BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should fund more into astronomy and space travel.

I thanks Pro for bringing about such a topic to debate. As I am still relatively new to the debating site, I hope that the debate shall be a fun one. Now My debate shall be started off in such manner R1: Acceptance & arguments R2: arguments and rebuttals R3: Reinforce points and rebuttals R4: Final Rebuttals R5: Closing statements (if Pro continues to rebut, I shall act in reciprocal) Before I start with my arguments, I would like to point out that Pro has the burden of proof of showing how does space exploration and astronomy benefit the people, the society, the country and the world better as compared to things being prioritised right now. Once Pro fails to give out anything of such, then it is safe to say that Pro has failed to fulfill her part Argument 1: Funding of space exploration is too much and is unnecessary For each space exploration, the cost to develop and launch a rocket into outer space takes 1.5 Billion U.S dollars, that is for EACH LAUNCH it takes that much. And out of all the launches of rockets in the world, only 80% of launches are successful, if we do a calculation of 1.5 Billion multiplied by 20% which are the amount of failed launches. Averagely, we waste 300 million U.S dollars for each launch. All that money wasted can be put to far greater use rather than just space exploration. Ponder about this, each 1.5 Billion we spend getting shot up the sky, what is it for? To discover and study other planets? That alone fails to provide sense to further invest in space exploration. Argument 2: Humans haven't even explored the seas and therefore are being too ambitious in space travels Nasa http://thinkprogress.org... Nasa obtains 157 times more funding than NOAA Office of Exploration and Research whom explores the seas of the world. Merely less than 5% of the world's oceans are known to mankind. I really think we should know what we are up against in our own planet before going on to judge and know about others. Argument 3: The world has other greater priorities to worry about. There are two major crisis going on at your home planet. Global warming and the world wild economic crisis, both are severe. if the government doesn't handle the economic crisis with care we all will end up poor. how can we feed the poor,fend for our selves and take care of really expensive space travels? Pro addresses the problems yet has no intention of solving in in her arguments. That Ladies and gentlemen would serve as my first fulfillment of my burden of proof against Pro. There are greater problems, and Pro just wants to find out whether the moon is made of cheese. Your move,side Pro :) http://thinkprogress.org... http://www.nature.com... http://www.debate.org...
We should fund more into astronomy and space travel.

In past few decades, NASA's budget has fallen dramatically. Regardless of the economic crisis, the US alone spends over a trillion dollars in warfare and shedding blood rather than making something of our species in the universe. The Space age saw many remarkable achievements including the moon landing and many optimists were predicting that we would have began interstellar colonies by now. Yet, congress continues to vote down any future increases in inter-space travel budgets and funds meaning that projects such as the James Webb telescope have been constantly delayed. We have a lot of potential as a species in this front, but it is difficult for engineers and astronomers to unleash this full potential without access to the right resources. Right now, we and the governments of the world are so much more concerned with trivial and terrestrial matters. I believe, there are two main reasons to why this should not be the case and why we should make funding space travel and astronomy one of our priorities. The first is the basic understanding of the universe and the knowledge that it brings along. The Hubble telescope gave us this, from revealing the edge of the observable universe to the nature of various celestial objects. The James Webb telescope has larger mirrors and is even more powerful and will allow us to study the birth and evolution of galaxies even better. But why is this knowledge of the cosmos so important? Because any cosmic catastrophe can wipe out the existence of our species effortlessly. Because we would be empowering ourselves with this knowledge and recognizing that our earth is just a "pale blue dot" in universe a billions of light years across. Because it can have an amazingly positive effect on the future of science and technology, along with how well our species survives and advances. The fact is, that the earth and the sun WILL NOT last forever and it is only logical that, as an intelligent and conscious species, that we make it our priority to push ourselves and have cosmic ambitions unlike the trivial ones world leaders have today. It is most beneficial for the future generations. That brings me to the second argument of having a "cosmic perspective". Unfortunately, our priorities right now don't acknowledge this. We are too concerned with killing one another and fighting over resources in this "pale blue dot" (aka earth) where in fact its nothing in value compared to perhaps understanding how rare we are. Carl Sagan has said that astronomy humbling and character-building experience. And this experience can really benefit us in the decisions we make.
We should fund more into astronomy and space travel.

Time for the be all and end allCounter Arguments1) The technology to (I STRESS AGAIN) FEND OFF cosmic catastophes are still to far in the future. since your rebuttals are not going against me point, it will have to stand. 2)I think humans are capable of a lot of things, but not many are equally as worthy of funds as its potential to improve. Also, One does not simply liken an aircraft achievement to Spaceships. The physics involved in both instances stil have major difference and so Pro, you cannot liken them to each other. Also, I mentioned that the world has greater priorities than to see more rockets shoot upwards into space. Funds should instead be diverted to help the world before space exploration, Pro, you have done nothing to deny the fact that the world has problems and funds should be diverted from space exploration to other means. Once again, that point stands. 3)Truthfully, right now deep sea mining is just as credible as asteroid mining. But what i would like to highlight is this: Deep-sea mining does not need much of a pay per mine as asteroid mining. Sure there are environmental costs, but i do not see how it is impossible to achieve when we are using the CLB system which was recommended by the Economist, the incur cost might be high but when compared to the pay per launch disadvantage that asteroid mining brings, i find it a more viable solution as everything is still in our atmosphere. 4)A sudden decrease will ALWAYS BE A PROBLEM. This is specifically highlighted in THE ECONOMIST o Jan 24 2013. We increase the supplies of other better minerals, the market of previous minerals will collapse and that my friend is a global disaster within our atmosphere, equally as traumatising and bad. Conclusion: Thank you Pro for bringing this up, I had fun while debating despites a bit of frustration at times. Thank you and may the best debater win? :Dhttp://www.economist.com...http://web.mit.edu...;http://www.youtube.com...ure=mh_lolzhttp://www.forbes.com...http://www.swe.org...
Roblox Is Better Than Fnaf

While roblox is kinda nice (not really) FNAF is by far better. Every game was posted within a year! NOT because Scott (the creator) wanted to, because people BEGGED him to keep making more. The games were very detailed, "scary" and were fun. Now, you could say, but people like youtubers play roblox, well true some do like DanTDM (youtuber) but he also played the whole seriese of FNAF and played fan made games of it. People hadplated the game FNAF and instently wanted another one, unlike Roblox which is random and weird. It is kinda like minecraft, without the blocks. People are making a FNAF movie with animatronics, you dont see people making a movie for Roblox! I tried Robloxat one point, it was so random that i couldnt aprehend what was going on. While both are popular, i have to go with the facts on how FNAF is better than Roblox.
The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It"

I can't really refute my opponent's R2 arguments - they're just wrong, as I highlighted. He is trying to debate a truism, so he says that the truism is correct - he assumes that he will win. But I can refute my opponent's R3 arguments, since there was no structure highlighted.Basically, my argument is that the written representation of sounds (letters) of the word "it" have the word "of" within them - which means that I should win. Pro... does something. I'm not really sure what he is doing, but he is saying that some how letters are not the written representations of sounds - which is what "written representations of sounds" means entirely. I understand why he might make this connection, citing sign language as a language that doesn't need sound - but sign language isn't written down, it's acted out. I'm not adding sound to my argument, I'm just saying that if I say that "of" is within the written representation of sound (which are letters) of the word "it", I win. I'm not saying that if it sounds like it is there it is there, that's an entire strawman argument.Pro continues his strawman of what I said - saying that sound is completely irrelevant to this debate (I agree, which is why I didn't make an argument about sound, I made an argument about letters), but he doesn't actually refute my point that the letters of "it" surround "of" - meaning that he drops this argument entirely. On this basis alone, I should win - he doesn't refute a point that has an impact regarding the resolution, so the impact should be considered in its entirety.Basically, once again, my argument is that the letters of "it" are around the word "of". That fulfills the resolution that I am negating, since I provided how a word can be seperated by other words - meaning that "it", while seperated, is still a word. That sounds really complicated in writing, but here is an example:Of over twelve-hundred men, I only saw ten.The word "l - ed" (l of twelve, ed of hundred), contains "hun" (might be a word, who knows?). This means that the word "hun" is within the word "led" - and this is true. The same thing can be applied to "of" and "it" in the resolution.Because my arguments remain intact and my opponent has only stated that a truism is true because it is true, please vote on the clear winner here, without bias - Con.
The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It"

I will show you, ladies and gentlemen, that the word "of" is inside of the word "it" - but first it is critical to define what a word REALLY is. The Reference Dictionary says that a word is "a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation...". This means that I can win this debate if I prove one of two things: either the sounds of letters of "of" is inside "it" (which is impossible to do via typing) or I have to show that the written representations of these sounds of "of" is inside "it" (this is possible). Below, I will highlight my evidence that shows that the written representations of the word "it" are around the word "of".The title of this debate does not have the word "Of" Inside the word "It".As you can see, I bolded two letters - the written representations of the word "it" - as well as the word "of". Of is within the boundaries set by the written representations of "it", thus I have shown that "of" is inside of "it" - and the resolution says that I must show that this is true. This debate is not whether or not "it" is a meaningful word that is surrounding the word "of" - I must just show that it does in fact bound it.As some internet legends say, "gg." Thank you, vote con.[1]. http://dictionary.reference.com...;
End sex-segregated public restrooms in the United States!

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I will begin by defining the following terms for the purpose of this debate Term list Sex- Refers, to the state of being male or female Genitalia- The reproductive organs of males and females. Segregate-the practice of restricting people to certain areas of residence or to separate institutions (e.g., schools, churches) and facilities (parks, playgrounds, restaurants, restrooms) on the basis of one or more classifications such as race, sex, economic class, etc Public- Maintained for or used by the people or community Community-a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common People- Humans in general Restrooms-Rooms or a room having a washbowl, toilet, and other facilities for use by employees, visitors, etc. Public restrooms-Any structure or facility situated on public or private property equipped with toilets, urinals or washbowls, or other similar facilities, erected and maintained for use by members of the general public for personal hygiene and comfort. Sex-segregated public restroom- Public restroom(s) that restrict people to certain areas or spaces based on the classification of a person's sex as male or female. Now that I have defined the basic terms, I will begin by discussing the origins of sex segregated bathrooms. The common misconception involving people who are against ending sex-segregated public restrooms is that public restrooms were originally segregated by sex due to differences in male and female genitalia. This is not the case. Sex-Segregated restrooms were created in the United States(late 1800's) due to anxiety about where a women belonged in the world. Policy makers in the late 1800's believed women were weak inferior beings who belonged only in the home as homemakers, house wives, and child bearers due to the social norms of the time period. As women began transitioning into the working world, these policy makers felt that they had an obligation to protect and shelter women from the harsh realities of the public world. In order to ensure women were protected, not only were separate bathrooms created, but also separate reading rooms, train cars( especially in the back, so males would take the brunt force of a collision.), and whatever other facilities they could come up to keep women away from public life. While these policy makers had good intentions at the time, our views on women have changed drastically since the late 1800's. The majority of people in this era do not see women as fragile beings who should be confined to the home for their own safety. Today, most people view women as capable of being strong workers/providers, who can live and think independently from men. So with all that said, since women no longer need to be protected from the world, there is no reason to have sex-segregated public restrooms as there is nothing they need to be protected from. Source-http://time.com...
End sex-segregated public restrooms in the United States!

Segregating public restrooms by a person's sex is just as discriminatory as segregating public restrooms by a person's race. We have already established that racial segregation of public restrooms is an unacceptable practice after the courts repealed the bulk of the jim crow laws upon the passage of the civil rights act(1964). The repeal of the jim crow laws was done on the premise that "separate but eqal" (a common justification for segregation at the time) was not equal. While the civil rights act was passed mostly to deal with racial segregation, the premise remains the same. Separate can't and never will be equal. Women and men should not be denied the right to use half the public restrooms in the United States. If a restroom is designated as public, then that restroom should be availiable to all members of the public without restriction. Therefore, I propose that all public restrooms be de-segregated by sex. I firmly believe that the past legal precendant established 50 years ago is enough to defend my position. Even still, men and women have co-existed with eachother for years in public facilities and the majority of them have remained law abiding citizens despite constant exposure to the opposite sex. So even if you cannot agree with the legal basis for my argument, it is very difficult to disagree with the idea that men and woman are incapable of being civil towards eachother. We are civil to the opposite sex on a daily basis whenever it be through opposite sex friendships, marriage, or even just working and studying with eachother. If we can do all this, then what's the harm in having both sex's in the same bathroom together especially when we have closed stalls anyway?
Resolved: Missouri should pass its "Don't Say Gay" Bill.

According to my opponent, all my reasoning in this debate is a "logical fallacy." To be honest, I'm very disappointed by my opponent's final round, it barely merits a response, as it only offers a single, completely undeveloped, distinction between what policy "must do rather than what it should do." Well, I'm not sure what my opponent is referring to: does my argument make a case for what policy "must do" or what it "should do"? Either way, I don't see the point my opponent is making -- my argument establishes that, given the liberal framework offered by my opponent in Round 2, what policy should do to preserve the "freedom of conscience" of students, a principle of democracy, is to pass HB 2051. As for what policy "must do," according to the Constitution, the "Don't Say Gay" bill SHOULD be passed because, in the context of Missouri, it MUST be passed. The distinction my opponent makes is so obviously a failure, as something that "must" occur is what "should" occur. For the purposes of public policy in the context of Missouri (as stated by the resolution), that distinction does not hold up. I'm really disappointed by this debate, it's unfortunate that my opponent did not offer a better defense, as I have been arguing for a position contrary to my views and it does not make me happy to see my own views so poorly defended. That said, I think it is clear I have won this debate. I urge a strong vote for Pro. Thanks.
Resolved: Missouri should pass its "Don't Say Gay" Bill.

This gave me plenty of time to get things together for the debate. I will begin by addressing the things my opponent stated in my case, then move on to the aspects of my own case. Purpose of education: My opponent seriously underscopes the general idea of public education. If public education were only about how political procedures, elections, and democracy works, we wouldn't have mathematics, science, and English classes in public schools considering that they would be more or less irrelevant in the entirety of the scope of my opponent's idea of public education. These courses provide to us the skills in order to make an understanding of the natural world in order to be able to advance to careers as well as understand the functioning of the world we live in, as I contend, and part of the world that we live in and part of the larger issues in society is the aspect of LGBT issues. He states that public education is not to pass judgement on moral, theological, or philosophical specifications, but that's also contradictory to the idea of education. Understanding is one thing, but actually putting an application to the things learned in the environment can reinforce the understanding of the subject even further and makes the learning worthwhile, and such applications include the philosophical formulation of ideas when talking in dicussion of current events. Not that teachers are going to be passing any judgement as part of the curriculum. My opponent seems to be confusing allowing discussion of LGBT issues and topics in the classroom with making this part of the official curriculum, and my opponent's entire case seems to be centered on this idea. Also, if the purpose is not to discuss moral or philosophical issues, then many things could be excluded from the curriculum for this very reason as well: slavery, the civil rights movement, the dropping of atomic bombs, prohibition. There are many things in history that can be analyzed from a philosophical perspective as well. Political marketplace: First of all, what I'm not understanding is how my opponent links the principles of democracy to the functioning of public education. Second, even if he's right, at the point where he's referecing this idea of a political marketplace of idealisms, no one is saying that we're accepting particular moral or philosophical inclinations as fact anyway. This bill kills discussion or any teaching about LGBT topics completely, which does nothing to help stimulate the minds of students. There may be disparities on what exactly teachers will say when discussing LGBT topics, but at the point where the topics are discussed at all, this only acts as a catalyst for the political marketplace. Academia vs. Public schools: The perfect place to clear up speculations is any place that offers an educational perspective. I'm not understanding why this is only reserved for academia and cannot be done in public schools. Placing higher, but still feasible standards on students is always positive.
It is possible to see an image of Earth's past.

I'm glad to disappoint for you do the same to me by believing in this theory. Your right I don't care about the physics, but you are wrong, it is impossible. Here is a wee bit of Science 7 for you, for something to be true it muse be observed, measured, and repeated, thus making your mirror thingimabobber as much of a theory as the big bang, evolution, creation, only to be accepted by faith. If you really want to see into the past just look at your grandma's scrapbook. I like it warm, lets go.
It is possible to see an image of Earth's past.

My opponent has not even addressed the resolution. This is very disappointing, and I wonder why he even bothered to accept the debate seeing as he clearly doesn't care about the physics of the problem at hand. In case the voters need to be reminded (as my opponent clearly does!), we are debating the POSSIBILITY of this happening, nothing more. My opponent has provided nothing to say this isn't possible, and in fact pretty much conceded the debate when he said "if you could send something into space at +299 792 458 m / s you would only see the earth as it was when you left." I ask that my opponent please attempt to prove the impossibility of the problem at hand in his next round rather than just say what a waste of time it would be. Thanks. P.S. Just for future reference, the sun is 8 light-minutes from Earth, not 8 light-seconds. If we were 8 light-seconds from the sun we'd all be on fire right now.
It is possible to see an image of Earth's past.

It is physically imposable, your wrong. if you could send something into space at +299 792 458 m / s you would only see the earth as it was when you left, why not just take pictures? the image will not be frozen in the mirror. and you would have to send it far far away, look at our distance from the son and there is only about a 8 second delay there, we would loose track and it would become expensive space junk. So why don't we stick to printing pictures from Google earth and putting then into time capsules or into a building where we keep it under protection like the declaration of independence. Also, who cares about the past because you neck will get sour if you look back to long, so lets just figure out how to cure the common cold or stop this "global warming/ second ice age/ climate change" and stop caring about what your great great great grandpa's house looked like.