of validity) they gain half the points only. Keeping in mind the "argument from fallacy" they also have to attack premises and show that the argument is unsound. That the conclusion is false. They ay do this by showing that a premise is incorrect, or the conclusion is, and win the debate. If the opposition should bring about a claim, or evidence such as: homosexuality is natural they must prove that claim beyond doubt. Ajab
Abortion

1. A woman has certain rights to her own body just like any other human and I think that includes if something depends on your body for survival than you should have the right to cut it off from leeching even if it is a human. 2. A fetus is not fairly developed to say it is cognitive to a "human" level, like how killing an ant is a lot different from killing a human, a part of society, which you do not wish to anger other cognitive, developed beings out of consequences which Fetus's are quite a different story since not only do they not impose a threat, but they do not impose much at all. (My apologies if it turns to rebuttals somehow, but I'm simply trying to detail my position which fairly obviously conflicts with yours) 3. Things such as rape and unplanned parenthood should be taken into consideration, and you should ask yourself if it's okay to impose such a burden upon living, cognitive, developed people for the... not yet or perhaps ever.
Abortion

[As I stated this Round will not have any rebuttals; it will only extend what your argument is. ] I believe that abortion should be illegal in the United States of America for the following reasons; 1. Scientifically, the definition of a human is a member of the homo sapien species, (Meaning that the organism has human DNA) This makes killing the unborn child a crime as it is then murder; (Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another. ) 2. The fetus has rights. 3. If the woman didn't want to have a baby or wasn't ready to raise one then she shouldn't have had sex. Although most people have sex purely for the pleasure, it's true and natural purpose is sexual reproduction. During sexual intercourse, the woman is basically consenting to any eggs that may become fertilized that they may use her body to grow and develop until birth. 4. The fetus is, in fact, a living human, and therefore morally and legally should not be killed.
Abortion

[Before I go on, two things will be cleared up right away; 1- God will not be brought into this. 2- The fact is that every single organism on Earth and pretty much in the entire universe is either a cell or a mass of cells.] This is how the debate will be organized; Round 1: Acceptance and stating initial argument (Usually a sentence or maybe two) Round 2: Extending argument stated in Round 1 with some details. Round 3: Rebutting arguments stated in Round 2. Round 4: Rebutting rebuttals that were stated in Round 3 about Round 2. Round 4 will also contain your closing statement. ==================================== My argument is that abortion should be illegal for several reasons which will be stated in Round 2 when my argument is extended.
Abortion

-1. May I remind con that we are speaking of morality which falls under such areas as culture. Machines have potential to contribute to society, but is destroying a calculator morally wrong? You're protecting cognitive people that have yet to exist while potentially causing harm to someone's life that is already a cognitive being. It is a fact that a fetus is homo sapien, sure, but a pointless/irrelevant one. --2. Killing someone that's brain dead (i.g.: pulling the plug) is very different from killing a cognitive being. It is not immoral. Let us also please separate law from morality, because law=/=morality. ---3. It is "her" body. Yes, her body most likely does not have those features... but I guess I'm missing your "point". Her body, is not the fetus's body which the fetus is using even if it's against her will. The fetus would be interfering with her body not the other way around, mostly because the fetus would not even have the mental ownership over its own body such as the child bearer has. If a person was surgically attached to me, and I decided to cut the person off ultimately killing, heck, perhaps both of us, it is not treading on their bodily rights, but instead acting out my individual, bodily rights especially if the other person was on a much smaller cognitive level (See first sentence of --2). ----4. A newborn forms a better cognitive level and has already gained some individuality from the mother's substances... so it's quite a change of direction from talking about a fetus. -----5. There is a very low chance of a pill not working or a condom (depends on the condom, like maybe you call a candy wrapper a condom). She knows that there's a chance of getting a pregnant, sure (for most people, some people even think the "pull out" trick works), but I don't see how this relates to if an abortion of that pregnancy is wrong. "If you don't have a baby then don't have sex" which would be true, if abortion and protection didn't exist as options. Again, with the older babies already separated from the mother's body, not fairly relevant. Sex does not have to be for reproduction as we're one of the species that does it out of pleasure. See first sentence of "--2" yet again for "killing another human". ------6. You couldn't kill anybody you wanted to because you wouldn't be able to, that is why we have such constructs as immorality. Try to destroy society and society will then turn on you. Rights, like morality, are subjective. Just like "free" speech is not black&white. You can't yell profanity, you can't threaten people etc. Closing Argument- Abortion is not moral or immoral. -A fetus is not even close to a developed, cognitive, human nor is it an "separate individual". Thank you Con for participating and to all the viewers/readers, please vote for anyone of us, as long as it's in good, fair, thought out, reasons.
Abortion

(1.) Yes, but that is not what I am speaking when I say "human." I'd say that is picking at straws. When I say "human" I mean on a cognitive level. (2.) Rights are subjective, and I think a woman should have more of a right to her body than the fetus. (God is put into that, but perhaps you can overlook that) 3. Do you mean unprotected sex? I'll go with that. If the woman doesn't want a baby then she should use protection, condoms, morning after pills, etc. or, if it's too late for that then get an abortion. I wouldn't really say that people having sex for pleasure works for your anti-abortion case, but instead for the fact there are unwanted pregnancies which work more towards pro-abortion cases in my eyes. No, she is not, she is consenting towards the sex itself however. So if the other person lies about wearing a condom it is not consented to just because they had intercourse. 4. It doesn't have a personality, emotions, a mind, or a memory. See (1.)