BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Oil Companies

Computers are made by companies like Toshiba, Asus, Acer, HP (Hewlett Packard), Dell, Apple, Gateway, Samsung, Lenovo and Sony. My debate is on oil companies like the Six Sisters (Chevron, Gulf, Texaco, BP, Shell, Exxon, and Mobil). Computers do not need gas to function properly. The transportation needed to deliver the computer to the market are known as the consumer since the transporters also buys gas to deliver the items. You have to do your research before you start your argument.
Oil Companies

You are using a computer which was made by using a lot of oil in the machinery that made the parts and in the transportation to deliver the computer to market. You probably get around in a gas powered vehicle as well. I suggest that you stop supporting the evil oil companies by throwing your computer in the trash and riding a horse.i have to say you may be right about inventions which would decrease oil usage being squashed. But really, Armageddon is coming and Middle East oil is the prize over which the whole world will fight, all coming against Israel pretending Israel is the problem when really it's just a few people fighting for world domination using armies as pawns. God will intervene one day, Jesus Christ will subdue and rule the evil nations and oil companies will not be acting evil in any way any more. Untill then, you might as well get a horse and ride it; it's a lot more fun than riding the "evil oil companies" hobby horse. You'll get a lot farther on a horse. Everybody has heard all of these things about the evils of the oil companies and only God Himself can stop the evil.
There should be an substantial investment in sidewalks and cycle paths in the United States.

As this debate is inspired by a personal grievance, I would ask my fellow debaters to please forgive my self-indulgence in starting this argument. The thing is, the nearest bar to my place (in the suburbs of Bradenton, FL) is three and a half miles away* and since I don't want to drink and drive and there is no public transport and there are no local taxis and it is too far to walk (and there are no sidewalks anyway) and I don't have a chauffeur, I have no option other than to cycle to the pub. However, there are no cycle paths on the route so I have to join the cars and trucks on the busy highway, which can be quite dangerous (especially on the way back when it is dark and I have had a skin-full of beer). I contend that there should be a major investment in cycle paths and sidewalks to encourage people to walk or cycle instead of drive. After all, walking and cycling is free and exercise is beneficial health, whereas driving is expensive and pollutes the environment. Furthermore, by providing pavements for walkers and cyclists, drink-driving offences will be reduced as pub-goers could then safely travel to and from the boozer without taking the car. * Here is a map of the route to the pub. Notice that I have no choice but to use the highway. http://maps.google.co.uk...
There should be an substantial investment in sidewalks and cycle paths in the United States.

"My opponent starts by pointing out that building the infrastructure involved to create sidewalks and cycle paths would be expensive. This is true, but the US is the richest country in the world and, besides, what price can you put on the lives of people killed by drunk drivers?" ---- In my personal opinion, there is no price on a life. However in reality there is. Ask yourself, why don't we have cars that cannot be driven by someone who is drunk (the technology has existed for a long time), why don't we dramatically lower the speed limit (it's proved to reduce the road death toll), why don't we outright ban smoking (it kills millions), why don't we remove all asbestos from every building, why don't we ban "bad" foods like MacDonalds, KFC etc, why don't we ban guns, why don't we do a million things we do or accept? Because we don't want to, because either we don't think it effects US, or we think it wont effect US and are prepared to take the risk. People will reverse all these things when THEY are DIRECTLY effected by it. The world doesn't work that way. So it is expensive to give you a cycle path, it is weighed up by society not by you as an individual. When there are enough people (votes) that want this cycle path, you will get it. ------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that walking is not popular in America simply because it is not safe in many places. Where it is, as in Europe, cycling and walking is enormously popular. http://www.npr.org...... http://www.en.velib.paris.fr...... http://farm3.static.flickr.com...... http://news.bbc.co.uk...... ---- As someone who is currently living in Europe, and spent several years in the UK, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, that a majority of cycle paths aren't used anywhere near as much as you think (bus lanes also). As I said, I agree with the concept, but it has to be driven by peoples desire, you cannot just spend the money and hope people will use it. Oil prices are something that will stimulate this kind of infrastructure (to an extent and until an alt fuel is found). ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I do, however, take my opponent's point that people, given the chance, will opt for the easy option and use the car. This is especially true in the States, even among young kids. When I look after my cousins (aged 3-14 years) they insist on my driving them from the front door to the front gate (about 200 yards) to meet the school bus like their mom does. I refuse, of course!" ---- lol Kids. The human mind naturally wants to make life as easy as possible, unless it has a personal interest, the only reason you cycle I would suggest, is that you enjoy it (personal interest). Your position is that of someone who expects a majority of the population to do the same, unfortunately, the majority of the population are far more interested in Playstation, Big Brother and Internet debates. If you were to contend that firstly money should be spent on motivating people into a healthier lifestyle (such as cycling) then I will support you 100%.
There should be an substantial investment in sidewalks and cycle paths in the United States.

Thank you to A time and a place, for taking this debate. My opponent starts by pointing out that building the infrastructure involved to create sidewalks and cycle paths would be expensive. This is true, but the US is the richest country in the world and, besides, what price can you put on the lives of people killed by drunk drivers? I believe that walking is not popular in America simply because it is not safe in many places. Where it is, as in Europe, cycling and walking is enormously popular. http://www.npr.org... http://www.en.velib.paris.fr... http://farm3.static.flickr.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... I do, however, take my opponent's point that people, given the chance, will opt for the easy option and use the car. This is especially true in the States, even among young kids. When I look after my cousins (aged 3-14 years) they insist on my driving them from the front door to the front gate (about 200 yards) to meet the school bus like their mom does. I refuse, of course!
There should be an substantial investment in sidewalks and cycle paths in the United States.

It's not cheap, to put in cycle paths or sidewalks where there aren't any would require a economically viable number of people demanding it. You needing a safe route to cycle drunkenly home from the bar probably doesn't meet that requirement I'm afraid. In general, I think logically you need to create the demand before you make the investment. Making the investment and hoping people (who are naturally lazy for the most part) will use it, wont be cost effective. That said, that you don't just think f**k it I'll drive back drunk is a good thing and I applaud it.
Do you dare to publically say," 'Merry Christmas"

Round #2 by lookingattheissues on Debate.org Under Society Dec.23Rd.2016 previously Posted by CosmoJarvis ...PRO "...im triggered because Donald Dump said "merry christmas" and not "happy holidays." :( lookingattheissues response, round two. The greeting, " Happy Holidays, "is a generic term, "Happy Holidays," who's use is intended to take away the significance of all that the Christmas traditions are about. The liberals, progressives,almost insist on the use of the generic term ," Happy Holidays," Why would progressives and others who also hate the tradition, the honoring of Christmas, prefer and insist on using the generic term, Happy Holidays." This generic greeting has no more importance than "the common greeting of 'Hi, or How are you, would have that's used everyday in greeting those you chance to meet and is a pedestrian rhetorical expression. The tradition of Christmas hasn't survived this long to just be dispatched with a generic greeting of "Happy Holidays." The tradition of Christmas and its observance deserves and demands more respect be paid to those who hold special sentiments for Christmas and its celebration and no less respect and honor should be paid to Christmas than the honor paid to all other peoples and their traditional special times of the year. The only reason to use the generic term, Happy Holidays," is to show the lack of esteem for the tradition of Christmas and a desire by progressives, the elite, to be dismissive of those who honor Christmas and relegate the tradition of Christmas to oblivion by denigrating all that is a part of the traditional Christmas celebration and its true meanings, The generic greeting, "Happy Holidays," is just another method of taking away the practices and traditions and honor of Christmas.
Do you dare to publically say," 'Merry Christmas"

I can say "Glory to Allah," and a liberal wouldn't try to assault me.Stop putting your faith in those boondoggle papers about "LIBERALS WILL MURDER YOU IF YOU SAY 'MERRY CHRISTMAS"I'm a liberal, and even though I don't celebrate Christmas, I don't feel offended by people saying "Happy holidays," or "Merry Christmas." And no, I do not attempt to murder people with that too.
Do you dare to publically say," 'Merry Christmas"

I Believe that the" tolerant"' liberals have made the traditional greeting during Christmas time " Merry Christmas, "a greeting that few are brave enough to say openly on the streets of America. When was the last time that you personally greeted someone with the Christmas greeting," Merry Christmas," was it because you were afraid that the tolerant liberals around you might censor and denigrate you for your expression of the traditional greetings. Was your fear that saying "Merry Christmas," to someone might make you appear unsophisticated and intolerant of others feelings. If you did greet someone with the greetings," Merry Christmas," did you anxiously look about you to see if the politically correct, "Thought Police," had caught you uttering those damning, unspeakable words in public. How dare you to be so offensive as to issue the traditional American Christmas greeting, "Merry Christmas." This is a test of the American people to discover if they are brave enough to resist the efforts of the ,Hate America, and all that it stands for, secularists atheists and progressives, How brave are you, do you dare buck the politically correct efforts to silence you at Christmas time, we're waiting for the answer from you Americans.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

I thank vi_spex for their arguments. As BOP is on Pro, I need only to refute Pro's arguments to win the debate. REBUTTALS"logic is logical, non logic is not logic" But it may cause a serious misinterpretation of what Pro has to prove. Pro has to prove than any cause and effect manifests as logic. I have addressed all other arguments via. OB3.
cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic)

I accept. I thank vi_spex for this debate. OB1. None of Pro's arguments argue for the resolution. OB2. BoP is on Pro to prove that anything that has a cause and has effect IS logic, and not "logical". OB3. Pro seems to confuse the terms "logic" and "logical". Pro seems to be arguing that anything that is caused and has effect is logical. That is obvious, but contrary to the resolution. DEFINITIONSCause - "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition." [1] Effect - "a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause." [2]Logic - "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity." [3] SOURCES[1] Google - Define "cause" - https://www.google.com... [2] Google - Define "effect" - https://www.google.com... [3] Google - Define "logic" - https://www.google.com...
Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is Consistent with Scientific Evidence.

Nevertheless, I shall rebut my opponent's arguments before moving on to my own. My opponent quotes the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) ad verbatim. As he does not attempt to pass off the work as his own, it is not plagiarism, but copying and pasting arguments from the Internet is contrary to the spirit of a debate. I am essentially arguing against the ICR and not against con. The central problem with the ICR's argument is that there is no evidence to support it. The ICR cites no sources, conducts no research, and has no evidence to back up its claims. This can be verified by following the link. My opponent's argument is therefore baseless. If he wishes to make an argument, it must be from scientific evidence, as the resolution clearly states. Now, let's look at some evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts the existence of transitional forms in precise locations in the fossil record. These predictions have been proven correct every time. One prominent example is tiktaalik, though there are hundreds of other transitional forms that have been discovered. Tiktaalik's location in the fossil record was predicted by evolution, and it was found exactly where it was predicted, proving the predictive power of evolution. [1] Evolution predicts humans and great apes share a recent common ancestor. As the great apes have an additional chromosome pair over humans, this initially appears to be impossible. However, a careful scientific study shows that chromosome 2 was formed by a fusion of 2 other chromosomes. [2] Note that the source cited is from the scientific Journal PNAS (proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), published by one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world, and it contains rigorous, peer reviewed scientific analysis of the evidence by excellent scientists, as well as a lot of citations. Only evolution had the ability to predict the fusion, which demonstrates its qualifications as a theory. In summary, I have presented powerful evidence that evolution both predicted and explained. Sources 1- . http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2- . http://www.pnas.org...
Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is Consistent with Scientific Evidence.

Jesus is love, just like Shrek. I'm a swagalicious atheist, but I will try to debate from this side (which I obviously don't agree with). Bananas are formed perfectly to your hand. That is obvious evidence. History is not open to scientific testing. Geologists, therefore, interpret the geologic record using their limited understanding of modern geologic processes, typically by comparing the record with slow processes known to occur in historic times. However, geologists in the last 30 years have recognized evidence within strata supporting regional, continental, and global catastrophic events that appear to have formed the major portion of the record. Natural disasters and their aftermaths have direct application to interpreting the geologic record. Geologists must deliberately and unabashedly discard outdated uniformitarian thinking and adopt, without reservation, a global catastrophic model. Catastrophist patterns of interpretation have thoroughly permeated conventional thinking about the geologic record; geologists are deliberately reevaluating outdated uniformitarian thinking and are increasingly adopting a global catastrophic model. http://www.icr.org... I LOVE THE MISS-SPELLED, OR EVEN MADE UP WORDS, AND I PASTED THIS STRAIGHT FROM THE PREMIER CREATION EVIDENCE SITE. LOL
Resolved: The Theory of Evolution is Consistent with Scientific Evidence.

The Bible, or for that matter any Holy Book, is not valid evidence in this debate. Only scientific evidence may be used by either side. Note that I am not rejecting the Bible as a person but rather limiting the debate to a scientific one. Let's define a very important term. Theory of Evolution- The scientific theory that states current organisms descended from ancient ones with modification by means of natural selection and mutation, and that all life descended from a common ancestor. The first round is for acceptance only, and no new arguments may be made in the final round. Good luck to con!
Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability.

Since PRO has forfeited his final round, I will move straight to my closing arguments. Closing Thoughts PRO accepted the burden of proof when he made a claim that “Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability. ” PRO’s argument came in two parts: Argument one suggested that [1] governments exist to help their citizens, and that [2] economic growth helps the citizens, concluding that, governments should work toward economic growth. I showed both how part [1] is not necessarily the case and that even if both [1] and [2] are correct, the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Argument 2 claims that [1] developing nations do not contribute significantly to environmental degradation, and that [2] developing nations should not be expected to fix the problems caused by other nations. I showed how this argument isn’t relevant to the discussion at hand. Overall, PRO’s arguments fail; he has not sufficiently made his case. PRO has not met his burden.
Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability.

I shall define the terms of the motion. Developing nations (Wikipedia): A developing country, also called a less-developed country (LDC), is a nation with a low living standard, underdeveloped industrial base, and low Human Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries. Prioritize: (in this context): Dedicate a significantly larger proportion of its resources to do something. Economic development: Sustained increase in national output as well as standard of living of the peopleEnvironmental sustainability: Environmental sustainability involves making decisions and taking action that are in the interests of protecting the natural world. This refers to solving issues such as deforestation, reducing the country's carbon footprint, etc. Ground rules:1. Text only debate2. ROUND 1 is for acceptance of the debate and definitional clarifications or challenges only.2. ROUND 2 is for arguments and rebuttals.3. ROUND 3 is for more arguments and rebuttals.4. ROUND 4 consists purely of concluding remarks and no arguments must be introduced. 5. All source material must be easily accessible. Note that when incoporating examples about specific nations (I'm explicitly pointing at countries such as China here), you first have to prove that they fit into the definition of a 'developing nation'.
Evolution is based on scientific facts, while Creationism is a common pseudoscience

It is not necessary to disprove the existence of God, but scriptures that come from basically farmers and merchants who had no idea of biological processes cannot be credited. Priests over time have even acknowledged it, stating "I do not [see] that 'the accidental evolution of organic beings' is inconsistent with divine design " It is accidental to us, not to God." (http://inters.org...) Also, being a nuclear engineering student, it is important that I state the use of C-14 and its half-life, which is found in all organisms, that has a (1/2)^t of a bit more than 6000 years, which clearly proves that the biblical age of the earth is false, and the age of the initial formation of the earth would be billions of years before.Fossil records clearly show the change of past species, most of which are now extinct. And to observe in our modern times, evolution is easily done in labs, by simply using bacteria in a Petri dish, one could use the property of genetic variation to eradicate preexisting population that lacks said desired trait. If this can create a new species in about a year, by making small, consistent changes of environment, over millions of years, why wouldn't the same be true? Now it
Evolution is based on scientific facts, while Creationism is a common pseudoscience

I argue your statement, "Evolution is based on scientific facts." Give me one just three facts that fully support your evolution theory. Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. https://www.google.com... I do not believe that creationism is based on scientific method because modern science is very new and the Scriptures predate it. Scientific method attempts to prove God non existing, but fail miserably.
Evolution is based on scientific facts, while Creationism is a common pseudoscience

The Bible's Genesis provides no scientific fact other than simply taking the word of an ancient book, where the religion's followers have picked and chose whatever beliefs they sought fit to their agenda of providing a moral standard. The scientific evidence provided is flawed in that the perquisites for any evolutionary process to occur is immediately denied, ie, the age of the earth. Lets keep the first round short and sweet for a basic introduction of the topic at hand. There will be no insults or offensive comments towards another's beliefs. This should resemble a geometric proof, so for one statement to be true, the perquisite must be true with valid reason.