BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

Also HFC vehicles are incredibly clean. In a time when government emission regulations are incredibly strict and more people are focusing on the efficiency & environmental impact of their vehicles, HFC offer something that hybrid, conventional gas, diesel, and natural gas vehicles can't & that is a true zero emissions vehicle. And this is all accomplished without the range or battery issues of electric cars. In short HFCs offer all the pros of the other fuels without any of the drawbacks.
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

On the contrary, hydrogen is a naturally occurring element, but not in a gaseous form. The difficulty comes in separating it from other elements. However, there are a number of ways in which that can be done and which have been done for decades now. And yes, HFC Vehicles are expensive to buy, but there were lease options available, like from manufacture Honda which allowed the public to be exposed this new form of automobile. And just like other new technologies the price will go down in time.
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

One of the issues we face with Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles is that they are extremely expensive for consumers. Hydrogen is not a natural energy source, meaning we cannot just get it from the ground, therefore we will have to seperate hydrogen from our source of water. The technology as of now to achieve this is very expensive making a hydrogen fueled car cost $100,000 or more. This is far more that what people are paying for gasoline powered vehicles now.
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

With the inevitable end to our World's fossil fuel reserves we must look to other forms of fuel to power our automobiles and other forms of transport. With Hybrid's, Natural Gas Vehicle's, and Diesel's Engines dependence on petroleum based products for power they are not a viable alternative to regular gasoline. And with the clear and massive limitations of electric vehicles the only common sense choice for the future fuel of the world is Hydrogen and the Fuel Cell Vehicles it powers.
The Future Fuel: Hydrogen

1) Clean Coal has been in use at some power plants since 2008 and its popularity in combination with other clean air technologies like Carbon Capture means that the environmental impact of electricity would be reduced. 2) Propane is, along with other Natural Gases, odorless, but a scent is added to it/them to make the handling of the gas safer. The same can be done to Hydrogen. 3) Extracting Hydrogen from NG shouldn't be done due to the non renewable nature of NG, especially when there are better alternatives.
Who would win, Kakashi Hatake or Sasuke Uchiha

you say Kakashi can't beat the Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan, but if you look at Kakashi' s fight with Pein, or anybody else, he created clones before actually going head to head with anybody, no matter who they are. you argued that he couldn't of killed his master, well he has killed many people and I believe that if he had to he could easily of killed Minato without remorse. Also he defeated Itachi Uchiha. I know you are going to say so did Sasuke, but realize this, he only defeated Itachi because Itachi was sick and wanted Sasuke to become Konoha's leaf ninja who brought down Itachi Uchiha. in other words he LET Sasuke win that fight. he was sick and could've used Susanoo a lot earlier. as for the fact that Kakashi couldn't of beat Izanagi, I also believe Kakashi could've beat Izanagi. all Sasuke did was use logic and watch his opponent to see how his Jutsu worked. that is also how Kakashi works when he fights. he learns people and moves in for the kill after that. as I explained above, the clones would've worked. also when dead Itachi and Sasuke team up to fight Sage Mode Kabuto, we learn that Itachi has a moved similar to Izanagi, but can shape destiny instead of reality, so like I said, Kakashi could do both. Also Kakashi is the person who taught Sasuke in his beginning years, and no matter what others think, what you learn as a youngster sticks with you for life. I am an MMA fighter and my teacher can read me because e taught me in the beginning before I moved to another teacher, so just because Sasuke went to Orichumaru doesn't mean he has a completely different fighting style. so knowing him growing up, Kakashi would be able to predict his moves and styles before he even began using the Sharingan. also Kakashi doesn't whip out the Sharingan for every fight, if you notice he only does it halfway through a fight if he know their is no other option because he knows how it wears him down. so assuming he can fight Sasuke without the Sharingan he would last long enough to analyze him and find his weakness. I look forward to my opponents arguments to this topic.
Who would win, Kakashi Hatake or Sasuke Uchiha

I accept your challenge to my argument. my position is that Kakashi Hatake is better than Sasuke Uchiha for many reasons. for starters he was part of the Anbu Black Ops, and he has never failed to find his target. secondly, he trained under the fourth Hokage Minato Namikage, the father of Naruto Uzumaki. He is the wielder of he Sharingan, given to him by Obito Uchiha, and he created the Chidori, also known as Lighting Blade or Raikiri.
Who would win, Kakashi Hatake or Sasuke Uchiha

I will accept an challenge from anyone. the rules are simple, have supporting facts for the argument that you prepare from any source including but not limited to manga, websites, etc. I am new here so I hope I can put up a good challenge. the debate is on whether or not Kakashi Hatake could beat Sasuke Uchiha. I am going for Kakashi Hatake.
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones.

So we've reached the end of our debate. Clearly there are speculations and concerns issued by many incuding parents, teachers, peadriticians and scientists in regards to our motion. I however still am subscribing to the belief that that the advantages for children to own smart phones outweigh the minor disadvantages that come with it. To sum up, my three points that have been taken into account of our debate are to promote the intellectual development of children ,parallel to The Children's Right, economic and financial reasons and lastly to assimilate the element of latest technology among children to mould technology-savvy generation. Now for my opponent, I am well aware of the fragility of children's biology and how they can be obsessed with smart phones. That's why I did mention parents' role in this matter earlier. They should always control the internet and calls usage by their children. Parents should always remind their children of the danger of phones-oriented radiation to them and make sure that at night when they are sleeping their smart phones are placed at a safe distance. Besides that, if inability to stay focus in class becomes a problem, simple , parents should take away their phones and keep them during school hours return to them after school. In a nutshell, parents should allow their children to own a smart phone. Bear in mind that everything if used excessively can be dangerous and that applies to this situation. With enough control and support by parents, I believe that children can benefit the best from having this wonderful piece of technology! That's all from me, thank you for your time! I really appreciate it. Ps: to con, radiation doesn't "'flow""' in blood vein. It penetrates through your clothes and if powerful enough ( with strong penetrating power) through your skin.
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones.

1. Health an safety issues. A child's (say 5-13) brain absorbs 10x more radiation to the brain than adults. An older 'child' (15-18) may be more immune to radiation, but nevertheless, the 'child' will most likely sleep with the phone next to their heads, allowing 10 + or - hours of radiation streaming into the brain and genitalia, which could cause ADHD, autism, damaged reproduction systems, etc. 2. Distraction. You have already gone against this argument but let me expand. If the child took the phone to school, he would be focused on the phone and the new game he got rather than the teacher. His excuse would be "notes" or "the interactive textbook". And for older children, they would focus on the phones, instead of interacting with others. Most parent won't object to this, in today's culture. Exploring an smart phone not quite exploring technology. The creators of smart phones have made it extremely easy to navigate. Unless they were taking it apart, it's not really exploring technology. I believe there are alternatives to a technological education. One of the safest is a desktop, this also provides the parents with easier ways to make sure the child is doing what heshe is supposed to be doing. I suggest visiting this page for reasons why children should not have smartphones. It was also one of my sources. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones.

I am going to post my first ever debate topic. As stated above the motion shall be "This House believes that children should be allowed to own and use smart phones. So here are the formats for the debate. Round 1: ONLY ACCEPTANCE OF DEBATE Round 2: Arguments and proofs that support each side. ( max : 3 points) Round 3: ONLY Rebuttals against each party Round 4: Conclusion summarizing each party's arguments and his/her It is to be mentioned that I'm quite new to this website and do not frequent this forum to debate. I prefer my opponent to be a newbie too :-) ( preferably but not a must). Also, to make things clear, my opponent should disagree with the motion and only propose ideas that negate the motion. Besides, I would love to see a short, mature and balanced debate, so please don't get overexcited and type too much! In case if I were the one who went over the borderline, do remind me and you are allowed to put forward ideas as much as I did. Plus, I did set the voting period to the max for, as I mentioned above, I do frequent this website much, giving us debaters time, to allow our caprice to take control and our conviction to develop. And lastly , I can't wait for my opponent to accept the challenge and start with the debate! Enjoy! May the best be ever in your favor!
Donald Trump should be the next president of the US.

I acknowledge that most of illegal Mexican immigrants as well as Muslim immigrants are traveling to the US for more life opportunities. However, we cannot afford to take all of them in. The mexicans, although they mean no harm for the most part, they put a huge strain on us economically. They usually don't pay taxes, (and if they do its not to such extent as amer. citizens do), the money they earn, they send back to their home country (which damages the economy), if they get sick/hurt and go to the hospital, they are given free treatment (and while I firmly believe that all hospitals should treat patients no matter what their financial status is, it does cost the government a lot of money), and last but not least, they commit more crime on average. As for the muslims, as you just said yourself, "there are good Muslims and there are bad", and I totally agree with that, in fact I believe that an overwhelming majority of Muslims immigrants are peacefull. However the extremist Muslims with a anti-western ideology can abuse our immigration laws to perform terror attacks in the US, especially right now when extremism is at an all-time high. Therefore a temporary Muslim immigration ban until amount of extremism goes down makes a lot of sense. Regarding to you saying that war between US and Russia is a thing of the past. In my argument I never said that a war is likely. What I said was compared to all the other threats to "bring chaos" to the world US and Russia war would seem like the most probable, even though very unlikely. My reasoning behind this is the recent Ukraine crisis and Russian actions in Syria. The relations between US and Russia are very tense right now compared to how they were post-Cold War. Regarding to Jeb Bush. The reason Jeb dropped out was that he had no chance of beating Trump nor Ted Cruz for that matter. Dropping out doesn't mean you weren't serious about running, just means that going further with your campaign was useless (in Jeb's case). Regarding "Trump being incapable of running the GOP". First of all he isn't running for the leader of Republican Party, he is running for Republican nomination. He is looking to make America great again, not the Republican party. The reason why he is causing damage to the GOP and why GOP hates him, is that he can't be controlled by it. He is not sponsored by anyone and therefore can't be controlled. P.S. please have at least some political knowledge before accepting debates, your arguments had 0 reasoning and support. Just because you don't agree with someone, it does not mean you can argue against them. I feel like I wasted my time writing my statements as you didn't give an adequate response to any of them.
Donald Trump should be the next president of the US.

These Mexican immigrants that are crossing the border are in search of a new life. In Mexico, they face hard times, and going to the US is like a new world for them. As for the Muslims, not all Muslims are extreme. There are some good Muslims and bad Muslims. The war between Russia and the United States is a thing of the past. There was something called the Cold War in the 1900s, when the United States and the former Soviet Union did not talk with each other. Trump spends millions of dollars on his campaign, but so what? Jeb Bush spent a lot of money on his campaign, but now he dropped out. Trump just is not capable of running the Republican Party because he will cause more damage in his party (the Republican Party is suffering hard timer).
Donald Trump should be the next president of the US.

Your argument has no reasoning but I will do my best to respond to it. "Donald Trump is a racist." (I assume that you say so either because he is against illegal immigration from Mexico or because he is against Muslim immigration). Regarding Mexico. I honestly see nothing racist about being against illegal immigration from Mexico. He singled out a small percentage of people (not an entire race) and said that they shouldn't be in our country. Illegal Mexicans cost US 1.3 - 1.6 trillion dollars a year. There is absolutely no background checks done on the people who cross therefore while most are poor families trying to make a living there could also be violent cartel members. It is well known that the cartels pay illegal immigrants money so they would take drugs with them into the US where drug dealers pick them up. In addition, more than 50% of women who illegally cross the border are raped along their journey. Legal immigration would solve all of these problems. Regarding the Muslims. (Before I proceed I would like to point out how unfair it is that Hillary, as a secretary of state voted in favor of many military actions in Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. and indirectly killed thousands of Muslims, meanwhile Trump called for a temporary stop in Muslim immigration and the everybody went crazy). In recent years, radical Islam became extremely popular among Muslims, and while it's true that most Muslims traveling to the US are peaceful people, it's not possible to tell what their ideology is. France, which when compared to US has a huge Muslim population had a great amount of terror attacks in recent years as well as a lot of ISIS recruits. With deaths caused by radical Islam at a all time high last year, another 9/11 is too big of a risk to take at this time. "Having him as the next president will bring chaos to the United States and the world." I see absolutely 0 reasoning in this argument but I will do my best to respond. Arguably the biggest threat to the world right now would most likely be a war against US and Russia. Trump calls for better relations with Russia unlike some other candidates. He believes our relationship shouldn't be destroyed over Ukraine and wants to consider Russia as a business partner rather than competitor. "It seems like he was actually surprised to be in the lead of the Republican Party." No reasoning once again. "That is why he is making all these rude, insensitive comments." I see absolutely no logic in this statement therefore can't respond. "Trump is not serious." How so? Spending millions on a campaign sounds pretty serious to me. "He never expected to be leader of Republican Party." Proof?
Donald Trump should be the next president of the US.

This is my first debate on this website, and I will be arguing for the PRO side. I will be debating mostly through my phone which may result in some grammar errors caused by auto-correct. In addition English is my 2nd language therefore please excuse me for bad grammar. Trump policies are exactly what US needs to remain a strong country. His approach to China, which involves putting tariffs on companies that leave the US, will keep and bring back many companies resulting in higher taxes revenue and low unemployment. His tax plan which involves closing tax loopholes that big corporations use to avoid taxation and a general decrease of taxes on all Americans will give the average consumer more buying power which will result in an economy boost. His approach to Mexico will stop the flow of illegal immigrants which will result in yet another economy boost. In addition to his policies, he is a very successful man who has a good record. First of all while it is true that he inherited a lot of money, it is also true that he made A LOT more than what he started with. Also Trump was one of the few Republicans who publicly opposed the Iraq War, predicting that it will destabilize the middle east.
Breaking Bad is one of the best televison shows ever

Breaking Bad is extremely popular, ain't no denying that. With 10.3 million viewers, it's probably one of the most popular shows of all time 1.9 million viewers alone were drawn in like crack cocaine and began the viscous cycle of Binge-Watching. Then again, if Ratings are the only measure of a series's quality, Keeping Up with the F*cking Kardashians could be an actual serious contender. . . . I still don't even get why people watch that....
My opponent will not say Hello to me.

I congratulate Con in making the arguments above. After reading them I must admit that my previous rebuttals are now reduced to semantics and rhetoric.1. However, Con has ignored the fact that "Saying Hello" would involve directly greeting me. Say Hello: Say or shout "hello"; greet someone:Because there is the possibilty that I never actually clicked on the audio clip and listened to it, there is the possibility that Con has not greeted me. All of the arguments I made could of been created based off a supposition of what the audioclip contained, and not actual definitive knowledge.2. The opponent must still prove that the words "My Opponent" in the resolution were referring to him, and not someone else who could be known as "My Opponent". Examples: Perhaps I was not stating that ShadowKingStudios will not say hello to me, but I was stating that someone with the birthname "My Opponent" will not say hello to me. Perhaps I was not stating that ShadowKingStudios will not say hello to me, but I was stating that someone with the nickname "My Opponent" will not say hello to me. Etc, Etc, Etc. Unless he can prove both that I was reffering to him in the resolution, and that I actually listened to the posted audioclip, his BOP has not been fulfilled.
sergio ramos is better than puyol

All my opponent has done, is given personal opinions. I will start by giving a simple framework for this.Since sportsmanship is important in sports, and there isn't really obvious stats for player, this debate should be based sportsmanship.Here is one example of Sergio Ramos's bad sportsmanship, and Puyol kind response. Ramos was shown a straight red card after scything down Lionel Messi in the 90th minute of Madrid's 5-0 defeat at the Nou Camp, and in the ensuing fracas between the rival teams Ramos put his hands into the faces of Barcelona duo Puyol and Xavi as they remonstrated with him.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- However, Puyol, who was pushed to the floor by his fellow Spain international, made light of the incident, and said: "These things happen in a game of football. "I've gone to defend a team-mate of mine because it seemed a very tough tackle. "They are moments of high tension, but what happens on the pitch stays on the pitch. "I have a very good relationship with Sergio Ramos and it's already forgotten, I have more important things to think about." Related Articles Barça humiliate Real Madrid 29 Nov 2010 Barça v Real Madrid: as it happened 29 Nov 2010 Regarding the match, which saw Barca move two points above previously-unbeaten Madrid at the top of the table with their fifth successive Clasico win, Puyol said: "I didn't expect a thrashing like that. "But when you least expect it, it can happen. Now we need to enjoy this victory. "We had a very complete game and played very well. We started very aggressively, playing our football and everything went perfectly." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This shows his bad sportsmanship. Because of this evidence, (and cuz I am typing this with 1 min of time remaining), you should vote for me.#procrastination
The world would be a better place if everyone was the same race

This argument may seem a little racist; I assure you that is not my intention. I believe the world would be a better place is everyone was the same race because these days there are so many wars and fights all because of race. People kill others simply because they may be darker or lighter. In some countries, people are refused education, and other rights they should have as a citizen are also not avalible. Society has moved forward immensely in the last century in accepting people regardless of race, and treating all as equal. However, this does not mean we are even close to how it really should be. If we were all the same colour, there would be many fewer wars and fights. Racism is a problem you hear about every day; it is relevant to almost every situation. It is one of the greatest problems in the world at the moment, and maybe the number one reason for all the hostility and hate. Some would probably point out that religion is also a large part of this, and maybe even more anger and hatred is related to religion. However, I would not like us all to be the same religion; we choose what to believe, we cannot all believe the same things. Skin colour, on the other hand, is something that we are born as we are; it is not our choice.