BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This Bill Should Become Law [Copy 2]

I have no problem with your effort to make the world a better place. I think a bill containing your ideas would be wonderful. However, The bill you presented has a lot of holes, and I wouldn't vote for it to become law in any state. I have no problems with wind and solar energy. I too would like to see them used more. The drawback for me on renewable energies is not the initial costs. It's the efficiency factors. Current wind farms produce a small fraction of the amount of energy that takes up a great deal of real estate in comparison to coal and other common electricity producers. I'm not a fan of most chemical energies. They produce a lot of toxic by-products. Cold Fussion and Nuclear power will probably be more recognized options of the future, but until then, we have what we have. Even with the proposed future savings, I still think the effeciency of renewable energy equipment is lacking. Most people will probably have to take out loans in order to meet the requirements and that is not only not saving, it paying more. A $4,000 dollar loan is about $100/month. If the savings were equal to the monthly loan, more people would definitely jump on board with your plan. They would probably even jump on board with the plan on thier own. So the effeciency of the products available becomes a huge factor. I'm still opposed to subsidies no matter what percieved benifit they may or may not actually produce. I was really hoping to see the edited version. I'm still not sure if there aren't any effeciency requirments associated with the bill and if there isn't any agency associated with the implementation and monitoring of said effeciency, I still don't think it should pass.
This Bill Should Become Law [Copy 2]

I'd just like to talk a little bit about why I think the overall idea of this bill will be good for Michigan. I am a strong advocate of alternative energies from things like wind turbines or solar panels. I believe the self-sufficiency this would bring would allow our society as a whole to advance positively. A drawback to alternative energies is how much money you'd need to drop on buying an item. Obviously, the investment will eventually bring you back to even, and then begin benefitting you, making you less dependent on big energy companies. The intention of this bill is to lessen the financial damage an investment would have on someone, and this would hopefully bring more people to alternative energy. I believe if more people were self-sufficient, they wouldn't have to spend as much money on energy costs than they would if they had to pay a company for heating or other services. This should interest all Michiganders, because it has the potential to strengthen our economy. Another nice thing about this bill is its light effect. In my edited version, only 1/5 of the price is refunded, and nobody may receive more than $800, which lessens the potential for a harmful effect on the State budget.
This Bill Should Become Law [Copy 2]

I understand your inability to defend your bill as it stands. I would also like to move the goal posts of this debate to include your changes. There is only one round left of the debate, but given considerations and context of this debate, I am more than willing to provide further feedback of any changes that you either make, or have made. This debate holds a transcendent cause that I am willing to assist in as much as possible. Your realization of your mistake should have been made privately, directly to me in a message, or in the comment sections. If I was reasonable, I would have offered some forgiveness and allowed the goalposts to be moved. If I was unreasonable, your concession would be warranted. In the next round, if you would like to continue this debate, present any information that you wish concerning the topic and I will provide feedback. If you do not wish to provide any further information, I will accept your concession. For voting purposes, if my opponent wishes to present further information, please completely disregard this round.
This Bill Should Become Law [Copy 2]

I hope my opponent doesn't get too angry with what I'm about to say. I forgot that I'd made changes to this bill on YIG's bill submission portion of the website. These changes included sections to reduce the % that could be paid back to property owners, and included a maximum capacity on money that could be paid back to them. The bill that I posted was off of Google docs, and it was not updated to these changes. I can't defend this bill as it stands. I'm really sorry about this, because my opponent spent significant time and no doubt effort in making his argument, and now I'm saying I can't participate in it. I'd hope the voters would give him 7 points when they vote. I hope a win with only one round of posted arguments will satisfy my opponent, but if it doesn't, once again I'm very sorry. http://www.youtube.com...
Dragonball Z/GT is Overrated

Greetings everyone. I recently joined this website and tried to make this argument, but decided to take it down. Now that I have learned a little more about how debates work on this website, I would like to challenge the community to prove to me that Dragonball Z and GT is not as overrated as I believe. I am open to changing the way I think about it, if you think you have the chops for it :) Here are the rules: -First Round Acceptance -No New Arguments in the Last Round -Anything from Dragonball Z and GT may be used as evidence, and putting links up to certain scenes is not only permitted but encouraged. -The Dragonball Z movies may also be used. To be clear, I will argue the Dragonball series is overrated, while my opponent will be arguing that it is worth all of the hype. Good Luck!!!!
Dragonball Z/GT is Overrated

In Conclusion, I would like to say that fandom may have changed what the author intended to do, but i say it was for the better. But you have to understand, that franchises like DragonBall Z run entirely on the FanBase because corporates only wish to make money. I mean it created one of the most iconic Characters in manga/anime history. Even if the baton was passed to Gohan i dont think the show would have been better then it already is. You would have to compare character traits. What makes battles in DragonBall Z fun to watch is Goku's attitude while fighting. He may be getting completely dominated in a fight but he still makes it enjoyable. Goku makes those idiotic comments during battle that just have a way of making it a lot more enjoyable. Gohan possess a serious, no-nonsense attitude especially during Battle. It takes the fun aspect from watching the battle making it less enjoyable. Atleast we agree with DragonBall. Well you can also say that SOME characters in DragonBall Z are faced with specific limitations. But when addressing the main characters of DragonBall Z it is only fair to deal with the main characters of Naruto/Bleach/AmericanComics. Later in the series it is true that the "Human" characters are inefficent against enemies. It showcases the Saiyan Strength. However earlier in the series every character was effective against the opponents. Like I previously stated yajirobe, krillin, and a young gohan were vital in defeating vegeta as goku had failed. Even his spirit bomb wasnt enough to take out vegeta (in his saiyan mode not the ape mode). the other character were the one that defeated most of the Ginyu force (goku does take out two of them), including Ginyu. So the characters arent as ineffective if you compare them throughout the entire series. So we agree that there lust for Battle is a weakness, then? By accepting this you have undermined one of your early points. Maybe, it makes them one-dimensional, but Dragonball Z doesnt focus on character development. It is a manga focused just on Battling, and it is a something it Excels at. In a sportive attitude i would like to say that my opponent as put out some valid points and has made this a very enjoyable debate for me, for that i would like to thank you. To me DragonBall Z is not overrated because it excels at what it was created to do. Sell and capture the hearts of fans everywhere. Many popular Mangas now a days say that they based there Main Characters off of Goku. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). DragonBall Z is one of the worlds best selling manga for a reason. Thanks to SaintMichael741 for bringing up this interesting topic
Dragonball Z/GT is Overrated

In closing, I would like to say address that fandom should never control a show/manga like Dragonball Z. The show would have been much better with permadeath and Gohan becoming stronger as the season progressed. While me and my opponent disagree with Gohan, I think he can say that the show would have been much better if the baton was handed to Gohan. Instead, we have an overrated show that focuses too much on fandom, exposition, and a horrible ending.I do agree with my opponent that I should have included Dragonball, but I think that the western population is reading this debate. I think that Dragonball is the best of the three series, and is in fact underrated.To make it clear, I'm definitely not saying that Bleach and Naruto didn't have their own weaknesses. Naruto at this point has become exactly like Dragonball Z and Bleach...don't get me started. I was trying to make the point that in American comics and certain characters in Bleach and Naruto have to deal with specific limitations with their powers. Are they always defined 100%? Unfortunately no. But how can we care about characters in Dragonball Z if they are mostly ineffective against their enemies?As for weaknesses, Kenshin's was more about struggling with his past and not letting himself become merely an assassin again. He wanted a new life of peace. The entire manga was centered on him letting go of his past. The Saiyans never let go of their lust for battle. Instead, they just continue on with that weakness. If a character does not try to change their weakness, they become one dimensional. Vegeta is just an idiot who let the Cell situation get a lot worse instead of ending it, and Goku cares more about training than being a family man. I don't think I'm letting my imagination run wild when I say that the fanbase should not have pushed the author to do anything that he didn't want to do. To be fair, I think my opponent has made some very good points. However, I still believe that Dragonball Z/GT are overrated and there are many animes/mangas that have much better action and end in a much more satisfying way.Thank you Biggtime for an enjoyable debate.
Are Smartphones Good

Apologies for the Pro/Con slip up. I often overlook that, When the instigator takes the Con side of the debate. Ok. So looking predictively into the future might not seem to be currently relevant, But I can assure you that over the sixty years of my existence technological advancement has been extensive and rapid and is undeniably getting more rapid. Perhaps all this change is pure chance and unnecessary and can easily be reversed if we should so wish it. But I personally think not. All that aside and from today's viewpoint, Humans and especially younger generations are now as dependent upon smartphones for mental stimulation as my generation became dependant upon television. Ironically perhaps, I am not dependant on television and neither do I own a smartphone. But we are the silent voice of dissent in the overwhelming tumult of binary clatter. And who are we to deny the masses what they now crave. Ultimately: Who is qualified to determine what is good and what is bad. After all, Good and bad are merely human conceptual assumptions and have no greater universal significance. In that sense smartphones are neither good nor bad. Unless we switch them on they are merely inanimate objects and as yet they do not conceive and neither do they forcible enslave their owners. The reality is that we can only really question the rationality of the sentient person and not the rationality of an inanimate object. And time and events march rapidly on. And tomorrow will be here in the blink of an eye. And smartphones will soon be assigned to the scrapyard. And some new device will be set to enthral us. And the new doubters will no doubt voice a weak refrain. But they will have already outlived their usefulness. And so on. And so on. And so on. Until such times. When our opinion is no longer required.
Are Smartphones Good

Yes, They play a role in the evolutionary process, But I don't understand how that's good. They still affect the human mind and body, But not as much as tobacco does. As I said before, Not all inevitable things are good They are essential, For a new future but so are bad things, We learn from are mistakes, And smartphone usage is one. Even though it'll create a healthy long term impact, The short term impact will be hard, Affecting plenty of individuals not just one. Smartphones were created to make life easier, Not to make life horrible. (I am con not pro)
Are Smartphones Good

Pro seems to agree that smartphones are probably an inevitable evolutionary development. They also seem to agree that smartphones have a role to play in "going forwards". Therefore smartphones have to be ultimately good. Inevitability in an evolutionary context infers essentiality. And something that is essential to an inevitable process is therefore necessary and therefore also good. Short term impact on human functionality is probably also inevitable, But the long term implications clearly necessitate an initial change or adaptation to our functional methodology. I have never given consideration to the tobacco/smartphone comparison before. Tobacco obviously has a direct internal impact on physiology. Whereas device dependency is somewhat more removed. Although there has always been contention and concerns relating to operational requirements of personal communication/information devices, And how it might impact on physiology. Certainly both tobacco and smartphones appear to induce dependency/addiction. But I think it's fair to suggest that such traits are naturally inherent in our physiology anyway. Ultimately isn't that what keeps us "going forwards". Detriment to individual personal health is a day to day issue and is no doubt not good in terms of an individual life expectancy and quality of life. But the reality is that the bigger long term picture is far more important than the life of an individual human being. Tobacco usage and addiction is a human health issue that we can and do address and redress. And this does not affect or impede the evolutionary sequence. Whether or not we do eventually address and attempt to redress the issue of device dependency is a different matter. Especially given the exponential rate of technological development. That is to say, We will probably have achieved what we were meant to achieve before we realise the implications of what we have helped to achieve. I would suggest that tobacco usage and addiction is only indicative of an inherent physiological trait. The trait itself is consequential to the evolutionary process, But tobacco is merely an inconsequential aberration. Since the initiation of the universe, Material development has been a relentless process and we are no more or no less a part of that process. It would be arrogant to assume that we are somehow separate to that process and that we are the finality of that process. As a conclusion to all this I would have to propose, That smartphones are an ultimately essential part of the evolutionary process. And therefore smartphones must be regarded as ultimately "good". I apologise if Pro finds my response overly philosophical. But Pro does simply ask "Are Smartphones Good".
Are Smartphones Good

You sound like a philosopher. But let's not talk about philosophy here. Even though smartphones are inevitable, Some inevitable things are very bad. Just like cigarettes, They're inevitable, Are they good? No. Even though they play a role in going forward, They still do quite a bad impact on the world. Society has decided what is good and what is bad. Society has decided that smartphones are good, But real science has discovered that smartphones are bad. Smartphone is a invention unintentionally used to hurt yourself, And the other people using it.
Are Smartphones Good

Yes: Smartphones are addictive and smartphones are seemingly antisocial in a conventional sense. But perhaps they are meant to be. Maybe it's a significant movement in the evolutionary sequence towards dominant A. I. Possibly there will be a crossover phase, Starting with psychological and physiological dependence on A. I. Devices (smartphones). Moving on quite exponentially into an implant stage and maybe even a hybrid stage. Until such times when sentient intelligent devices are able to take control of the evolutionary sequence for themselves. It might sound like the stuff of sci-fi, But just look back over the last century at the rate of technological development. I would suggest that smartphones were inevitable. Just as we were once inevitable and just as every human led scientific breakthrough and development was inevitable. Universally, Who or what is qualified to say what is good or what is bad? Our own concepts of good and bad are only relative to us, Here and now and tend not to take into account the bigger universal picture. I would therefore propose that "smartphones are good". Good for the role that they are playing in maintaining the evolutionary sequence and good for facilitating the inevitability of the universal progression.
Are Smartphones Good

Smartphones are bad and here's why: According to the London School of Economics, Smartphone bans have increased test scores by 6%, But those struggling academically were boosted by 14%! So, Without smartphones, Kids would have way better test scores. A study in Korea proved that you shouldn"t even buy a smartphone in the first place. Even though it can be accessed from practically anywhere in the world, It causes smartphone addiction. Smartphone addiction can cause both social and psychological problems. It typically is found in those in adolescence, They claim that they couldn"t live without smartphones. Smartphones are beginning to seem like a person"s second self! The original mobile phone usage was to make phone calls. Many students claim that they can use their phone in the case of an emergency. But, A poll of 2, 000 smartphone users in Great Britain say that making phone calls was their least common usage of the phone, It came in at 11th place.
Evolution is false

Well my last shot proving evolution exists. You see my grandfather named hoo woo chang lived in the evolution time period. he was a famous philosopher. He was ape at the time as well and married a girl named sally. In his journal he wrote two things about the time period. 1. the poop back then smelled like roses and violets and 2. that evolution exists. Now my friend are you going to believe scientists or a person who lived during that time :) Vote for con!!!!!!!!!!
Evolution is false

You're trolling. Fossils don't prove anything. It's a bone in the ground and that's all. It needs a mind to interpret what the fossil is, it depends if you interpret it with an evoloutionary POV or creationist POV. All human fossils will fit on a billiard table and all are quite human or ape. We've found a modern human fossil in the Cretaceous period, however humans weren't suppose to he around.[1] We actually have over 200 fossils that are out of place and contradict evolution. [2] Moreover Dr.Carl Werner found many modern animals in dinosaur layers.[3] " I asked Carl just how many modern types of animals he had found in the dinosaur rock layers. "We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc.), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc.), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms). "The vertebrates"animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals"show this same pattern." " "Contrary to popular belief, modern types of birds have been found, including: parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc. When scientists who support evolution disclosed this information during our TV interviews it appears that they could hardly believe what they were saying on camera." So the fossil argument fails [1]http://www.bible.ca... [2]http://www.nwcreation.net... [3]http://creation.com...
Evolution is false

" for example there are humans and animals. were all different so evolution isnt false." Well we're not all that different. Humans lack genetic diversity, which proves evolution and old earth false. As we should be very diverse genetically[1]. 55 chimpanzees have more genetic diversity than the entire human race. This doesn't support the claim that evolution is true, it rejects it. " look at darwins finches proves evoluton is true" Darwin"s finches prove finches come from finches. The finches may have different beaks, but they're still finches. This proves micro-evolution not macro-evolution. [1] http://www.godandscience.org...
Evolution is false

Thanks. 1.Glue The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution. 2. Law of large numbers. The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this 3. Flagellum " The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2] 4. Mates All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts. 5. Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction. [1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006). [2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
There will always be racism

We will not always have distinguishable race (necessary for racism) Pros only rebuttal to this was "I doubt your prediction of a single race will occur." That's great. To expand I'll point out that dark skin pigment genes are extremely dominant, and that unless white people buniker themselves up underground it is impossible that we won't all eventually become a beautifull mixing pot of dark skinned mahogony people. Inter-racial couples are extememely normal and popular, and lighter skin tones are outnumbered like 1 to 4, and all countries with a white majority have an increacingly large number of dark skinned people, throw out the sunscreen mates!We will not always have racism (necessary for racism)"Having come a long away, does not mean that the war against racism has been won, it simple means that progress has been made and a battle or two won." I'm glad we agree, now extrapolate and in a couple hundred years there will be no racism. There is literally no tolerance for racism today, so the only issue is teaching all the texans that Jesus loves blacks too...that's not going to be too hard. We know that it is possible to use education to abolish racism, and we use it to do so. The more we use it the less racism there will be until there's no more racism....people are getting LESS racist everyday, not more. We will not always have humans (necessary for racism)An entirely valid point that was dropped by pro