BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
vi_spex is a time traveller from the future

"Just because vi_spex talks in a particular way that makes mostly no sense to everyone here including you, does not mean that he is a time traveller from the future. In fact, a more realistic way to describe vi_spex would be a "troll". "An Internet troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet (...) by posting (...) off-topic messages in an online community (...) often for their own amusement." [1] No, vi_spex is not a troll. We can't even try to imitate his speech patterns, logic and grammar. He is the time-traveller. He has caused ww1 and ww2, and after his mistakes, is working to stop ww3. Yet the future authorities believed he would support ww3, and therefore rid him of most of his memories. Desert roller is made in the future, you don't know about it. Only great holy vi_spex knows. "But if vi_spex really was a time-traveller, why would he spend most of his time here on DDO? " Because his future self has a link to the past of the site, and his future memories slowly come back to his past self as he uses it. But it is usually eating cereal and other trash, not of some important events so far. "Secondly, from looking at vi_spex's profile comments (posted by himself), absolutely NOTHING makes sense- only random words put together" You are not from the future. In the future, everyone talks like this. Right now, grammar is there. In the future, people are free from grammar and sentence-structure, yet understand each other due to cognitive enhancers. "Finally, yes, vi_spex has mentioned random things such as the "desert roller", but has he explained them and the fact that they exist in the future? No. " He can't explain them. Future vocabulary is also very low, and he doesn't want others to think he is insane and that he is from the future. Everyone would kill him or kidnap him for his power. He will become a lab experiment, and will be tracked by central intelligence agencies of the present and the future. Conclusion: Vi_spex is the holy sword of justice. Once he becomes DDO president, he convinces the one who activates his time-travelling memories and powers, and he can finally once again roam in any era physically. We will make him president and fulfill his dream. ALL HAIL VI_SPEX!! ALL HAIL LORD MEGATRON!!!
vi_spex is a time traveller from the future

Before I begin, I would just like to say to vi_spex, if you're reading this, everything I say here is for the purpose of debating and nothing personal! ___Rebuttals:Pro, you have absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever if vi_spex has actually travelled here from the future based on your opening arguments."his style of speech, sentence structure and grammar are (...) unique."Just because vi_spex talks in a particular way that makes mostly no sense to everyone here including you, does not mean that he is a time traveller from the future. In fact, a more realistic way to describe vi_spex would be a "troll". "An Internet troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet (...) by posting (...) off-topic messages in an online community (...) often for their own amusement." [1]"vi_spex has mentioned a vehicle named desert roller which isn't a specific vehicle yet, meaning in the future desert rollers were invented." What a strange conclusion. In that case, if anyone makes up a non-existing word, they must be time-travellers from the future where people use that gibberish. Arguments: Time-travel could be a possibility in the future [2], I'm not denying that. But if vi_spex really was a time-traveller, why would he spend most of his time here on DDO? Secondly, from looking at vi_spex's profile comments (posted by himself), absolutely NOTHING makes sense- only random words put together. Even from reading something like The Canterbury Tales by Gregory Chaucer which was written in the 1400s, although many words have changed and are therefore spelled differently etc, we can still understand the basic English meanings. I'm not sure how far in the future Pro thinks vi_spex is from, but I'm sure everyone reading can agree that there is no basic meaning to the latter's posts to imply that he is from the future. Finally, yes, vi_spex has mentioned random things such as the "desert roller", but has he explained them and the fact that they exist in the future? No. Conclusion:Vi_spex is more like a troll than someone from the future. Pro has no proof if vi_spex is a time traveller and his arguments are poorly explained. To Pro: I honestly do not think you know more about vi_spex than the rest of us, but if you do, please enlighten me.Thank you for reading. Vote Con.Citations:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...
vi_spex is a time traveller from the future

My argument again Vi_spex is a time traveller as his style of speech, sentence structure and grammar are more than unique. He is from the future where grammar became so eroded to the point when everybody speaks like vi_spex. Yes the definitions are good, except that we are arguing vi_spex is a time traveller, not that he has traveled with a time-machine, but that he has magical powers which enable only him to travel through and forth time. Also, vi_spex has mentioned a vehicle named desert roller which isn't a specific vehicle yet, meaning in the future desert rollers were invented. http://www.debate.org... ALL HAIL VI_SPEX!
vi_spex is a time traveller from the future

___Definitions:vi_spex: user on DDO . http://www.debate.org...time-travel: the concept of movement between certain points in time (. .. ) typically using a hypothetical device known as a time machine, in the form of a vehicle or of a portal connecting distant points in time [1]future: time regarded as still to come [2]Structure:Round 2: Main arguments + rebuttal by ConRound 3: Rebuttal and conclusionI would like to kindly ask Pro to confirm all the above. If Pro remains silent on whether he agrees or objects to my definitions etc, it will be automatically presumed that he agrees. I look forward to your arguments. Good luck. [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
America is on a social and economic death spiral

I believe that the 67 trillion dollars in total debt and the 97 trillion in unfunded liabilities are damaging the American economy a long with the Federal Reserve, who has a leverage of 77-1; prior to our crisis the leverage was 42-1. There is no possible way the FED can get out of this situation as they cannot lower interest rates anymore, meaning they have hit "Game Over." I also believe society in America is about to breakdown due to race issues, sexual orientation issues, religious issues, class differences, and all of the bigotry involved with ideological differences. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -Abraham Lincoln. This I feel is a very important quote to view in context relative to times today. Political Correctness has driven our once unified nation apart in every way imaginable down to each individual, and nobody has a rationalized debate about the issues we have because nobody listens to each other. I feel like this unsound social structure and our very unstable economy is on a death-spiral that is far too late to get out of, and will ultimately end America's glory in a similar way to both the British and Roman empires. I would love to have a rational and civil debate with an individual who is able to analyze and critically think unlike most of America today. I live in America and would like to have a good time debating somebody who disagrees with the facts and opinions I have presented. Please don't be vile or aggressive, this is only a discussion of opinions and it should be fun :)
America is on a social and economic death spiral

I'll explain my arguments in greater depth in the following rounds, but here are some of my main points:(1) America's economy is the most powerful and innovative in the world(2) America's civil society is embedded with the right values and principles(3) We are doing better than our counterparts (economically, environmentally, socially, politically)(4) We have reason to be optimistic for our futureI somewhat agree with your point Pro, America has been facing problems in our recent history. I disagree though that we are on a "death spiral". We have plenty of potential to heal the problems we face and to usher in a new age of hope and progress. I'll let you delineate further in the following rounds. Let us go!
It's nearly impossible to win a one round debate.

My opponent is completely correct in that the instigator of a one-round debate is more than likely going to be disappointed in the outcome, however, that's not what this debate is about. We're debating that "It's nearly impossible to win a one round debate. " This is inherently false, as debates have one winner and one loser (unless we consider ties, which I'll touch in a little bit) For now, let's assume that ties aren't possible. Someone is going to walk away a winner and someone is going to walk away a loser. Nearly impossible to win? On the contrary! It's nearly impossible not to win (or conversely not to lose) because SOMEBODY has to lose. .. Now when we throw ties into the mix, the debate becomes a little more vague. However, using empirical evidence from this very website, I've found a statistic that makes things a little more clear. Using records of "Post Voting Period" debates, I checked debates until I found 10 one round debates. These 10 debates are the ones listed below . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... *Note: I, dvhoose, am not responsible for any lost brain cells in the above 10 debates. .. From the above debates, there were winners in 10 of them. 10/10 (or 100%) of one round debates have a winner. While the above may represent only a small selection of one round debates (although I had to search through 200-some-odd debates to find 10 one round debates. .. ) I highly doubt the percentage changes and implore you, the reader/voter to search more if you are still skeptical. With that, I'll conclude the debate, after showing that 100% of one round debates have a winner, thus making it not "nearly impossible" to win but instead "nearly impossible" to tie.
There IS Racism in Education

I guess I would say that this is not an argument about economics and how race and economics go together, it's an argument about how people in society view the poor and those who don't have a wealthy economic background, it's really an argument about how society thinks of these individuals that leads to poor education, and poor education, as you said, leads to poor economic status. If we look at poor urban neighborhoods in New York City, we have to recognize that because of the stereotypes surrounding the behaviors of the students in those neighborhoods that the so called "good" teachers won't come there to teach. They will only go to areas they think the students want to learn in, not an area where they think every day will be about discipline and controlling the kids. But until they go into those areas and actually teach there, they will have no idea what "those kids" are really thinking. Maybe they want to learn, and it's a pretty good guess that they all definitely want to succeed at all they do. Your argument has great facts in it and great sources, but sometimes reality, which I've lived when it comes to issues like this, doesn't really add up against numbers. It may be true that African Americans and Latinos have less of a chance of success because they are trapped in what you basically called a circle of poverty. But they are trapped in that circle of poverty because they are thought of a certain way, thought of as maybe too rough or too ignorant or too poor to learn, or maybe thought of as always having family members who don't care enough to help them succeed. So if that's the thought, then no one who will truly be able to help them succeed will go into these poorer areas and help kids who may be solid members of their neighborhood actually learn. Unfortunately, in the United States what we think of people often becomes reality for them. We often think of poor kids from the inner city, regardless of their ethnic background, as being sort of doomed to failure from the start. The more we keep that attitude up, the more damage will happen to entire neighborhoods, and that's the type of racism I'm talking about. It's not about an economic reason, it's not about a reason related to income, it's about what people think. And how can the kids in those neighborhoods change what people think about them if no one will go and teach in these areas to help change what people think of them? The kids in poor urban neighborhoods do have pride in their neighborhoods and their schools, and just because they don't know how to show that pride doesn't mean that they aren't worth teaching. If we don't admit that there's racism in education in the United States, we are basically saying we don't have a problem when it comes to helping those who are part of poor urban neighborhoods, and if we don't admit there's a problem, then we can never fix it and help them and the rest of us move forward.
There IS Racism in Education

All in all, white students do get a stronger education than students of specific minority groups, but this is not a result of "racism," per se. This is not a matter of race but rather one of socioeconomic status. Throughout the opponent's argument, the opponent mentions "kid[s] from the ghetto]. Are we to assume that these kids are all minorities. There are people of all ethnicities living in the "ghetto," as the opponent calls it. Family income disparity does, in fact, cause disparity in education attainment. [1] The core of this issue is that many minorities have low socioeconomic statuses and live in poverty. According to the APA (American Psychological Association): "African American children are three times more likely to live in poverty than Caucasian children. American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and Native Hawaiian families are more likely than Caucasian and Asian families to live in poverty." [2] There are African American and Latin American students who attend prestigious private schools and reap the benefits of an expensive, rigorous education. The reason why many minority students go to low-income schools is that they live in low-income communities and they are in a socioeconomic hiatus. This is somewhat cyclic, since, because of the low socioeconomic status they have, members of minority groups put less emphasis on education, as a result of the slump they are in, leading to a generation-to-generation "transaction" of poverty. Affirmative action's emphasis on race over socioeconomic status has led to disturbing results, and, consequently, no progress has been made. This is not due to racial or ethnic disposition but rather a socioeconomic disposition among certain American minorities. [1] http://personal.lse.ac.uk...[2] http://www.apa.org...
Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans

Your argument is illogical. Having an atmosphere means that a planet traps heat. Our atmosphere has been with us since the dawn of time and has constantly changed. My argument is that currently, humans are causing the change. You do realize were debating climate change and not the climate without an atmosphere. Your argument that the atmosphere causes warming is illogical since your argument has no timeframe. By arguing that the atmosphere causes warming is like saying that a fire has cooked an egg. The fact is, the egg is already cooked, the Earth already has an established atmosphere. What humans are doing is now burning the egg. This is what climate change is as you have defined, it is the increase in temperature. This debate is not whether or not an atmosphere causes warming or not, it's about whether or not humans are the prime cause to warming. I agree with you, the atmosphere warms the earth, but humans are changing that atmosphere to warm the earth even more. Humans are increasing the temperature of the world. The atmosphere on the otherhand is being changed by humans but it in itself is not causing an increase temperatures. The atmosphere is the dependant variable currently while humans are the independant variable. Also, you didn't rebut much of my scientific evidence that says that climate change and warming is caused by humans. also, your evidence is really weak, no offense http://en.wikipedia.org...
Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans

My opponent entirely misunderstands my argument. To summarize, I am saying that the maximum possible increase in temperature caused by humans is 0.85 degrees Celsius, and that as the atmosphere as a whole increases temperature by 25 degrees, humans can only be responsible for a negligible 3.4% of total atmospheric global warming.Let me clear up a few points for my opponent:One: I do not deny that humans have caused some temperature increases.Two: I do not deny that atmospheric global warming is caused by carbon dioxide.Three: I do not deny that global warming has negative effects on the environment.Now the question arises: do any of the previous statements prove the resolution false? Of course not.The resolution does not state that humans cause no global warming at all, it states that almost all is not caused by humans. The important thing here is to keep perspective. Yes, humans have caused the temperature to rise at an alarming rate. Yes, it is caused by human industrialization. Does the amount of increase caused by humans compare to the total amount caused by the atmosphere alone? No. Let me say this clearly, because this is the most important point.The Earth's atmosphere causes a temperature increase of 25 degrees Celsius. Of those 25 degrees, humans are responsible for only 0.85, or 3.4%.I hope this clears up most of the confusion. Let's examine some of my opponent's more specific mistakes."since 1880, the temperaturs has increased by 1.4 celsius"You mean Farenheit, actually. "according to their website, they endorse the idea that climate change in our modern age is caused by humans. This turns your evidence in my favor."Genetic fallacy. The source of information is not related to its usage in an argument. "Also, your argument that venus is hot because it has an atmosphere is true, but did you know that the atmosphere of venus is entirely made of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?"Yes I did. Did you know that NONE of those greenhouse gases were put there by humans?"Mercury on the other hand has no atmosphere yet is cold as a rock."Assuming that most rocks are hot enough to melt lead, of course. [1]"to counter your claim that the sun is increasing it's radiance:"Straw man. When did I ever say that?"Don't you see? We're changing our atmosphere."Yes, but not enough so that it accounts for a large portion of atmospheric global warming.SOURCES:[1]http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...;
Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans

In order to properly quantify the percentage of atmospheric global warming caused by humans, we must examine average temperatures on Earth before and after large amounts of pollution. Fortunately, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research has provided a figure for the temperature change on average over the past 132 years: 0.85 degrees Celsius [1] Human industrialization was not capable of producing enough pollution before then to significantly increase the Earth’s temperature, so this number will be our benchmark for the maximum amount of atmospheric change that could have been caused by humans. Now we will compare it to the rest of the atmospheric change that has caused global warming. The University of Indiana has been generous enough to provide a program that calculates planetary temperatures based on figures such as the mass of its sun, its distance to it, etc. [2] The figures necessary for what we want to calculate are provided by NASA. [3] First, we will run the simulation for Earth right now. The value it returns: 15 degrees Celsius (This corroborates with other estimates of the Earth’s average temperature [4]) Now, we must check our base value from which the atmosphere warms the Earth, in other words, what the temperature of the Earth would be if there was no atmosphere. The value returned is: -10 degrees Celsius The difference between the two, or the increase in temperature caused by Earth’s atmosphere, is thus 25 degrees Celsius. To work out the percentage that humans have caused, we simply divide our first answer by this one: 0.85 degrees Celsius / 25 degrees Celsius = 3.4% As 96.6% can certainly be described as "almost all", and the atmospheric global warming not caused by humans makes up 96.6% of total global warming, we can safely say that almost all atmospheric global warming is NOT caused by human beings. However, this is just Earth’s atmosphere. We never specified Earth anywhere. What about other planets? Hopefully we can all agree that humans do not cause the increase in temperature on Venus, therefore 100% of all atmospheric global warming on Venus is not caused by humans. Our planetary temperature calculator tells us that the amount of increase caused by the atmosphere of Venus is: Temperature of Venus With Atmosphere = 308 degrees Celsius Temperature of Venus With No Atmosphere = -84 degrees Celsius 308 degrees Celsius - ( -84 degrees Celsius ) = 392 degrees Celsius Thus, our new percentage of atmospheric global warming becomes: 0.85 degrees Celsius / ( 25 degrees Celsius + 392 degrees Celsius ) = 0.2% Thus, on merely Earth and Venus alone, the percentage of atmospheric global warming is an infinitesimal one fifth of a percent. And this calculation completely ignores the billions of other planets whose atmospheres have global warming effects of their own, and reduce the fraction caused by humans to nearly zero. SOURCES: [1] https://www2.ucar.edu... [2] http://www.astro.indiana.edu... [3] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... [4] https://www2.ucar.edu...
Almost All Atmospheric Global Warming is Not Caused by Humans

Dude i understand the resolution. Warming is a continious action. Global warming is therefore a continuing action. "almost all Atmospheric global warming is not caused by humans."The resolution your really asking "Almost all of the atmospheric global heat change is not caused by humans." Global warming is ongoing and therefore constantly changing and you agree with me here. "Do not be confused though. I agree that the 0.85 degrees Celsius change was caused by human industrialization. I also agree that it occurred over a relatively short period of time, and that this is alarming. I also agree that unless immediate action is taken, the consequences may be severe." You should have had the resolution that: "almost all of the atmospheric heat is not caused by humans." This thereby dodges the continuity of global warming itself. The key thing to remember when voting for this debate is should we take warming as a constantly changing state, or take data from two points; one without an atmosphere and then with one with an atmosphere and call that "warming" when actually just measuring the temperature the difference of something aside from what global warming really is, a continous change. http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, i have better evidence
College should be free

Thank you in advance to the person who accepts this debate. I believe that college should be free, or at least should go for a reduced price. Currently the price of college, in America, is staggering. Most of the time it puts the students who do go into debt, some carrying it into their 40s! Some people who have perfect grades and are well rounded cannot go because they cannot afford it and it'd be a bad idea to take out a loan, they could've been the one to cure cancer but alas, they couldn't afford college so they never got the chance.