BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear weapons be banned internationally.

"Nuclear weapons are less efficient than most conventional weapons due to there wide range of effect and cannot be used for precision bombing." In some cases precision bombing won't win a war. If the cold war had gone hot, we wouldn't have been able to win just by busting soviet Russia's bunkers. "No I guess it isn't a bad thing." My opponent has conceded one of his arguments. "And the effect of nuclear weapons is much worse than any other weapon. It burns the earth around it and forms a big crater and also it covers the surrounding land in lethal radiation that takes years to dissipate." All weapons have a purpose, this weapons purpose IS to burn the Earth and put radiation there. "Also studies have shown that a nuclear weapons explosion generates EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) waves that will effect any electronics in the area and where ever the waves travel to including locations that were not intended to be harmed." This is another pro, EMPs can effect ENEMY electronics, therefore being useful. "I think that there is no need for evidence to show that nuclear weapons is an expensive technology and it is most likely classified information on how much it costs to create a nuclear weapon." Voters please note this under the sources category. "No need for evidence". ---Points--- 1. Nuclear Weapons Are Useful. As I stated before, if the US did not have nuclear weapons, there would be no M.A.D. or Mutual Assured Destruction, which is a deterrent for using nuclear weapons. If we simply had bunker busters, we would be dead. If we both had "Nukes" then we surely would have had a war simply because we wouldn't be worrying about killing each other with "Nukes". Let's just say, very hypothetically that aliens come and invade the Earth? How will we defend ourselves? 2. If we do ban them... If we do ban nuclear weapons it is inevitable that they will go underground, being manufactured by people who may not know what they are doing and will sell them to the terrorist organization with the highest bid. Also if Nuclear Weapons are banned, this also means that if a terrorist organization actually obtains one of these weapons, they will not fear launching it for they know that they have the only one (or one of the few) "Nukes", therefore they won't fear a counter nuclear attack. --Conclusion-- My opponent [having the burden of proof] has not stated any evidence supporting his proposal and therefore his arguments may be invalid. I urge a con vote.
Nuclear weapons be banned internationally.

Nuclear weapons are less efficient than most conventional weapons due to there wide range of effect and cannot be used for precision bombing. Ex. Nuclear bunker busters are less efficient at eliminating a target than a normal bunker buster weapon. "have not been used since WWII" "Is this a bad thing?" No I guess it isn't a bad thing. And the effect of nuclear weapons is much worse than any other weapon. It burns the earth around it and forms a big crater and also it covers the surrounding land in lethal radiation that takes years to dissipate. Along with the nuclear fallout that is generated by all of the irradiated dust and dirt that fly through the air that moves to other countries. Also studies have shown that a nuclear weapons explosion generates EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) waves that will effect any electronics in the area and where ever the waves travel to including locations that were not intended to be harmed. You don't have to worry about all of these consequences when dealing with conventional weapons. I think that there is no need for evidence to show that nuclear weapons is an expensive technology and it is most likely classified information on how much it costs to create a nuclear weapon. There wouldn't need be the need to defend your country with nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons if they were internationally banned leading to less radioactive wastes and a cleaner and more happy earth.
Nuclear weapons be banned internationally.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. " -Aristotle --Refutations-- "less efiecent than some conventional weapons " First, spelling error. Second, please provide evidence. "have not been used since WWII" Is this a bad thing? "They also have devastating effects on the enviroment" So do most weapons. "people of the country it is used on. " That's the point, weapons are weapons. "The united States is buring through cash to make these awful weapons. " Please, provide more evidence, these weapons may come in handy some day, whether it be used for a massive counter-terrorism effort or to fend off an alien race, you never know. "And they arnt used. " Again, is this a bad thing? If everyone has a gun, nobody would be inclined to shoot someone. I will bring up my main contentions in round two, I await my opponent's response.
The burden of continuing space exploration.

Ok besides the spaceship lets look to other possibilities. The Hubble space telescope: This telescope has provided pictures of untold possibles, before it's time. An investment in this is bound to happen. The Hubble telescope doesn't have to go to those unknown worlds it can see them. Using our resources, without having to break the bank, we can further this technology. My opponent says: We waste money on something that we can't achieve without using up our resources. I agree then, lets focus our resources on something that won't waste our resources, the telescope. Benefits: Any kind of investment in our cameras,infrared, or x-ray can help us medically, and militarily. Ok you say a space launch is too expensive? Check out this site and how they would be able to get something into space for only 54 million dollars. http://www.spacex.com... This would further space exploration, further technology for the better, and won't waste our resources. Back to you con
The burden of continuing space exploration.

Of course there is room for improvement of a spaceship, but to what end? You just suggest fully exploring the moon, yet we know that is nearly featureless, with only craters dotting its surface. Is there really any benefit to fully exploring it? Conservative estimates for the depletion of oil run in the 40-50 year range. This is nowhere near long enough for any discoveries from exploring other planets to benefit jet fuel consumption. In the second part of your last argument, you seem to say that we should bear the burdens of space exploration solely in order to satisfy our human curiosity. Should we all try dope to satisfy our curiosity? Should we all feel what it's like to kill another person? Or should we steal and rape? Maybe we should all do an experiment like Morgan Spurlock and see what it's like to become obese. My point is, we can't waste energy, resources, and time when we have so little of those things to give, especially when the goal is simply to satisfy curiosity.
The burden of continuing space exploration.

Still it does remain that the planets that are close to us have not been thoroughly explored. Our own moon is not completely explored. Mars though takes about 9 months to get their and the same back yet humans still have not found a better way to get there. This leaves room for improvement and enhancement of technology. Not necessarily do we have to explore planets outside our solar system,but the planets inside and learn about those. These enhancements in technology could in the future make faster jets and use less fuel thus helping our everyday life. There is always a human curiosity as in: why? or what? Humans always want to know what is out in the far reaches of space. For now let us focus on the solar system a relatively close area considering the size of space it-self. The main point I am tiring to make is that to continue space exploration furthers our technology and satisfies our curiosity. Sources: http://www.astronomycafe.net...
The burden of continuing space exploration.

My opponent is arguing for improving technology, not for exploring space. He repeatedly said that we need the technology that came about from the space missions. But later on, he says we need to find a place outside Earth where humans could live. Despite the discrepancy, I have already refuted the first point. We can obtain valuable inventions in other, more productive ways without sending metal into space. Second, we already have large amounts of knowledge about the planets nearest to us and the ones farther away from us are extremely far away. Proxima Centauri is over 4 light years away, and providing that it has habitable planets revolving around it (which it probably doesn't) it would still take us years and years to get to it. We can fix the problems on Earth and don't need to turn to other planets. According to the demographic transition theory of population, as we move more and more into a post-industrial society, births decrease. We need to search for better solutions HERE.
The burden of continuing space exploration.

Ok to refute the con's arguments I would like to bring in a bit of logical assumptions from the space program as of the time of the Apollo missions. First--I did not say that the inventions came form space it-self, but rather from the continuing view of humans to better the technology to get to those regions of space faster or even get there a all. Humans have only gotten to the moon though leaving many different planets to explore and other places outside the solar system (If the technology permits) So a logical argument be that by the continuing space exploration may prove to create even ore technology that we may not even know exists at the moment. Second--The argument of life away from the earth and how to find it is illogical and trying to find life is way beyond most thoughts now. A better way of putting it would be to explore different planets in the search for a place that humans could live outside of earth. This would help the exploration and give many more opportunities.
The burden of continuing space exploration.

To start off I would like to acknowledge that space exploration has produced some useful inventions. However, pro seems to think space exploration is the only way to reaching these inventions and discoveries, and this "fact" thereby warrants the continuing of the space program. The problem is the inventions themselves don't come from space. They come from the increased technological aspirations the United States had during the Sputnik decade. Space itself is pretty worthless, other than the uses we have already found for it like orbiting satellites to provide little Johnny with Nickelodeon. There is apparently not sentient life on any accessible planet other than Earth, so the search for life is pointless unless a quicker method of travel is invented. What we need for better inventions is a societal and governmental focus on technology and science. Because by pro's logic, we should try to actively create war often in order to make as many technological updates as possible.
The burden of continuing space exploration.

Ok to start off this round I would like to encourage a fair and very educational debate today! Space is the start of many great things some that we do not even realize. A few may be the very personal computer that you may be typing your argument upon. Further examples may be put as needed. A race to the moon was a very challenging task and caused the US and Russia to further their technological boundaries to the limit at that point in time. The point on that is it caused many of the things that we use everyday. To not continue the exploration of space could make things that are not even known to us now possible. Further technology can prove to help in the medical field as we may be able to find cures to virus using the technology that we have obtained through the space programs. It may help with the gas as people try to figure out how to better the launches without spending so many millions or billions of dollars on fuel. Any further information or sources may be given.
The burden of continuing space exploration.

Ok to restate my argument: The Hubble space telescope: This telescope has provided pictures of untold possibles, before it's time. An investment in this is bound to happen. The Hubble telescope doesn't have to go to those unknown worlds it can see them. Using our resources, without having to break the bank, we can further this technology. My opponent says: We waste money on something that we can't achieve without using up our resources. I agree then, lets focus our resources on something that won't waste our resources, the telescope. Benefits: Any kind of investment in our cameras,infrared, or x-ray can help us medically, and militarily. Ok you say a space launch is too expensive? Check out this site and how they would be able to get something into space for only 54 million dollars. http://www.spacex.com...... This would further space exploration, further technology for the better, and won't waste our resources. Back to you con
Some cryptids are real

In conclusion, cryptic creature are for believers with absolute faith that they exist. They are not creatures with scientific proof or fact. I was hoping for more of a fight from my competitor because I do indeed like this topic and took it with all seriousness. My competitor said from his first argument that he took this topic seriously too, but I was disappointed. I'm sorry that this debate was a waste of time due to your lack of argument. I took my time out to research for legitimate sources. Vote Con because I came up with, as I said, legitimate facts, research and sources while my competitor did not, and somewhat didn't even try. Sorry that this debate wasn't taken as seriously as I hoped because I did work hard to present my "Con" argument. Vote Con!!
Some cryptids are real

You said "Cryptid- a creature not yet discovered...ALLEGED sightings that are UNCONFIRMED. My argument is not irrelevant and I understand this debate My opponent is not proving anything to this argument, just because you gave me a definition of what a Chupacabra is, does not mean it is real. I looked it up myself and it says it is a LEGEND, not factual. To emphasize my point I found an article that says an "Chupacabra story is a hoax; likely a Xolo dog breed. "The animal, described in an Associated Press report last week as "a cross between tow or three different things," was found as road kill last month near the Texas town of Cuero..."this animal is a Xolo," said top dog breeder..."The do looks like it has Xolo genetics. This is not a Chupacabra--that's absurd." Continued, "The focus has been very distorted..."I believe it's more of an issue of animal neglect or possible abuse than it is a chucabras wandering in from the bush." Even a "local veterinarian who has seen the carcass doubts that the animal is anything noteworthy." The article even describes the history of an alleged "chupacabra" it starts of saying "The legend," not a recorded animal. Here is the link if you would like to take a look. http://news.mongabay.com... And the video you linked on your last argument, didn't even exist anymore. Scientific Fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true. Scientific proof refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. So far I have found that scientific proof has leaned toward me and you have not given me anything to prove differently. Science needs facts, measurement, and most importantly, proof. Until there is something that can be proved, your argument is hearsay.
Some cryptids are real

Not all mythical creatures are cryptids but your misunderstanding argument is irrelevant because it does have some truth to it. I obviously have the burden of proof so first I will prove the chupacabra exists.Chupacabra- The dog version. Is a creature thats sucks the blood out of goats and other anamails here is some proof. http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...;Since you mentioned bigfoot I will adress his existance also http://www.youtube.com...;Loch ness monster http://www.foxnews.com...;All the eyewittnesses. It only makes sense
Some cryptids are real

Welcome here is a debate on Cryptids there is proff out there Cryptids are real you will be saying they are not roun 1 acceptance only Many believe my debates are joke debates most arent this is a serious debate you believe no cryptids are real to accept this Cryptid- A creature not yet discovered including "monsters", ghosts, aliens, ect that have legends to them and alleged sightings that are unconfirmed
Gay marriage should be legal

Thats exactly what Im saying. The children would be more likely to develop problems. If you want statistics, kids raised outside of a nuclear home are 6 times more likely to develop serious emotional problems. That 3/5 kids. Not because their is anything wrong with their parents, but because of the circumstances the child faces. Its very hard on the child. You cannot honestly tell me that u think the kid wont be made fun of at school. Sure, every kid is made fun of now and then, but these kids will be subject to 13 years of ridicule. All the parent teacher conferences, parents chaperoning. It'd be embarrassing and all that kid is gunna want more than anyting is a regular mom and a regular dad. For us to knowingly place a kid in a situation where the wont have a normal mom, and a normal dad is Sooooo unfair to the kid. It was best said by Mitt Romney. "Every child deserves a mother and a father." Second, I never attacked their capabilities to parent. In fact, I said that i thought they would be perfectly capable. Its not their abilities that effect the child rearing. Its just the natural values. Heres and example The father naturally teaches their sons about controlling anger. Because of this, boys who grew up without a father 7 times out of 10 have uncotrolled anger issues. Mothers naturally teach patience and respect. That was boys who grew up without mothers 6 times out of 10 have issues regarding recpecting autority and holding down a job. Now in a homosexual home, you'll either have two fathers, or two mothers. They child misses certain values. Just like a single working woman cannot adopt a child, neither can a gay couple because its the same situation. Again and i stress this Its not them, its the situation. Its the circumstances. There is no doubt that when it comes to raising children, the BEST results come out of a stable nuclear family. Thats just a fact. So why would we place children some place outside of those conditions? The answer: We don't. Anyway, I forgot to put this in my last argument. I am anti-gay marriage. We could have guessed that. I do support sivil unions though. With a civil union, they can make decisions for loved one. They can share accounts. The works. They would not, however, be allowed to adopt children. It Is not and ideal situation and we cannot in good concience place a child already in need of adoption, outside of a good situation.
Gay marriage should be legal

Though I totally agree with you in that I believe the government should not inforce laws based on faith alone, I definately do not believe that conflicting faith is the only issue that allowing gay marriage would cause. You have to consider our future. The United States is currently facing a moral delima in that traditional American Values are fading away. These are the same values that won us this country, the same values that held us together, and the same values that have helped grow into the marvelous success story we are today. The vast majority of these values are learned in the home. It is scientifically proven that a father teaches certain values, and a mother teaches another set of values. Statistcally, the majority of children raised outside of the traditional nuclear family develop problems. Though they are not all dangerous (such as anxiety, mild depression, or trust issues), many are. A lot of children raised in untraditional families do not come out so fortunate. Many come out selfish due to a lack of empathy. Many become violent. Some develop habits such as drugs, alcoholism, and even crime. The vast majority of people who develop these issues, were raised in an unstable family. Now if we allow homosexuals to marry, then we allow them to raise our children; to raise our future. Now, on an individual bases, I am sure they are very capable, but because they lack the construct of a nuclear family, their children run a MUCH higher rate of develop problems. They are not taught all of the values we consider requisite because they lack the father/mother influences that allow those lessons to be learned. They live a life constantly being ridiculed by the kids at school because their parents are "queer". They are much more likely to develop a lot of insecurities. Also, you cannot say that all gays were born that way. Though many were, some have been influenced by peer pressure, or family pressure to try the different lifestyle. If our children are raised in gay homes, they are more likely to engage in homosexual activities because its what they have learned about affection by watching their parents. Though I accept homosexuality and am glad to consider them equal human beings, that does not mean I am comfortable placing our future a position were homosexuality can grow. It would start a trend that ultimately could even be bad for humanity. We can accept it, but we cant encourage it to become more common. Lastly, about the military. The reason people are not openly allowed to be gay is because of safety issues. First of all, the military a aweful when it comes to homosexual tolerance. Many gay soldiers have been beaten and even killed because of the hatred of other soldiers. Also, it would create problems with living quarters because the military does not allow men and women to bunk together for obvious reasons. If soldiers were openly gay, the themselves military could not be comfortable with letting sleep in a room with other men on the same ground that cant allow women to. Its not safe for the gays, and its uncomfortable for the soldiers.
Assassination, in an effort to save lives.

There are no rules, only a lose lose scenario, and a decision to make. I would pull the trigger simply because it would save 10000 orphan children. The death of one child terrorist means the continued life of ten thousand children who are not terrorists as far as we know. I would argue that not all humans have good moral standing and that just because the person in question is a kid does not mean that it has better moral standing than an adult. If the scenario was about a terrorist planning to bomb a hospital I would not feel differently about my decision to support assassinating him before he could commit the crime rather than being idle and doing nothing to stop him, leadng to the death of ten thousand patients. Assassinations are not traditionally good things in the eyes of the majority, however if killing one person saves many lives and improves the lives of many people it is reasonably a good thing overall. Would you say that a U.S.A. Sniper killing a dictator who is planning on enslaving and selling his people for his own gain, thereby allowing the people of that dictators country to remain free is a good thing?