BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

I was not correcting your grammar, although it does seem to need it. I was instead pointing out that according to your topic and opening statement, the scope of the debate is restricted to players who used steroids in the past. I'll address the arguments in the order I gave them because your responses are sort of all over the place. 1) I claimed that we cannot punish players for steroids because they were not illegal for a long time. Your response is to concede this point, but argue that we should restrict the HOF for future players. First, this is in direct contradiction with your use of past tenses in the topic and opening statement. Second, this absolves Bonds, Sosa, McGuire and the majority of players that are discussed in the 'roids conversation. I wonder if this is really what you want. 2) I claim that we cannot know who used steroids in the past and you respond by saying that we can test steroids by spiked stats and under oath admissions. Clearly spiked stats are an absurd way to test because there's no way to know the difference between steroids and good old fashion improvement. Second, no one is going to admit under oath that they used because as you admit there's no way to retroactively test steroids so there's no means of enforcement. As a side note, you are dead wrong in claiming that Clemens denied the allegations 10 days later. He was denying them the day they were released. Watch ESPN buddy. 3) This argument was a poor one on my part and while so is your response, I'll drop it. 4) You COMPLETELY IGNORE this argument and it's a brilliant one. There's no way to justify adding a penalty that didn't exist when people make the choice to use. And, since your topic and opening statement only deals with the past tense and thus these kinds of cases. You lose almsot automatically. 5) Another DROPPED ARGUMENT. Accidents happen, that's why the current policy doesn't ban players for life after one offense. Banning them from the HOF is way too harsh. CONCLUSION: read argument 4 and read my opponents complete lack of response. I win on that alone. Also, the debate is about the past tense, not what should happen to people who use in the future. THis makes arguments 1 and 2 amazing as well.
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

First, your grammer error that you corrected was only because I had to shorten the topic to the correct amount of characters, and I apologize for that. Second, It is possible to test players for steroids. We would be able to find out by spiked stats (HR's for example in Barry Bonds' case). We would also be able to tell if they were under oath. If they lied at that point and were later discovered to have done that, they would be convicted of perjury and sentenced to jail time on top of the dismissed HOF bid. Third. Sure steroids weren't illegal until a certain point in baseball's history, and therefore we could make the rule apply to anything after that. Fourth, the Mitchell report was based off of hearsay, but it still had insight into steroid use and is most likely correct in most cases (here's a brief example since this isn't part of the topic: Roger Clemens denied the steroid allegations 10 days after the report came out with his name in it. Had he actually not done steroids, shouldn't he have IMMEDIATELY responded to incorrect allegations and sued anyone connected on terms of libel accusations?) Fifth, sure there were pitchers AND batters using, but not all of them used. Those who stayed away from them were not rewarded for their moral decision but rather were put down because of it. Their batting averages went down and were paid less in return for their 'poor' performance. I now await your response.
Baseball players who were discovered to use steroids shouldnt be in the HOF and their records erased

You'll have to forgive me for being a little bit of a grammar lawyer here: you use the past tense a lot in you argument. The topic is "players who WERE ..." and you use the term "used". I assume that this means you are referring to players who have been shown to use steroids previously. There are a few problems with removing them from the HOF: 1. For a long time, steroids were not banned by baseball, but were illegal in the US. You cannot restrict a person's HOF status for something that baseball did not make illegal. 2. There is no hope of reliable evidence about who used and who didn't use in the past. Even the Mitchell report only produced hearsay and speculation. Since we cannot retroactively test players for steroids, we can never know who used, so we can't ban anyone from the HOF. 3. If many in the media are to be believed, steroids were rampant. They are usually a problem because they give players an unfair advantage, but if everyone's using, then you get no more of an unfair advantage than lifting weights. This means that the records are still important because while batters may have been juiced, so were pitchers. 4. it is unfair to give players a penalty that they did not know they would face. It's like if when you got a speeding ticket, the policeman said "oh yeah, and by the way, you're also going to jail for the next 10 years". If you had known about the jail time, you wouldn't speed, the case for baseball is similar. If you want to add new rules that say records will be removed, that's fine, but doing it retroactively is unfair. 5. under your proposal, if I accidentally am injected by my trainer once with a steroid and never use again, I lose my HOF record. That would be absurd. onto your points: 1. "anyone who used steroids cheated and cheaters shouldn't be awarded by being allowed into the HOF". I answer this above, but additionally, it does depends on waht record they broke. Steroids don't really help you improve batting average or fielding percentages for example. 2. "Do we really want our kids to look up to someone who used steroids to get ahead? what does that teach our kids" The incident will teach kids whatever parents decide to teach them. Removing HOF awards to help "teach kids" is absurd. Run PAs or something, don't give unforeseen consequences to players. 3. "it creates a deterrent for not using them instead of just a suspension". The current system does a fine job of being a deterrent. People who use will get caught and they will not play anymore.
zombie world is conceivable and therefore possible

This is the final round of the debate. In which I will summarize the content. I have successfully argue against the premises of conceivability and possibility of a zombie world. I have provided objections to the premises and elaborated objections with the use of colourful examples. Whereas, My opponent has not defended any of the premises that point in the other direction. In fact, in the second round he has questioned sanity of his own perspective. Besides, he was unable to provide genuine evidence(only pseudo evidence) or framework for explanation of his position. Therefore, I am very certain about winning this debate.
zombie world is conceivable and therefore possible

The objections from my opponent who argues in favour of conceivability and possibility of philosophical zombies: 1. Plagiarism Rebuttal: my argument if 100% unique according to plagiarism checker. https://smallseotools.com... Besides, I am a university student that has successfully finished philosophy module. 2. The nature of philosophical zombies Rebuttal: I have successfully discussed limitations of conceivability argument to prove possibility of existence of zombies in the previous round. In fact, I am arguing against that we can properly conceive these creatures and prove their existence. My objections to the conceivability argument initiated in the second round stay untouched by my opponent. He has not defended the premises of the argument or provided arguments in favour of his position. Thus, the conceivability argument is not enough to prove possibility of zombie world. I advise my opponent to at least try to make one point in this debate. Actually, in the second round my opponent has scored in his own goal by objecting to the nature of the zombie world.
zombie world is conceivable and therefore possible

In the beginning, Zombies were just an imagination of a writer. Fiction. However, Aliens were also imagination, but now there is a possibility they are real and out there...so why cant Zombies... Of course i dont mean Zombies are already out there...ready to eat our brains out for dinner...I mean they are possible. There are 2 ways they could be possible --> 1) Drugs 2) Disease 1) Drugs: Drugs like "FLAKKA" have already made people go crazy, and many people are starting to compare them with zombies due to their actions. A person victim to FLAKKA was first sited in Brazil....He was breaking the windows of a transport Bus.. 2) Disease: Fortunately there are no diseases discovered that make people act like "Zombies"...but its possible and logical. Waiting for Round 2 and i hope you see my point of view...
Marjiuana should be legal

.. argument. You claim that a movie called "Super High Me" prove that Marijuana helps your memory. Not only did you fail to provided a link/clip of this "proof", but you completely ignored the other facts! I beleive you are referring to this debate that I did: . http://www.debate.org... This debate is not even about alcohol. Audience, my opponent has failed to respond in the correct manner. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. I would also like to thank Luke Skywalker for this debate. .. SON! ! !
Marjiuana should be legal

Ok Not Bad BUT!!!! Your 65% wrong If you seen the movie Super High Me sequal to Super Size Me Then you would know that when high on Mary jane your memory is actually better and your reading and mathematics skills are also better. Also study shows that wen high on mary jane your more capable of producing Psyhic ability. Can i ask u question Koopin? Whens the last time you heard of someone high driving and wrecking or high abuse and dying the point of the debate was that is Alcohol is legal why isnt mary jane.. Oh yea My friend, Or Father as you say I took the liberty in reading one of your previous debates and you said it your self and i quote Now I will post my Pandemics. 1. Somehow, all the water in the world intoxicates you twice as much as vodka, even if filtered, treated, of cleaned. The effects are irreversible. While many people would rejoice over this, the joy would only last for a little while. We would no longer be able to operate cars, go for walks on bridges, or make it to KFC before closing time. Many people would be out of jobs, therefore millions of people would not have money to buy food. Even if they could get food, how would they walk there? You can not drink 8 cups of vodka a day, but that is how much water one needs. Many people would get poisoning, some would throw up, cops could not stop anyone because they would be drunk to. So that proves out of the horses mouth that alcohol isnt something that should be freely loose in society oppose to Mary Jane... Thank You And Eat Dirt LOSER HAHAHAHA
Marjiuana should be legal

My opponent did not say "Medical Marijuana should be legalized. " He simply said that Marijuana should be legal. While I do not find this completely fair, he has not broken any written rules. I am Con Marijuana, Pro medical Marijuana. Therefore I will be playing somewhat of the devils advocate. Just because something feels good to people who are sick, is not a reason to legalize it. Marijuana is proven to be a dangerous drug. Some of the short term effects are: 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). 2. Problems with memory and learning. 3. Loss of coordination. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. There are many reasons why these things can be bad, I will go through them one by one as quickly as I can. 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). This is very dangerous, the reason is because people will take the drug and drive at the same time. Car accidents will go through the roof. This is an example of death with Marijuana. What people like to do is say that no one has died because of Marijuana. Well, no one has died of a cell phone, yet many people die from talking while driving. 2. Problems with memory and learning. Children these days already are failing in school. Why would we want to add to that? They need all the memory and learning they can get. 3. Loss of coordination. This corresponds with number one. More accidents, more deaths. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. This also corresponds with number two. But not only for kids, people need all the brain power they can get. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. Some people do not even know that they have a bad heart. Marijuana could hurt these people. It would be no use to use on most sick patients. Lots of them have a bad heart. Many people who take the drug for medical purposes get addicted to it. Many people do not get addicted to it, but there are some that do. There are also many other dangerous effects. Like sleepiness, an altered sense of time and space, hallucinations, delusions, disorientation. Marijuana contains more than 400 different chemicals; this is bad for obvious reasons. Marijuana also can lead to lung and/or throat cancer. (Again, they don't die of Marijuana, just cancer. ) Your father's theory sounds good, but there can not be a law based off of it. Just because 8 out of 10 people say that there is a KFC on the moon does not make it true. Something else to consider, there would be a major increase in health problems. Therefore, there would be a major increase in the cost of health care. No one in any country wants this. I will stop here for now and look forward to your response. May the force, again. AND I AM YOUR FATHER! !! ! SOURCES: (1). . http://faculty.washington.edu...
Marjiuana should be legal

Ok here i go. Marijuana or as i like to say "Weed" is also known as Cannabis or Ganja (Hemp), and as well all know that cannabis and hemp are boths forms of plants,which comes from the Earth (Mother Nature). Now why should a government make use of a substance that comes the Earth (Mother Nature) illegal. Weed can be used for medicinal purposes such as depression, glaucoma,and HIV/Aids. Marijuana has been a main ingredient in natural remedies for thousands of years. Marijuana products were also used in China and India as early as 3000 B.C. to treat a variety of ills -- from easing the pain of childbirth to relieving asthma and epilepsy, even improving appetite and disposition Never in all my life have i heard of a person dying from an overdose of marijuana or plant abuse lol thats crazy/ My father always told me that if 10 people are in a room and 8 say something is correct then it must be correct. The United Nations (UN) estimated that in 2004 about 4% of the world's adult population (162 million people) use cannabis annually, and about 0.6% (22.5 million) use it on a daily basis... And that is a whole lot of people... Now Take that and compare that to Alcohol. Alcohol abuse - Alcoholic beverages at a level that interferes with physical health, mental health, and social, family, or job responsibilities. Even a few drinks can change behavior, slow motor skills, and decrease the ability to think clearly. Alcohol can impair concentration and judgment. Drinking a lot of alcohol can cause drunkenness (intoxication). Some of the symptoms of alcoholism include: •Abdominal pain •Confusion •Drinking alone •Episodes of violence with drinking •Hostility when confronted about drinking •Lack of control over drinking -- being unable to stop or reduce alcohol intake •Making excuses to drink •Nausea and vomiting •Need for daily or regular alcohol use to function •Neglecting to eat •Not caring for physical appearance •Numbness and tingling •Secretive behavior to hide alcohol use •Shaking in the morning •Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 13,050 •Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 22,073 http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.cdc.gov... And Alcohol is very legal my friend very legal Thank You 4 accepting my debate and allowing me to express myself Now May the force be with U!!!!
Goosebumps is an awesome movie!!

Pro failed to meet the burden of proof that Goosebumps is an awesome movie. He just says, no the movie. I did that as a trick, and he followed into it. Pro failed to meet the burden, so vote for Con.1. OpinionIt is your opinion that Goosebumps is an awesome movie. It can be different for everyone. For me, It was scary, so it was not fun.
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

The Macquarie Dictionary defines the term "climate change" as- a significant change in the usual climatic conditions especially that thought to be caused by global warming. This 'climate change' can be caused by natural or human induced impacts. The global average temperature has risen by nearly a degree in the past 50 years. Scientists around the world have been recording temperature increases, raised ocean levels and melting of ice caps. All this is evidence that the earth is experiencing a "climate change". Many people believe that this change is primarily due to the fact that our CO2 emissions have created more greenhouse gases. They believe that there is a relationship between the rise in temperatures and the rise in CO2 emissions. Data shows an "association" between temperature levels and CO2 emissions but does not necessarily prove that increased CO2 levels are the most significant aspect of today"s climate change. For something complex like the weather system, many scientists are needed to unravel the story behind climate change. While most scientists believe climate change occurs, not all agree on the extent and relevance of human activity as an influence on climate change. While major international climate agencies all emphasise the critical role of CO2 emissions in climate change, others are not so sure. For example, some scientists have conducted research that suggests that temperatures were higher than they are today, during the Roman and Medieval periods. These ancient civilisations would not have emitted CO2 emissions as we do today, so why did their temperatures rise? Temperatures have risen and fallen for a long time. The National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) states that climate change over the longer term is mainly due to the amount of sun energy hitting the Earth. Slight changes in the Earth"s orbit and changes in sun ray intensity, can alter the temperatures here on Earth. Even so, most scientists still emphasise the role of CO2 emissions in unprecedented, rapid global warming. The frank fact is that climate change cannot be stopped. It is completely natural.
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

Before I make my points, I would like to address the mistaken Negative. I do know that the topic is "CO2 is the largest factor in global warming", and that is what I am arguing. I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear in my evidence, but if you look back you will find that I certainly did argue that point. Your evidence was arguing against CO2 being the largest factor, and as your opponent that is what I must counter. Now that it's out of the way, let's begin. Negative thinks I only believe CO2 is speeding up the process of climate change. It most definitely is, and they are not mistaken in that. But not only is it speeding up and forcing climate change to continue, it is the main factor in this. No matter what my opponent may think, my evidence clearly showed CO2 is the largest threat. Greenhouse gases are proven to be the largest contributor to global warming, and CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas. And according to the World Meteorological Organization, the US Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, the European Commission and thousands of scientists, CO2 is the largest factor. Negative may say that fluctuations in the earths orbit are the largest cause. To say that fluctuations in earths orbit are the largest cause is a bold statement. I think that by orbit fluctuations, he means that it causes Suns rays to hit the earth more. But according to NASA, solar maxima is only .1 percent higher than solar minima on average. To further my counter argument, if there had been an increase in solar output, both the stratosphere and troposphere would have warmed up. But instead, patterns show that the stratosphere has actually cooled. Meanwhile, land and the troposphere have been warming, which is no doubt due to greenhouse gases (particularly CO2). This shows that fluctuations in earths orbit, although drastically climate changing when they occur, are not occurring right now. However, the effects of the Suns rays on earth are increasing. Not because of orbit fluctuation, but because of greenhouse gases that trap the Suns heat. CO2 is directly responsible for global warming today. In the earlier graph, I showed how carbon emissions have increased drastically since the industrial revolution. I then linked a graph that showed temperature increase over the same time period. The fact is, since the industrial revolution, temperatures have drastically increased at a rate that would never have occurred without coal burning and that whole era. So CO2 emission IS directly responsible for global warming. The negative, in their conclusion, called my points invalid. I say the exact opposite. I stand by my points, and the facts that went with it. I most surely do not agree that their case is correct. I have just shown why their case is completely wrong. CO2 was the initial cause of global warming, and this is shown in hundreds of studies and tests since that show the before and after the industrial revolution. The fact is, today CO2 is the largest factor and the cause, and I have all the sources to support it. Sources: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... And sources I cited earlier.
CO2 emissions are directly responsible for climate change.

Before I begin I would like to initially reinforce the topic of the debate: CO2 emissions are DIRECTLY responsible for climate change. As the negative, I will rebut the affirmative as to why CO2 emissions (whilst adding to the heat of the planet) are not directly responsible for the changes we are experiencing on our Earth today. The affirmative stated statistics such as- 'CO2 is the largest factor of global warming', '97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made', 'CO2 is the largest greenhouse gas threat'. Whilst these points may be tried and tested, they do not favour the topic when the phrase 'directly responsible' is included. From what I gather, the affirmative believes that CO2 is speeding up the process of global warming. Whilst this may be true, in between the lines of this statement we can discover that another factor is actually CAUSING the process of global warming. As the negative, I believe that the cause is the fluctuation of the Earth's orbit (which the affirmative incorrectly stated as 'stable') and the consistent rise and fall of the planet's historical temperatures. I stand by the points I raised in the first round and have now refuted the rebuttal put forward by the affirmative and regarded it as invalid. Does the affirmative have anything within it's case to state why my reason for global warming is incorrect? Do they believe that CO2 emissions are the initial cause of the Earth heating world-wide? By now, they should surely agree that CO2 emission are not directly responsible for climate change.