BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming is real

The use of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change as a source is almost worse than having no sources at all. First of all, the page my opponent links to was written in 1998. But more importantly, this is an organization run by Craig and Keith Idso, both skeptics whose research has been funded by the oil-backed Heartland Institute: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com... Hardly the most trustworthy source, but even if you don't think their questionable motivations are making them biased towards denial of climate science, I think a more reasonable way to determine how likely it is as laypeople would be to examine the consensus on the issue among scientists. Admittedly this is anecdotal evidence, but I actually predicted my opponent to cite the Idso family, because they are among only a small handful of actual scientists who try to convince the public that global warming isn't real. Why is this the case? Well, there is in fact an overwhelming scientific consensus on the issue: http://iopscience.iop.org... Several studies of this kind have been done, and they invariably find that somewhere in the range of 97% of climate scientists not only say that warming is real, but that it is anthropogenic. I think I have made my point abundantly clear that if we take into account what actual scientists say on this issue in the aggregate, it is no contest. But if you are inclined to believe my opponent's study, I'd like to point out that there is no real warrant to the claim that is made. My opponent gives the claim of his evidence, and then says "it is clear that the rise in temperature caused it as the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide says"-this is clearly a logical fallacy. If we are to place so much value on this study, there has to be a better reason than "my source is clearly correct as my source says, thus I'm right." This is the equivalent of saying it is correct because it said so, and he later repeats this by saying that I went on a rant about scientists "but the study here was correct." No, I simply said that these are marginal voices, and there are specific reasons to think the study was not correct. Just keep in mind that 97% of scientists think that what it said is false. I won't really address the oceans claim because it isn't really explained to the level of being an argument, but as far as I can tell it is about how much carbon the oceans contain which is utterly irrelevant as the greenhouse effect is driven by gases in the atmosphere, and the only source that has increased significantly within the last couple centuries has been human pollution.
Global warming is real

Burden of proof is on Pro to prove that global warming is anthropogenic.My RefutationsHere we go."Data from multiple sources seem to point to the same conclusion. Average temperature indicators since the Industrial Revolution as well as increasing intensity of weather patterns in recent years, and historical trends in levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have convinced well over 90% of the scientific community that global warming is happening now and, if left unchecked, could be catastrophic for the biosphere."My opponent has provided no proof here. The Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change have concluded that a rise temperatures precedes the rise in CO2. Those who propose CO2 as a cause of global warming have failed to decide what came first. It is clear that the rise in temperature caused it as the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide says and thus global warming is not likely man-made. [1]Similarly, a study found that the oceans play a huge role to global warming. While the atmosphere may contain 720 billion tons of CO2, the oceans on Earth contain 36 trillion tons and they are the largest contributing factors to the temperature increase. [2]My opponent goes on some rant about scientists, but the study here was correct. Also, he has provided no sources that some scientists have done this. We need proof.ConclusionI have easily refuted my opponent's argument global warming is likely man-made.Sources1. http://www.co2science.org...2. Watts, Anthony. "A Study: The Temperature Rise Has Caused the CO2 Increase, Not the Other Way Around." Wattsupwiththat.com. Watts Up With That?, 9 June 2010. Web.
Global warming is real

Research has led to an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that climate change, a result of increased greenhouse gas concentrations, is a real, anthropogenic phenomenon being driven by fossil fuel emissions. Data from multiple sources seem to point to the same conclusion. Average temperature indicators since the Industrial Revolution as well as increasing intensity of weather patterns in recent years, and historical trends in levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have convinced well over 90% of the scientific community that global warming is happening now and, if left unchecked, could be catastrophic for the biosphere. The main objections to this theory have been made by skeptics who tend to be unqualified or biased; most of these "scientists" have financial interests in the oil industry or their research was funded by oil executives such as the Koch brothers. In fact, even some of this oil-subsidized research has concluded that, in fact, this is a real issue. Many people, particularly conservatives in the US, tend to deny climate science, however these objections are almost entirely self serving and should be rejected: they are simply wrong.
Confederate stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

By bringing the Nazi Flag into the argument you are starting a new argument. The Nazi Flag was a flag that represented Hitlers regime and his idea of taking over the world and being able to be a world conqueror. He wanted to kill people. Yes the confederate flag originated in the south. But what were the reasons that the south wanted to seceded from the north. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as president in 1860. Southerners thought the government was becoming too strong. They did not think the government had the right to tell them how they should live. Southerners felt if they stayed in the United States, the North would control them. Due to the southern states leaving the United States of America they need to create a flag which ended up to be the confederate flag. They REBELLED from the northern states and one of their beliefs were to have the right to own slaves. It represents states rights. Just like when America rebelled from England. Does are flag represent the belief on not to tax?
Confederate stands for rebellion not slavery now a days

Now a days the state of Mississippi has the Confederate Battle Flag in it. In 2001, Mississippi legislative but to vote if they wanted to change the flag which was turned down. So you are to tell that the state of Mississippi does in fact support the idea of slavery. You do say that confederacy does mean a rebellion or unification of individuals. If you go outside and start waving the flag in a black community people will not agree with it. The only reason they will have that feeling is because of the history of the flag. The debate is about does is stand as slavery now a days. You have those people that call them self rednecks that live in the northern states such as New Jersey and New York. They fly confederate flags but no one calls them racist. They call those people wanna be rednecks. Rednecks are commonly known for their rebellious life style. You can say that you can rebel from anything.
Deepest Quote #4

You'll get a funeral if you don't wise up and call me Carl poppa." -Carl Grimes- Lyrics here: http://www.azlyrics.com... Video here: https://m.youtube.com... //////////// This song is just so deep. Carl just wants his dad to wake up. He talks about how he just flows but really he doesn't want to lose what little he has left. First his mom Lori then sister Sophie. I think he won't be able to take anymore if his dad dies. He talks about the terrible world he is in and how he wants to just relax and do things like dance and party but he can't because of the walkers. He can't take it much more. He needs his dad to keep himself from losing his mind. That is what this song and quote mean. In a world of death and destruction, with your family and loved ones dying around you. He needs to preserve everything possible to keep going. He is losing all he cares about and just couldn't take losing Rick. That is why this line is so deep and powerful.
Deepest Quote #4

I am bored and it's to slow to only have one Deepest Quote debate going on for me right now, so I figured I'll release Deepest Quote #4 while Deepest Quote #3 is going on right now. This is not a debate that should be taken seriously. It is just a light-hearted competition to see who can come up with the deepest quote, so do not join expecting a fight or a heated argument. This will be my fourth installment of this debate since I really enjoy doing these debates. Guess it my "trademark" now if you will. What I mean by "deepest quote" is a quote that makes you think or makes you feel a strong emotion to a particular subject. My profile picture is a example of what I call a "deep quote". Do not accept the debate if you have any questions. Ask the question in the comment section and I will answer. If you understand what the rules are and you have no further questions please accept. I hope we have fun. First round is acceptance. Rest of rounds are quotes we shall put up attempting to beat our opponent. You must include the quote, the quote speaker, and why this quote is a deep quote
Are there life out there besides aliens or there are just aliens.

Although your proposition is split into two conflicting question, it does have central idea. It assumes that aliens exist. I would argue that the first part (Are there life out there besides aliens?), even when ignoring the grammar mistakes, is not worth debating since the answer is too obvious. Aliens are by their definition foreigners which means that there must be something to which it is alien to. Therefore, if aliens are assume to exist, there must be something else besides aliens (such as humans or animals or etc.). The second question (there are just aliens?), however, is a clear fallacy since, again, for something to be alien there must be something to which it is alien to therefore "there can't just be aliens". Both of my opponents propositions are undebatable.
Roblox, MINECRAFT, & Wartune.com are all better than disenychannel.com!!!!!

Gosh, my opponent does seem a tad grouchy today! I do apologize on behalf of all maniacs.The first reason that the Roblox, Minecraft and Wartune sites aren't better than http://www.disneychannel.com... is because Roblox, Minecraft, and Wartune users tend to be angry and not very welcoming to sane people like me, whilst disneychannel.com users are lovely and nice.The second is that there's just no reason to think otherwise. Pro just proved he needs anger management in round one, he didn't actually have any arguments.But let's respond to his views:Pro says: "I HATE DISENY CHANNEL ITS FOR BABIES"Grammatical error: Unnecessary capital lettersSpelling error: 'ITS' is used in place of 'it's'.Spelling error: 'DISENY' is used in place of 'Disney'.Punctuation error: absence of a full stop.Pro says: "F***ING BURN"Grammatical error: Unnecessary capital lettersSpelling error: "F***ING" is used in place of 'flipping'.Pro's mess of a word may be interpreted as a swear word, but even if that's true I say if you type a swear word you're spelling it wrong no matter what because it's not very nice and bad for the economy. Thank you.
Roblox, MINECRAFT, & Wartune.com are all better than disenychannel.com!!!!!

I HATE DISENY CHANNEL ITS FOR BABIES OMFG MY SISTER LOVES IT LIKE IF I WERE TO WACTH THAT RIGHT NOW I WOULD JUMP OUT OF MY CHAIR OUT OF THE ROOM STEAL MY MOMS CAR KEYS AND A TRACTOR TRAILOR AND A SPACE SHUTTLE IF I COULD I WOULD MOVEW MARS SO IT CRUSHES THE DISENYCHANNEL HEADQUARTERS MOVE IT BACK KILL ALL THE ACTORS ACEPT SELENA GOMEZ AND KILL ALL THE REST OMFG I WOULD SMASH AND STOMP THEIR BODIES AND THE LEFTOVER PARTS FROM THE STATION HQ AND BUY A FLAMETHROWER AND F***ING BURN DOWN JUSTIN BEIBERS HOUSE BURN HIM AND BURN THE ASHES OF ALL OF THE ABOVE RELATED TO DISENY CHANNEL OMFG EVEN IF U DONT HAVE AS MUCH RAGE AS ME U CAN STILL VOTE ITS OK IDC IF ANY1 SAYS OTHERWISE I HATE IT
is the bible true, with reference to genesis one

The opposition has done nohting to affirm the resolution. He begs the question. With this said, I shall briefly reply to his absurd analogies and his weird questions.On the Big Bang and TNTTNT is a result of a chemical reaction, whilst the Big Bang is a result of quantum flunctuations. Henceforth, it would be impossible to say that since TNT is "finite" the Big Bang is necessarily finite, because they both have different causations, and apparently, different effects too. Apart from this, I am not talking about the Big Bang, but the universe here. The opposition has done nothing to refute what I have presented.On the Meaning of LifeI believe the meaning of life is not a scientific question; it attempts to investigate the nature of this thing called life, and is a philosophical investigation, not a scientific one. For science investigates the a posteriori but not the a priori. Apart from this, it investigates synthetical a posteriori statements. For example, evolution is a posteriori because it depends on evidence, whilst synthetic a priori quality of the "derivations of truths" are not a object of scientific study yet.Apart from this, this question does not disprove the resolution at all.The resolution remains negated. The BoP again lies upon the opposition.
is the bible true, with reference to genesis one

Thank you to the contender for replying. apologies for delayed response. I have kept to the facts and declined the more abstract points as precision cannot always be applied. Big bang theory asserts that a singularity began the expansion of the universe. if it began with a singularity the force and distance of the emanations would be finite ( as with T.N.T.) any explosion is limited to a finite range. On the fourth day the creation of the sun, moon and stars. the stars for days and for years. the clear meaning is that years began with the introduction of the sun. I would be interested to hear your answer to these two points, plus What came before the big bang if there was a big bang and not an eternally recurring universe ? Relativity refers to a space-time continuum. What do you consider the meaning ?
is the bible true, with reference to genesis one

Genesis one is often contradicted, for example big bang and evolution, also carbon dating and red shift. These contradictions give a separate timescale from the biblical, so is the bible inaccurate or are these contradictions even less accurate still ? The biblical account is finite and describes existence before the creation and gives a finite timescale. the biblical seven days are more realistic than appearing from nothing or an ongoing ever existence. Genesis gives us a preview of the revelation amen with a beginning. What is your view of the comparative realism of the genesis or secular explanations?
Evoltution v. Intelligent Design

I want to apologize to my opponent. I meant him no harm or ill will through my example of pragmatism. It was impolitic of me to say, or joke, about anything regarding death, much less the death of my opponent. If this is the reason for the forfeit, I am sincerely sorry, and offer up my apology to SaintSimon. On a personal note, I have enjoyed this debate to the fullest, you picked my brain and I deeply appreciate it.
Evoltution v. Intelligent Design

Saint Simon, I believe that this debate needs more organization than our last one. In retrospect, the fight was very scattered and hard to follow, in my arguments especially. For this debate I want each section to be organized as such - 1. Is what you are reading now, you need only reply to agree to this format or object. 2. Talking Points (This is our chance to throw punches). 3. Scientific Reasoning (In my case, I would be defending Bible claims). 4. Abstract Reasons (Beliefs, quotes, self evident examples...) & rebuttal. 5. Final Remarks (Closing up loose ends and final rebuts). I eagerly await the start of this debate.
Every debate can be won or lost

If the debate were on whether a debate could be simultaneously won and lost by the same person my opponent wouldn't look like a joke here. However, even in that bizarre and non-existent version of the topic my opponent loses. Let us be clear, that is actually possible. I've seen it. Several months ago somebody started a debate on Abortion, accepted the debate from a sockpuppet, and half way through the debate conceded the debate to himself. He ended up both losing and winning that debate even though the charade was beyond pathetic. It certainly can be both won and lost by the same person. http://www.debate.org... Hickmangirl2 has two debates against sockpuppets where she changes her opinion half way through the debate and advertises her crappy anti-abortion website. ----- Let's look at all the possibilities and compare them to the topic. Party A debates Party B. There are three possible outcomes. Result 1:-- Party A wins. Party B loses. Result 2:-- Party B wins. Party A loses. Result 3:-- Both debaters tie. Party A can win the debate such as in result 1. Party A can lose the debate such as in result 2. Party B can win the debate such as in result 2. Party B can lose the debate such as in result 2. From this everybody in the debate has the chance of winning or losing the debate. This suffices to render the topic true.
Every debate can be won or lost

My opponent is going to suggest that the a tie debate is neither won nor lost and therefore provides a third option and thus X debate was not won or lost. Two points to make. Even if a debate is not won or lost by a given party, it could have been. It "can be won or lost" and that suffices to make the topic true. If the debate occurs and voting happens then it is feasible to have a winner or a loser. Further, it is also true that every debate has both a winner and a loser and thus every non-tied debate is both won and lost by different parties. In order to avoid a semantic argument, please remember that if a debate is "won and lost" it was "won or lost" as the word "or" generally is inclusive and thus includes the possibility of both by varying parties. ---- This debate can be won or lost depending on how the voting goes. Whether it ties or not is simply inconsequential to the prospects as to whether it could have been be won or lost. So long as winning and losing "CAN" happen, the topic succeeds and pro wins.
Every debate can be won or lost

I will define debate as a debate.org debate. For the purposes of this debate, the method of "winning or losing" can be the vote method as per debate.org. To avoid losing on a purely semantic basis, I will qualify this by adding the following ASSUMPTIONS: 1. "A debate can only be won or lost if the very process of deciding it does not in itself defy logic." 2. A debate can be about absolutely anything. 3. Assume that the voting period in the debate in question is set to "indefinitely". However, I am not entitled to argue that such a debate will never be won and never be lost simply because there will never be a "final score". To clarify the meaning of "won or lost" I will mention the following: A debate that can only be won (if such a debate exists) is a debate that can be "won or lost". A debate that can be only lost (if such a debate exists) is a debate that can be "won or lost". Given that I am con, I let my opponent start. Please think very very carefully before accepting this debate. Remember that I only need to find one debate (even hypothetical one) where the proposition stated in the above resolution would necessarily fail.
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a great game

Thanks for taking the debate My opponent asserts that the graphics and development of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was "dreadful". First and for most calling the graphics/development of a game, any game, is subjective. However I can argue that the graphics of the game were REVOLUTIONARY. I do not recall a game with those graphics before this game came out. As much as I love Super Mario 64 (which was released in America a year after Super Mario RPG), and as much as I love the graphics in that game, they were not as smooth as Super Mario RPG. My opponent says Super Mario RPG came out in March 9, 1996 and cites Sonic 3D Blast as a better game and changed the face of gaming. While I never played Sonic 3D Blast, it did come out some 8 months after Super Mario RPG, so you cannot really say that Sonic did it first, thus it would not be considered revolutionary. Calling RPG's terrible is again subjective so this is an empty argument. As is calling it a difficult game to play. One could call it challenging, and it was. However many would say that gaming is dependent on a good challenge. My opponent then goes off to call it a rip off of final fantasy. but what exactly is a rip off? In this context rip off means to steal from. However Super Mario RPG was developed by Square (now Square Enix) which is also the developer of Final Fantasy. Now, how could you rip off yourself?
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a great game

Mario is an big icon to the Nintendo franchise. Considerably, the most infamous character in video games in the last 50 years. Although, some of his games are quite fun, well when you were a kid, they had their flaws. When the production of "Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars" came out on March 9, 1996, in Japan. This one had much As a game developer, I can assure you the developmental sense of the game is dreadful. While games like Sonic 3D Blast, had used pre-rendering, and changed the face of gaming. Legend of the Seven Stars, was based on input, and had quite bad graphics. Although, they did have detailed designs. It's role-playing which is terrible on it's own. The game involves lot's of user input, instead of user control. Which makes the game far more difficult to play. Lastly, Legend of the Seven Stars was almost a rip-off for your money, for past games, like final fantasy.
The laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist

To answer your multiverse theory, under your definition of the laws of physics the laws must be "supported by a general consensus of reputable physicists worldwide". How many physicists support your theory? There is a much larger chance that we are(the universe) is alone, even the name states that: "uni" meaning "one". In fact since astrologers say that the universe is expanding, we are either alone or we are "pushing" the other universe(s) which is hardly likely. As for your big bang theory, it's a moot point as something(god) would have to create the first one, no matter how long ago that was. And for your big crunch, the same astrologers say that the speed at which the universe is expanding is increasing, so unless something the future the universe will not end in a big crunch. I apologize for not posting references, but I am writing from memory and therefore have none
The laws of physics make it impossible for some god not to exist

I accept your definitions, though I wish you had given me some points to refute. Now to my case, as stated previously the second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of disorder is increasing, therefore it is impossible for a god not tto exist, look at it this way: the universe is an old fasioned clock whose spring must be wound up. The clock cannot wind itself up, some other being(god) must wind it up. Also the equasion "E=mc squared" states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore nothing that acts within the laws of physics could create any of the matter or energy in the universe.