BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.

There's a huge difference between some Czech poltician saying the IPCC is a political body and it actually being one. I am unconcerned about a Czech politician being convinced that global warming is a myth specially because he doesn't exactly cite any evidence, does he? And actually, I wasn't going to ask why American politicians don't think so because they do. 11 senators and 36 House members newly elected believe in the so-called "myth" of climate change (1). In addition, the "evidence" you have provided to support your claim is very inadequate since you only actually list two cases in which science skeptics have been "silenced." Furthermore, in your Oregon example, this climateologist's free speech wasn't being infringed upon, he wasn't banned from ever speaking out against This also destroys your argument that skeptics are pariahs. If four dozen lawmakers are skeptical of science, how can you possibily claim that "science is being quashed?"Allow me to refute your video with a simple paragraph from the LA times. (2) "A team of UC Berkeley physicists and statisticians that set out to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming is finding that its data-crunching effort is producing results nearly identical to those underlying the prevailing view." But, how was this study funded? Was it all a liberal hoax? No. The LA times writes: The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, at $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on the burning of fossil fuels, the largest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases." This sounds to me like only those who almost religiously believe global warming is a myth are actually continuining the struggle, whereas those who actually conduct the science are switching sides. The evidence indicating the increase in carbon content of the atmosphere is overwhleming and undeniable. According to NASA's best estimates, 1950 was the first 650,000 years that the carbon content of Earth's atmosphere climbed higher than 300 parts per million (2). And over the past 4 years alone (1), the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere jumped from roughly 385 to 394.29 and, judging from the linked graph, the rate of CO2 increase will continue to climb. Both your video and this statement can be true. In the earth's past, the reason CO2 levels haven't driven climate change was because CO2 levels in the past were not high enough to make a significant imact1. http://www.businessweek.com...2. http://articles.latimes.com...3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov...4. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Global warming is human caused and deserves to be a major concern when deciding American policy.

Yeah...I agree. 4k is definitely not enough. Sorry about that :(Refutation to 1st paragraph: The sun doesn't effect the seasons in a significant way, the rotations of the planets do. Pluto and Triton's global warmings may be due to the fact that they have a much longer orbit time than we do and, as their eliptical orbit brings them closer to the sun, they start to heat up. The graudual increase of the sun's temperature would likely increase the surface temperature of the earth by much more tha 1ºC over a century. This "heating of the sun" theory also leaves the corrolation between increased temperatures and increased CO2 levels completely unexplained, and is thus an incomplete explaination for the data we have observed in relation to climate change. To illustrate my point, here's a quote from your 6th sources "Willson said that most researchers expect greenhouse gases to warm the planet by 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the next 100 years. Solar irradiance could add another 0.72 degrees F and 'that is not an insignificant number. It is smaller than the greenhouse effect, but it is not trivial,' he said.So although the sun MAY BE getting hotter, the increase in the temperature of the sun does not adquately explain the global warming we have experienced over the last century.Refutation to 2nd paragraph:I will ignore your "scientists claim Global Warming a 'sham'" because your scientists do not present evidence, and they do not represent a majority of the scientific community. Nor is it likely that they possess the tools necessary to carry out experiments on the scale that would DISPROVE global waming. "However,warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels, therefore a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions." This argument...makes little sense. Not only is it not sourced, it doesn't say that there SHOULD be a relation between CO2 levels and temperature levels. Prior to the advent of heavy industry, the earth has not experienced a bombardment of CO2 on such a scale as now, and so it makes no sense to say "Temperatures rose and 800 years later, CO2 levels rose, therefore CO2 does not cause temperature to rise." Increase in temperature could be due to many other factors, like methane emissions, or (if your sun temperature increase argument stands) the increase of the temperature of he sun, or just the general unpredictability of weather.
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God

I thank microsuck for his response.The first thing I notice is that pros assertions support my case. He says " God can do anything and everything that is not contradictory to his holy nature." If God can do anything and everything that is not contradictory to his nature, than God can create a stone to heavy he can't lift while still being able to lift it, which is what the paradox of the stone is about. This was my basic argument for the last round and pro has done very little to refute it. I have charitably assumed absolute omnipotence even though that is not the most common view of omnipotence (the POTS would not work on the common view). However with absolute omnipotence God could do literally anything, thus all paradox's are irrelevant because he could overcome them. Having absolute omnipotence would entail that God is above logic. In other words God could change logic. Thus God could make literally any statement logical. Any statement would include that God could make a stone so heavy he can't lift it while still being able to lift it. That seems like a deeply flawed and non-sensical statement but if God can shift logic he can turn it into a completely logical statement. Pro has again not done much to refute this. Pro takes a different but irrelevant avenue to refute Gods omnipotence. He seems to be arguing that the fact that God can't go against his nature disproves his omnipotence. That is nothing but a strawman which I will not bother to refute. His burden is to defend the paradox of the stone argument. That argument mentions nothing about God not being able to go against his nature, thus I would ask the viewers to also ignore it. It's like using the moral argument to prove God when the debate is about the ontological argument. My opponent is using his own argument to refute Gods omnipotence when the debate is about the paradox of the stone. It is nothing but a strawman. This debate is about the paradox of the stone, not any argument you can think of that refutes God's omnipotence.Moreover pro also continues to assume we are arguing the Christian God when I pointed out in the last round no such thing was included in the first round. I would ask again that my opponent stop arguing with scripture for it has no baring. So even if pros contentions were relevant his argument still has no backing as he has yet to show why we should accept his definition of omnipotence. Re-capWe are arguing the paradox of the stone but pros sole argument is about God not being able to contradict his nature which the paradox of the stone doesn't even mention. Thus pro is not even affirming the resolution which is his burden. To further demonstrate, pro has the burden to show that b disproves a. That is his sole burden. However what he tries to do is show that c disproves a. Even if c disproved a it does not show that b disproves a. This debate is about whether the paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God. It is about a specific argument but pro uses a different argument which the debate is not about.
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God

Thank you con. Here is the argument in a nutshell: Imagine if I were to give you a sword & shield and say "the sword can destroy any object while the shield can defend you from any object." What is the first question you would ask me? The question would be "What would happen if the sword struck the shield?" Hence, an undestructable shield and a sword that is able to destroy anything is impossible. Likewise, it is impossible for God to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it.P.1 If God can do literally anything then God is above logic.The problem is that no Christian Theists believes that God can do literally everything as God cannot do anything that is contradictory to his nature.P1. God can do anything and everything that is not contradictory to his holy nature. P2. Creating a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it is not contradictory.P3. Therefore, God can create a stone that he cannot lift.P4. However, this limits his omnipotence.C. Therefore, God is not all powerful. This is a problem because this is contradictory to what the Bible says.Jeremiah 32:17 says, "Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." (ESV) Luke 1:37, "For nothing will be impossible with God.”<!-- Sidebar note: This also contradicts itself for if God can do anything, it is logically possible for God to sin; which is impossible according to other passages in the Bible --> Conclusion I took this debate playing the devil's advocate. I would never use this argument in a real debate on the existence of God. The conclusion is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for God to create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift. Hence, he not all powerful. If my opponent argues that God can do the logically impossible, then my opponent must also admit that it is possible for God to go against his nature, which the Bible says is impossible! The conclusion is that the Christian God cannot exist via the stone paradox. Thank you.
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God

Although I agree with my opponent, I will be playing Devil's advocate. Because my opponent did not define 'omnipotent", I will do so:om·nip·o·tent (ŏm-nĭp’ə-tənt) "It is the quality of having all power (Psalm 115:3). He can do all things that do not conflict with his holy nature. God has the power to do anything he wants to do. However, God cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. For example, God cannot lie (Titus 1:2)."http://carm.org...;
The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God

Resolution: The paradox of the stone refutes an omnipotent God The paradox of the stone goes as follows: P.1 God either can or cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it. P.2 If God can create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. P.3 If God cannot create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. Therefore: P.4 God is not omnipotent. P.5 If God exists then he is omnipotent. Therefore: P.6 God does not exist. [1] First round acceptance No arguments last round Please refrain from semantics. [1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

Let me begin by saying that suffering can have it's positives as you do point out, but I think a more appropriate word in your case would be challenges, as we encounter many of these in our lives everyday. However suffering, which is commonly defined as "an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual should not be encouraged and I believe that is is unreasonable for you to suggest that reducing suffering is a bad thing, in fact it is quite logical to do so. When we are sick, or ill we take medicine and seek treatment to ensure we recover from our illness as quickly as possible. Well in the case of terminal illness, in which Brittany Maynard has been given only six months to live, there is no recovery! There is the inevitable occurrence of death which happens to end suffering, just like medicine does when we try and cure a non life threatening ailment or disease. Killing herself is Brittany Maynard's medicine, and a way to cure her inevitable suffering! I can't lie, I am incensed by your comments that she should "choose bravery over cowardice and trust in the plan of a higher power." It is clear that your arguments revolve around the one constant of "God and Religion." Well god and religion are personal beliefs which differ between individuals and to be frank, should not be used in criticizing her decision. But since you love to fall back on religion so much, what is the main story in the New Testament of the Bible? Was it not Jesus sacrificing himself for the sake of mankind? Would you refer to him as a "coward"? You are in absolutely no position to say that Maynard is a coward, and when you break this issue down into it's simplest form, you have: 1) Brittany Maynard is suffering from terminal brain cancer in which she has six months to live 2) To avoid prolonged suffering, she along with her husband have decided to plan her death 3) Your version of God has nothing to do with this, it is her life, and she has the right to go out on her own terms! "If you truly believe there is a God then you would trust him completely to provide for all people's lives through suffering until their natural end." Please stop with this whole God argument. My interpretation of what God is might be completely different to yours. In fact, my version of God is one that would welcome somebody who kills themselves with open arms, into a life free of suffering. Everybody's interpretations are different, which is why religion should not be used to call her a "coward." Your comments about suicide continue to frustrate me as like in the case of a person with terminal illness, you have no right to say suicide is "bad" because you are not in their position. Suicide is a tragic and unfortunate event and it is completely wrong of you to suggest that the people who do it are taking the easy way out. I do like forward to your response, however you have not led me to an understanding of the complete truth, but a further example as to why hypothetical religious beliefs should not be used in a real world debate.
Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

Regarding the people who, if given the choice, choose not to die, I am not suggesting that they are not courageous. However I believe that the main point here is that at least they must be given the choice, like Brittany Maynard should be given the choice as to whether or not she wants to die now, or suffer for six months in front of her husband, family and friends with terminal brain cancer, a disease which may reduce her to a bedridden state, being unable to function independently and coupled with extreme pain and suffering. I see you are using God and religion as a means to justify your argument. Now I am a believer in God, however who this "higher power" is a very personal thing that can differ from person to person, therefore making it irrelevant as a way to justify your point of view on this issue. Your beliefs about God"s divine plan for all of us are YOUR beliefs, and as a result should not be generalized to an issue which affects thousands of people around the world who may be suffering from a terminal illness or other related problems. Now I don"t know what Maynard"s religious beliefs are, but she has the right to choose whether she wants to die and no "God" or their plan should deny her that right. You mention that it would be the ultimate form of disrespect to assist somebody in committing suicide; however it would be even more disrespectful not to allow them to make the decision themselves as it is THEIR life, not yours. I do agree with you regarding the guidelines about assisted suicide, and certain parameters should be put in place to ensure that if a medical professional is assist somebody in voluntarily ending their life, they should be suffering from a terminal illness in which death is inevitable, like Brittany Maynard is currently. Lastly, I do find your comments about suffering be a good thing quite disrespectful. You mention enlightenment and how life is a gift that should not be taken from us. Since you like to bring up religion, I would like to bring to your attention that yes God did create life, however when he did so, he gave us FREE WILL, which allows us to make our own decisions, even involving our deaths. The fact that you call Brittany Maynard, an unfortunate young women with terminal brain cancer a "coward, who should embrace suffering and not take the easy way out," is a cruel and ignorant comment. What about suicide? The people all around the world who suffer from problems so severe, such as depression, that they feel ending their life is the only way out. Are you suggesting that these poor people are cowards also? What gives you the right to say they are taking the easy way out, and then hide behind an antiquated Bible with a hypothetical "divine plan" for all humans as a means to justify your opinion? I respect your religious beliefs, however I respect Brittany Maynard's right to die with dignity more, as it is a right that every human being should have.
Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

If you are saying that it is dignified and courageous that a person who is terminally ill ends their life, what do you say about the people who do not end their life? Are they not dignified or courageous? To your first counter argument, no, the decision to end one's life is not ours to be made. It is a decision which God only has the right to fulfill according to his divine plan for each of us. God gave us life, so we cannot take it. In other words, God allowed us to enter this life, so how can we choose or think it acceptable to throw it out before our time is finished? It is the duty of medical practitioners to uphold the Hippocratic Oath requiring the respect of human dignity of life (in all circumstances), not the dignity of suicide. And it is the duty of all of us to respect life until it's natural end regardless of how painful it may be for a person to live. This includes, as you said, giving as much support possible to the person who is terminally ill so that may have an easier journey throughout the hard time of suffering and death but it does NOT include assisting them in their own death. This would be the ultimate form of disrespect for a person. Regarding an "assessment", if a perfectly healthy person walked into the hospital and asked to end their life, there would be no doctor in any state that would agree to do it. The person who requests euthanasia would have to fall under certain rules created by the medical field. This means that the doctor would have to agree that the life of the person is worthless. Can't you see the scary sort of conflict of interest we would now be encouraging? Imagine this. If you had a terminal illness, visited your doctor, and the patient before you (who had the exact same illness) was given a pill to end their life, how can you expect the doctor to do everything in his/her power to extend the same thing he just diagnosed as pointless? Then, medicine goes from prolonging life... to ending life. Hopefully now you can see the conflict that would arise with an "assessment" as you called it. To your last question, no, I have not suffered from a terminal illness. But I can tell you, however, that suffering isn't completely a bad thing. Rather, there are many goods which can come from suffering. These include: 1) Enlightenment- (Recognizing that life is a gift (not to be taken by us) which was given to all of us by God, realizing that it ought to be lived and not thrown away due to the fear of suffering and natural death!) 2) Detachment- (Detaching ourselves from all things which lead us to view life as "meaningless" or pointless/monotonous) 3) Reparation- (To mend our life back to what it was meant to be.. a life without unhealthy thoughts, actions, behaviors, SIN!) 4) Character Building/Virtue 5) Humility 6) Compassion 7) Drawing out love in others- (If Brittany would embrace suffering instead of choosing to avoid it and taking the 'easy way out', great love may be drawn from her family and friends through the former decision). I am very happy to answer back to any further arguments or questions you may have! With Love, Katie Adams
Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

I personally see no problem at all with a person being allowed to "die with dignity" as it is commonly called, especially when they are suffering from a terminal illness such as cancer which can lead to great pain and suffering. You mention that humans are of equal worth and should be respected, so shouldn't a decision as important as dying be left up to them, and respected by others? As part of society's "commitment to care for the dying" which you also mention, it could be improved by also including an assessment as to whether or not a person is ill enough to be allowed to choose to die, and professionals giving these people advice and support throughout this difficult time. Lastly I believe that you are in no position to call Maynard's decision cowardly. Have you suffered from a terminal illness in which suffering can become so severe that you would rather voluntary end your life? I believe that if you were ever in this position, only then would you would be able to truly assess if it would be cowardly to choose to die over a life of misery and suffering for you and your family. In no way are her actions immoral, what would be more immoral is denying her this opportunity and forcing her to endure suffering until her inevitable death at the hands of cancer anyway!
Brittany Maynard's Decision to Die is Cowardly

Being able to choose our time of death is not our choice and is not a right which we have. All humans are of great and equal worth and should be respected by others and protected by society. Euthanasia/physician assisted suicide directly undermines our society's commitment to care for the dying. Instead of turning away from natural death and suffering we must learn to embrace them both and not resort to an unnatural and immoral means of ending a life!
The Bishop is better than the Knight in a game of chess

Thanks for the debate and prompt reply BillBonJovi. R1. When there is much closed space on the board, the Knight is far superior to the bishop. Thus, in the early game, a Knight is central for clearing out the opposition. Very true, the bishop has an advantage over time. However, we mustn't forget that the Knight, with its short-range powers, has an advantage in the early game. Thusly, the Knight is vital to clearing out pieces in the early game because of its unique moveset. Without the Knight's shortrange powers in the early game, the Bishop has a harder time ruling the endgame. Endgame: When did we say anything about two bishops? That should invalidate your point right there. But, to add a bit more, even though a bishop can influence both wings simultaneously, this makes him extremely difficult to maneuver. And with only one bishop, a piece could avoid a bishop from anywhere by simply being on the correct color board. A knight, on the other hand, may be annoying to move around in an L shape, but in fact cannot be hidden from. A knight can move almost anywhere with a few moves. Thus Knights are also useful in the Endgame. R3. Using his Wikipedia source, PRO presents a biased list. In the system used by a computer, a Bishop is worth 0.5 less than a knight. PRO makes it easy to see his bias. I await a response.