BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ethics of Terraforming

I was hoping for a longer explanation on why exactly it isn't ethical, not just that it risks human lives ( which isn't necessarily true if robots and machines did all the work), but I'll take what I can get and I thank Con for his response. Con states that there may be no moral implications to terraforming, however, I refute this, due to the fact that terraforming may one day save the human species (and maybe other terrestrial life forms) when the earth finally is destroyed in one of the many scenarios of its destruction. Obviously, it is ethical to save lives that would otherwise be lost, when we are able to, and we can use terraforming to indeed save the innocent. As for the lives that could possibly be lost during terraforming, they would be equivalent to construction workers losing their lives, or window washers, or any other worker. We don't say it is unethical to paint a bridge because the painters are at risk of falling and dieing? Obviously not. Con has not negated my resolution so far. I look forward to your response.
Ethics of Terraforming

It is my contention that the simple act of terraforming a lifeless celestial body is an action that at best has no moral implications, and at worst is an immoral action. Contention 1: At best the act of terraforming is without moral implication because it affects no life and is comparable to me taking a lifeless rock out of my driveway and smashing it with a hammer. Contention : At worst, the simple act of terraforming a planet is unethical, or of negative moral implication, because the process unnecessarily risks human life. I look forward to my opponent's affirmations.
Ethics of Terraforming

Resolution: It is ethical to terraform planets that do not already harbour life. ethical-pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct. www.dictionary.com terraform-to alter the environment of (a celestial body) in order to make capable of supporting terrestrial life forms. I welcome Con to explain in the first round exactly why terraforming is not ethical, and round 2 will be used for arguments on both sides. Round 3 will be used for counter arguments and round 4 will be for conclusion. I thank Con in advance, and I am looking forward to a great debate.
Money and the economy should not exist.

The economy shouldn't exist. The economy shouldn't exist because money has become and idle to man kind and is causing issues everywhere. My first reason why I say this is because people have become more self-centered and distracted because of money. Instead of focusing on things like religion and family, We focus on jobs and making the most money possible. My second reason why I make this statement is that people worry about the economy and debt everywhere. If we didn't have the economy or money our problems would be minimized big time. To conclude, We should not have a economy because it is distracting us from life and hurting us.
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

History has a powerful, painful way of repeating itself. During the early days of the Civil Rights movement and the subsequent Black Power Movement, many elders watched on with public confusion and criticism " unsure what either movement was truly accomplishing. That"s common. Our parents misunderstood us. Their parents misunderstood them. Now, my wife and I are fighting so hard to not misunderstand our five children " who simply see and experience the world in ways that are incredibly different than our own. So it is with Elaine Brown " former Chair of the Black Panther Party " now 73 years old " looking over the Black Lives Matter movement and sounding like many grandparents sounded about her work in the 70s. In a recent interview, where she strangely said that the Black Lives Matter Movement "has a plantation mentality," she went on to offer a litany of harsh criticisms of the modern movement when comparing the two of them together
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

Have you heard of Black Lives matter? A lot of people think it is a big problem but I disagree. These members are just trying to get their point out there and make a difference. Black lives matter is a big issue in the debate. Hillary thinks that Black Lives Matter is not a problem and she is for it. Trump thinks that police need to increase law and order to keep people in line. I believe that Black Lives Matter is not a problem because the members are just putting there point of view out there and trying to support African Americans across the world. Many critics say that the protests become really violent but they are not. For one police make it really violent because they are throwing smoke bombs and pepper spray at them. Black lives matter right now because Africans Americans are the ones mostly getting sprayed only 17% of our population is African American and yet so many are dying from police brutality each year Black Lives Matter is helpful for the community because it gives African Americans support and also I believe that it is showing support for all black Yes, all lives matter but black lives matter right now.more often when you consider how many people live in the United States OK I don't want to fight I just want everyone to be free and not just blacks to get shot
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

Is black lives helping the community?NO! Police brutalities as of now would be impossible to get rid. If you think about it what the black lives matter movement is just making those brutalities worse. A problem about the BLM movement is that they are focusing on the bad things about police brutalities instead of thinking about what would happen if they actually achieved their goals. In all sense black lives matter is not helping the black community's at all.
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

You may say black lives matter but I say all lives matter. I know that black lives matter at the time but this slogan is basically saying that blacks are more important than whites. I personally thought that blacks wanted everyone to be equal and have equal importance. What happened to that? All lives matter is saying that everyone is just as important as another. The black population may be smaller but that doesn't mean that they are more important than whites.
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

Even though black protesters are grieving the lives of Michael brown and Trayvon martin they don't have to make their protests violent. For instance even President Obama who is a Black lives matter says that this violence needs to stop because I could derail his campaign to federalize state and local police forces. A even bigger problem arose when 5 police officers were shot and killed while trying to block a black lives matter protest in Dallas Texas. So therefore these violent protests are just making black lives matter an even bigger problem
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

Have you heard of Black Lives matter? A lot of people think it is a big problem but I disagree. These members are just trying to get their point out there and make a difference. Black lives matter is a big issue in the debate. Hillary thinks that Black Lives Matter is not a problem and she is for it. Trump thinks that police need to increase law and order to keep people in line. I believe that Black Lives Matter is not a problem because the members are just putting there point of view out there and trying to support African Americans across the world
Is black lives matter a good organization or a bad organization

Do you support black lives matter. If you do, you're making a mistake. Black lives matter is a group that is supposed to be trying to stop police killing black people. Instead they are trying to create community's made up of only blacks taking America back to the way it was before the civil rights movement. Donald trump is against black lives matter . Hillary is all for black lives matter. This is important because black lives matter is pretty much turning America into what it was 40-50 years ago during civil rights where blacks are separated from whites. I believe that black lives matter as an organization needs to stop before it causes more problems for America.
Social networking sites On Balance have had a positive impact on the United States

I will be the con. I wish my opponent the best of Luck. My opponent must start his case in this round or the next post directly under mine. This will be much like a public forum debate. Meaning, definitions may be argued, sources may be argued, and contentions may be argued. Thank you to who ever accepts this and have fun :) The Followign will happen Aff will post a case, neg will post a case/refute the case Aff will refute/extend Neg will refute/extend Aff will have the final word but cannot add to their case but may extend things they have said but with no new evidence and refute the neg case.
Who whould win in a potential fight in KHIII, Sora (PRO) or Riku (Con)

I believe I am to save rebuttal for the final round. Here are my points then; 1: Keyblade Mastery. Forget the test in DDD, forget the X-blade and anything like that: Sora has displayed the most skill with a keyblade out of all characters. Not only can he dual wield, but he has mastered 3 separate forms which make use of separate keyblades. He's been able to fend off dual wielders, and even reclaimed the first keyblade from Riku after losing it in Hollow Bastion. as well as that that, he's formally trained in sword fighting and combat by Philoctetes himself; whose only other long time pupil is descended from the gods. Even when he loses the keyblade in Hollow Bastion, he takes up the wooden sword, and still fights on, using his combos as before. If he had a real weapon like a sword, he'd still do hefty damage. 2: Power It's a common video game trope that the player character loses their power between games so that the gameplay may follow a more natural difficulty curve. If instead, we went by story, Sora's power has been growing for years. When Ansem's digitizer backfired in TWTNW, Riku's weapon, Soul Eater , became Way to the Dawn. They look identical for the record, but Soul Eater was not a keyblade, whereas WTTD is. In short, Riku was sent relatively back to square one, forced to surrender an element he was most familiar with and take up and element he has previously opposed. His lack of skill and power really becomes evident in the final stage of the Xemnas fight (especially on proud mode). He constantly interrupts Sora's attempts for reaction commands, he has only two abilities when played as, and his only contribution is when Sora gets stunlocked by Xemnas and you have to play as him trying not to run face first into walls. he was knocked out for the duration of the fight, and the cutscene afterwards supports this: Riku is limping heavily while Sora shows no signs of exhaustion. It's clear that Riku took a massive hit to his power in that game; but Sora has experience little in power loss. He's always had a vast array of spells, abilities and summons that he's acquired through his adventures. 3; The Killstreak Sora has a great deal of victories under his belt, and each adds a bit of credit to his case against fighting Riku. We have; Every one of the organisation 13 members (some of them twice), Hades (lord of the dead), Hercules (the son of Zeus), Maleficent (the avatar of darkness for the series), Cloud (and all his FF buddies) countless heartless and nobodies, Lingering Will (who is Terra... sort of?), freaking Sepiroth (twice, for that matter) and you guessed it, Riku. He's fought and defeated Riku, several times, and I don't just mean the islands: he faces Riku twice in Hollow bastion, the second time when Riku gains the power of Xehanort's heartless as well as a dark keyblade. we aren;t talking hypotheticals here: this fight has already happened. See you next round, Duncan
Who whould win in a potential fight in KHIII, Sora (PRO) or Riku (Con)

I argue Riku is the stronger opponet for three reasons-He was able to overcome darkness alone a feat that Sora was unable to do by himself, and his power far out weighs Sora's...-He was the original Key-Blade master & was accepted as one-He has something to fight for--- what I mean is Sora always stands that his friends are his power, but his friends arn't really in danger anymore, and without them he has always been helpless
Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Having more guns in circulation means that the probability of someone shooting another person goes up. Students like me would feel very unsafe on campuses with all these guns around. Even if the students were qualified, being legally qualified to own a gun and being trustworthy to actually own guns is not the same thing. You cite rape and assaults, but how bad are these really? Take rape, for example. What is rape?Feminists often say that 1 in 4 women are raped on college campuses which would be where you got your 25% statistic. However, it's been shown that the studies done to obtain these statistics are lax in standard and incredibly misleading."Statistic: “1 out of every 4 women will be raped in her lifetime.” Truth: Ah, here’s the doozy. I’m sure we’re all familiar with the source of this statistic: a study by Mary Koss that has been discredited countless times. Around three-quarters of the women she identified as having been raped did not consider themselves victims of rape, and almost half of them had sex with their supposed attackers after the event identified as a rape had occurred. So, what do statistics collected from non-feminist sources say? Well, let’s try the FBI statistics. According to an FBI report, which did not account for differing definitions of rape, whether or not the rapes were convicted, or whether or not female-on-male rape was included, the United States had a rate of 29 reported rapes per 100,000 people in 2009. That’s not going to get us to 25%, but I’m feeling generous, so let’s look at the country with the highest rate of rape in the past decade–South Africa, with a rate of 116 rapes per 100,000 people in one year. Percentage wise, this is .1% of the population. Now, I’ll admit that I’m worse at math than anything else in the world, but even I know this isn’t even close to “1 in 4″."[1]The majority of 'rapes' are not actually rapes? Are women then justified to own guns and kill these supposed rapists? Even considering the crime, a rape does not justify murder, even in self-defense. Virginity < life.There isn't enough crime on college campuses to support gun ownership.Point 2I would really hate to live in an apartment with 6 roommates with each and every one of them owning a gun. If all college students had guns, the probability of college students being shot to death would go up disproportionately. The dangers of people taking these guns and shootingthem, whether or not they're licensed to have them, is incredibly terrifying.Point 3Guns as self defense is not justified."Compared to criminal homicides using guns, the VPC data shows justifiable homicide with a gun in 2010 was a tiny fraction: 230 of them compared to 8,275 criminal gun-related homicides."That's about 8000 cases of unjustified not-really-self-defense use, about 97% unjustified use.Apply that to college students. Statistically, 97% of gun owners will use their guns to kill unjustifiably. More guns means more unjustified deaths. Concealed carry shouldn't be a thing at all.[1] http://www.avoiceformen.com...;[2] http://www.dailykos.com...;
Concealed Carry on College Campuses

Qualified students should be allowed to carry concealed weapons while on a college campus. There is no good reason to deny capable students with permits the right that they are afforded everywhere else. The issue is about student safety. Needless crimes happen everyday because students are not allowed to defend themselves in the most effective way: with a gun. According to the Department of Education, 25% of crimes that happen on college campuses are rapes and 39% are assaults. These numbers would be significantly lower had these victims been lawfully armed.
Basketball vs Football

Final Rebuttalls:Con says “Football players have been playing in the same weather for years, ”and concedes the point “Yes last year's Superbowl was not that great.” She goes on to conclude “I don't think that one bad Superbowl can disprove the argument.”There have been many games ruined by weather… Last year’s super bowl is just the most recent. This is not a problem for professional basketball!Con says “Contact for Football is what makes the sport better than Basketball.” I disagree, I invite pro to offer empirical evidence as to why contact makes one sport better than another.Con says “Football is much more physically demanding than Basketball…”Though this is a opinion, here is an article that compares the physical demands of different sports. Football is only ever so slightly ranked more physically demanding than Basketball. However, Basketball ranks more physically demanding in agility, endurance, speed, flexibility, Hand eye coordination, and analytical aptitude. That is more demanding than football in six of the ten categories. Basketball requires a more complete physical ability. (1)Con says “I would have to say that playing football one on one would be just as exciting as basketball would.”I have never heard of football one on one…Con says “Waiting tell Sunday to watch your favorite team play is the best part of football. You know that every Sunday you will get to watch your team play without fail. Yes you could watch more basketball games during the week, but if your team is not playing then why bother?”During the course of the NBA season, you can watch your team play 82 times, that is not including playoffs. That is more than 5 times a football team.Conclusion:Thank you Con for a fun debate. The truth has become clear. Basketball requires a more physically complete athlete then football. It ranks more physically demanding in 6/10 categories. This is also validated by the fact that the most recognized best athlete in the world is LeBron James, a basketball player. Football is more dangerous. Football is less convenient to watch or play than Basketball. Eight times as many people play basketball then play football. Basketball is better than football.(1) http://sports.espn.go.com...
Basketball vs Football

Football players have been playing in the same weather for years. Yes last year's Superbowl was not that great, but I don't think that one bad Superbowl can disprove the argument. Contact for Football is what makes the sport better than Basketball. It's what the fans are looking for when they go to a game, not to look at a bunch of people running back and forth. You may run further during a Basketball game, but it is a little easier to run around when you are not worried about a bunch of guys tackling you to the ground. Football is much more physically demanding than Basketball is in this aspect. The fact that they can still run as fast as they do with all the protection they wear is very impressive. I would have to say that playing football one on one would be just as exciting as basketball would. Just because you don't have a whole team does not mean it is not convenient and cannot be done. Waiting tell Sunday to watch your favorite team play is the best part of football. You know that every Sunday you will get to watch your team play without fail. Yes you could watch more basketball games during the week, but if your team is not playing then why bother? I am not saying that injury makes a sport better than another, i am simply saying that people love watching a sport that has more contact in it. That would be football over basketball.
Basketball vs Football

Football is played outdoors, in any weather short of lightning, in any temperatures above -40" F (except Green Bay where -60" is allowed) and below 140". Basketball is played indoors, in climate controlled conditions around 68". (1) Basketball players get to cozy up in a nice warm building where as Football player play outdoors rain or shine. I doubt basketball players would play outside the same was football players do. In basketball almost any physical contact with the ball carrier could become a foul, especially if you knock him on his backside. In football the latter is called a tackle and is both expected and required to end the play. (1) Football players are required to tackle down another player in order to stop the play. Basketball player gets touched by another player and it"s considered a foul? What wimps. Nobody wants to sit and watch a game where the players dance around watch other so they don"t get hurt. I mean oh please, where the fun in that? In football the most common reason players leave the game - injury. In basketball - fouls. (1) Football players leave the game when they get hurt, they don't leave the game due to touching another player. Not sure what playing one on one has to do with basketball being convenient? Football is also a convenient game, which can also be played in your front/backyard. Based on the numbers that my opponent posted, it seems like to me that Football is a more impressive sport to achieve. If 26 million people play basketball then who is going to even remember who you are out of all those people? I would rather shine out of only 3.5 million; you have a much better chance of getting noticed and going on to bigger and better things in the sport. NBA teams have several games per week. Unless they play Sunday and then Thursday night, NFL teams have one. You know when it is months in advance. You know who the opponent will be. It's an event. Once it's done you can return to the rest of your life, not getting interrupted again until next week. It appears to be the perfect mix of convenience and anticipation. (2) Who has time to sit around and watch every single NBA game on TV that week? NFL has fewer games so it is easier to take the time to sit and watch the game without having to worry that life will keep you from watching your favorite team. That source may say that Football is a dangerous sport, but the sport being dangerous has nothing to do with how people react to this sport. People look forward to the players getting knocked down because it is exciting. Conclusion Better schedule, having to play is real world conditions and physical aspects of the game make Football better than basketball. (1)http://www.aseaofblue.com... (2) http://www.blazersedge.com...