BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humanity is the main cause of global warming.

I will restate, than in order to establish that the primary cause of global warming is human activity, it is necessary to quantify the amount and effect (not qualify). No scientist or scientific body to date, to my knowledge, has been able to do so. Specifically, anyone making the assertion that humans are the primary cause of global warming must scientifically establish/prove what percentage is human as compare to natural variability and natural causes. It is not good enough to use terms such as "significant" and "substantially" as they are extremely vague inconclusive terms. An even worse approach is to take the line of reasoning presented on the timeforchange.org site referenced by my opponent, which virtually ignores the question/possibility of natural factors. I will reference the following chart by Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann to illustrate my position: http://www.longrangeweather.com... Note that on this chart there have been two periods with higher and more prolonged global warming periods in 1100 BC and 1300 AD (up to two-fold greater). My opponent also dismissed the importance of the naturally occurring little ice-age, yet its effect was over three-fold greater than our so called current "human" caused warming period. Being that natural causes are scientifically established to have created global temperature swings 3 times larger, and hundreds of years longer in duration than our current warming period (as recent as 1600 - 1800 AD), it is complete pseudo-science to claim that natural cycles play an insignificant role in global temperature change. In fact, being that we are presently in a period where we would naturally expect to see a warming period in the natural global temperature cycle, one would expect that human activity would have created the largest warming event in the last 5000 years. The chart/link I presented establishes that this kind of warming simply hasn't happened. The evidence I presented could even be used as an argument that Mankind's impact on global warming is negligible as compared to natural variability. Lastly, I acknowledge that my sources attribute a portion of climate change to human activity, but again, "significant" and "substantially" is not a quantification as I asserted earlier. I would ask that my opponent reference scholarly material that definitively establishes that human activity outweighs all other possible natural elements and variables in global climate change.
Humanity is the main cause of global warming.

First of all I would like to apologise for themy forfeiture, as my internet connection was not available for a few days. I hope that voters disregard the forfeit. My opening statements. 1) Humanity IS the main cause of global warming.The IPCC Report of 2015 states: Its extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 wascaused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period . Anthro-pogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica.. Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0""700 m) and to global mean sea level rise observed since the 1970s."One of the major contributions to global warming is caused by automobiles, a man made i.e. anthropogenic industry.Other include garbage disposal, factories, burning of leaves , bonfires etc. All of these are anthropogenic causes. 2) One could argue that global warming would take place with or without humanity , but that is not and would not have been the case. Global warming is not JUST the warming of the Earth , it is the EXCESSIVE warming of the Earth's atmosphere. 3) The following site also concludes that mankind is the main contributing factor of global warming. http://timeforchange.org... My Rebuttals 1) Con's source itself says that human activities have contributed substantially to climate change I.e. global warming. 2) I didn't know that global warming consisted of parts. Global warming, simply put is the heating up of the earth, which is mainly caused by greenhouse gases which are emitted by both anthropogenic and natural sources. But the amount is substantially more by man made sources. 3) Another reason given by Con's site is the sun's reflectivity , which can also be altered by human activities. 4) This debate is not whether this is the Little Ice Age or any other age. Its about mankind's impact on global warming. 5) Even if the role of Ice Age is as important as it is alleged, it cannot overtake the impact of civilization and development.
Humanity is the main cause of global warming.

I do not dispute the existence and reality of Global Warming. I do assert, however, that it is impossible to quantify on a global scale, what part of global warming is attributable to Human activities as compared to natural change. Therefore, to state that humanity is the main cause of global warming is, at time present, impossible to prove. Geographers and Geologists consider the state of the Earth at time present to be in an ice age, albeit a late stage. This means that there have been periods in the history of the earth with less ice coverage, higher sea levels, and warmer mean global temperatures. As an example, a major component of the Glacial retreat we are witnessing today is attributable to natural rebound from the little ice age (approximately 1300 to 1850). Certainly human activity has amplified this rebound, but to what degree is indefinable. There are also many other potential amplifying factors, a few of which are listed on the Environmental Protection Agencies Website: . http://www3.epa.gov... Note, that even this reputable website is unable to quantify human contribution vs natural causes. I will also cite an article on the little ice-age for the benefit of my opponent: . http://www.britannica.com... I would also refer my opponent to the regional research of Glaciologist Dr. Johannes Koch regarding glacial retreat in Garibaldi Park (and other regional locations) which document the geological evidence of glacial retreat since the Little Ice Age glacial extant. The immense role of the Little Ice Age on climate is well established in this research. . http://kochj.brandonu.ca... or . http://kochj.brandonu.ca...
There is a higher power/god

1. My Goal 'This goes against all the rules of science and isn't logical which means there must be another explanation - God. A higher power that must have at least spark the Big Bang. ' According to this statement for me to win I have to prove that evolution is a logical and a scientific theory that is capable of replacing God. By doing this I have refuted your claim that there must be a higher power. 2. Your arguments a)If the Big Bang Theory created the three-dimensional space we know and love, how can particles exist before this was created? b)This means that particles came from no where and collided in nothing to form space-time. 3. My response a)The "Big Bang Theory" is just that a scientific theory -- an explanation for observable phenomenon using scientific methodology to determine the causes for the phenomena and to understand what forces may account for said phenomena. Human understanding is best developed via interplay between theory and practice. We need sound theories to inform and guide our practical activities, in order to move forward and flourish as beings. Theology and all the various religious belief systems have a place in human understanding, as does science. The discoveries and ideas in physics and astronomy have been enormously beneficial for all of humanity; we've learned how stars shine and how most of the elements were formed inside these stars. We have learned to use these same elements to send human beings to the moon and probes beyond our own solar system. Wherefore a gap of knowledge or a discovery that is not in accord with the Big Bang theory isn't the end of the Big Bang theory. Evolution just like Gravity have some unanswered questions . http://www.bringyou.to... . The big bang theory is supported with a lot of scientific evidence, and is accepted by most scientists today like gravity. For they are still scientific and logical theory's. In conclusion God doesn't have to exist for the theory of evolution and the big bang theory to be accepted. God isnt the only explanation. Your burden of proof is that a God is a must for the big bang to occur.
There is a higher power/god

Scientists say that the Big Bang created the Universe and everything in it. This means that before the Big Bang there was nothing. The Big Bang is when particles collided. Where did these particles come from when there was nothing to begin with? If the Big Bang Theory created the three-dimensional space we know and love, how can particles exist before this was created? Also, before space-time, there was nothing, try and imagine nothing. This means that particles came from no where and collided in nothing to form space-time. This goes against all the rules of science and isn't logical which means there must be another explanation - God. A higher power that must have at least spark the Big Bang.
There is a higher power/god

Haha, I'm pretty sure that I'm giving more than valid points here mate =D. Anyway, evolution still doesn't explain it because how on earth did a single cell organism turn in to a human who is so complex. Also think about plants with their long roots so they can find water easily and their leaves so they can absorb more sun and a stem to send up water and nutrients from the soil. That concept on it's own is quite complex and it can't be down to a big accident. The whole eco-system works seamlessly together to sustain life and you're saying it's all down to a big accident and survival of the fittest?
There is a higher power/god

OK, I'll got at it from a slightly different point of view. The watch argument. If someone found a watch on the ground, not knowing what the device, they might pick it up, examine it, open it and look inside at the mechanism and see how all the clogs worked flawlessly with each other to turn the hands on the face, how complicated it is and then automatically know that there must have been a designer, this couldn't happen by accident. There must have been a watch designer who planned it then created it. Using the same logic, the Universe is very complicated, there are stars, there the Sun which gives us light and heat but somehow we are just the right distance from it so it won't kill all life on earth but so we also won't freeze. The Moon orbits the Earth and the Earth orbits the sun. Everything has it's own path is is part of an intricate system which is extremely complicated - even more complicated than a watch. Let's talk about life on earth. Humans for example have hearts to pup blood around the body, especially to the brain, which controls the body and the lungs which provide oxygen to the brain and other parts of your body and your stomach which just happens to have the exact acid to break down your food, intestines which keep the valuable nutrients in your food and get rid of the waste and other vital organs. This all happened because some particles accidentally collided in space and released matter and anti-matter? A higher power had to play a role in all this.
turkeys hate english muffins

I should like to reply to my opponent's comments as follows: "Firstly I would like to point out that my opponent is almost completely insane." Thanks for the compliment – most people do not include the qualifier ‘almost' in their description of me. "I would like to see further evidence from carl that shows that every turkey on this planet is not racist." Who is ‘Carl'? Is he some sort of international expert on racially prejudiced birds? "I would like to point out to my opponent that turkeys do indeed have something against english muffins. Every thanksgiving people kill and eat turkeys (maybe not them specifically but someone has to and with this turkey some people eat english muffin (i am one) if you were to be feasted on whilst being put into an english muffin would you not hold a grudge?" No I wouldn't hold a grudge. That's because I'm English myself. And, by the way, Turkeys aren't actually from Turkey. No, they are from India, which is why they are called dindons in French (d'Inde = from India) and India used to be part of the British Empire and everyone loves English muffins there, even the birds. "The amount of irrelevance in this sentence made my turnips in the garden grow 11x faster.. keep it up my good sir.- In conclusion my opponent is useless..." How can I be useless if I can accelerate the growth of root vegetables? I would say that ability was extremely useful. Vote for me. Thank you.
turkeys hate english muffins

-Firstly I would like to point out that my opponent is almost completely insane.- -My opponent states "Turkeys aren't racist."- I would like to see further evidence from carl that shows that every turkey on this planet is not racist (even though it has absolutely nothing to do with this debate)- -"They have nothing against English muffins"- I would like to point out to my opponent that turkeys do indeed have something against english muffins. Every thanksgiving people kill and eat turkeys (maybe not them specifically but someone has to and with this turkey some people eat english muffin (i am one) if you were to be feasted on whilst being put into an english muffin would you not hold a grudge?- -"French fries or Swedish meatballs or Spanish omelettes or Irish stews or Brazil nuts or Scotch broth or any other national delicacy."- The amount of irrelevance in this sentence made my turnips in the garden grow 11x faster.. keep it up my good sir.- -In conclusion my opponent is useless...- -I await its response-
"My dick is bigger than yours." - Matt Damon

Con has provided no parameters as to this debate, so we are to assume it is a normative resolution and thus shared BP.He has provided no reasoning against this resolution, so his BOP is unfulfilled.C1) Morality is subjective, so there is no objective basis to say that this remark was "wrong."C2) Matt Damon is awesome -- see Good Will Hunting or his rant against Sarah Palin.C3) The comment is probably true. If not, it could be a challenge or a troll attempt, both of which are acceptable.
The United States Should Legalize All Recreational Drugs

Last time I checked, you don't just legalize something just for the sake of it - you legalize it by exploring the disadvantages and advantages of it, may it be human health or the "economy" and if one weighs out the other then this will considerably help decide what is suitable. So in fact it does concern human health. You may have graphs and statistics to support your argument yet, in my opinion and hopefully in the opinion of others, these become materialistic and unworthy. You are attempting to argue that the prohibition of drugs has caused war and deaths. With parts of this statement I agree, but to legalize drugs just to prevent the Cartels causing more deaths is pointless. In fact you are submitting into their desires and for now they are recreational drugs but if legalized, they will soon be after machine guns. What are you going to do then? Just let them have it because they are causing trouble. A sign of submission to criminals will show weakness in the government and soon citizens will lose their trust in them. The act of legalizing these drugs to prevent war with the Cartel will soon result in the Cartel increasing in power and wealth and corruption. Next you are arguing upon the large amount of money spent on war in a battle against drugs. Well, the point of a government is to be in democratically in control of the country. Now to have a law overturned due to the pressure of criminal activity shows how weak the government is. To pursue the war against them will show great courage yet also the country will become feared upon by criminals. A quote from Atticus Finch vaguely explains this : "It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and see it through no matter what". You talked about how prohibiting drugs caused 'economical harm". The money spent on this war is money spent worthwhile. The younger generation should not be allowed the choice, no the temptation, of whether to take drugs or not. They should live in a country where the government is strong and resilient to all pressure and rely upon it. A government with a moral spine to say what's wrong and to prohibit it despite great financial losses. These attributes shown by the government will become iconic and hence breed a proud and righteous younger generation. My last thoughts: Although the instigator shows various statistics proving the great financial losses of the country as a cause to prohibition of drugs, I have to say that this area is where great money is needed. Yet why not propose a cut in the manufacturing and releasing of drones? Because prohibiting drugs help humans survive and the other destroy humans.
The United States Should Legalize All Recreational Drugs

Recreational drugs represent the short term spur or benefit to the user. An analogy being a hamburger - it may satisfy your hunger for the first 3 minutes yet your hunger will return again. Although one may argue this analogy is distant to the topic, I would say recreational drugs may help for a short period of time, however their long term effects are far more dangerous. For this reason, they should not exist as it is far healthier for a human to be ok in the long run than in a short burst of time. Almost forgot to say that they can also be addictive. Where do their benefits exist? And if somehow the question is answered, answer this one: "Why should they legalize recreational drugs?"
The United States Should Legalize All Recreational Drugs

Welcome! This will be a debate on whether or not all recreational drugs should be legalized. Con must not have less than 3 debates completed and must have knowledge that he or she will be able to complete the entire debate without worry. If you wish to accept this debate, then say so in the comments.Burden of Proof will be shared. I must prove that drugs should be legalized and my opponent must prove that they should stay banned.The debate will be 4 rounds, with Round 1 being for guidelines set on my part, and acceptance / first arguments from Con. Rounds 2-4 will be for arguments and rebuttals. I hope for a fantastic debate.
all planetz are flat and if you think they are circular, you lie.

Greeting, thanks for the opportunity. Before you try and invalidate not only centuries of complex mathematics, astrophysics, and Newton"s Law of Gravity, you may want to try learning how to properly spell the word planet, or form a coherent sentence for that matter. The formation of spherical planetary bodies took place because of gravity. Billions of pieces of gas and molten cosmic materials gathered into clumps which overlapped over time to become the spherical body that you can observe from your backyard with a good telescope. Planets rotate on their position in the fabric of space and time, which is why they are not perfectly spherical. You personally, are a good representation of how education in the West has entirely collapsed.
Newt Gingrich would be a better overall president than Mitt Romney.

Good afternoon fellow debaters. Today, I pose to you a question that is on the top of many Americans' minds... Is Romney really the best Republican candidate? With Santorum out of the race, and Paul out of the question, we are left with Gingrich. Is he a viable alternative? My opponent will be taking the side of Romney (and may NOT focus on ANY other candidate), while I take the side of Gingrich (same rule applies). Join me in an effort to enlighten undecided Republican voters and explore the fundemental differences in policy between the two.StructureRound 1 - Acceptance, optional opening statementRound 2 - IntroductionRound 3 - Arguement, NO rebuttals to Round 1 Round 4 - Rebuttals, optional new arguements Round 5 - Rebuttals, Conclusion
Newt Gingrich would be a better overall president than Mitt Romney.

Since I don’t have much time to write a decent argument and my opponent has forfeited twice, I’ll just throw in a few contentions that’s sufficient enough to earn an advantage for me to win this debate if my opponent forfeits all rounds. Case More experienced Romney was once a governor and CEO of a prominent business, which makes him more experienced in the Executive department. He made decisions affecting the economy, jobs and future of the people. He understands how policies affect economic growth and how jobs are created. Gingrich was a House Speaker, a legislator. Compared to a person who’s got experience leading, Romney has an advantage. Mitt is More Intelligent Mitt Romney’s Alma mater is highly impressive; He went to Stanford for a year and studied in Brigham Young University where he got his Bachelor of Arts degree. He got his Masters Degree and JD Degree in Harvard where he studied Business Administration and Law for four years. Romney graduated cum laude in Harvard Law School. Mitt was studying while his father was in a high position in the government. He worked with him as an intern then. Romney is very much more educated and knowledgeable, which gives him a huge advantage on the field of business, economy, politics and the law. {https://en.wikipedia.org...} In addition, Romney has received a number of honors and awards from prominent universities and organizations. {https://en.wikipedia.org...} Mitt has got the public’s trust Gingrich was one of the people who led the impeachment against the BJ Scandal of Bill Clinton. While doing so, he was cheating on his wife. This just shows how hypocrital Newt is. He says he’s an advocate of family values but he’s married 3 times. How can you trust someone like that? As for Mitt, the GOP-trustees trust him and obviously, based on the statistics, he’s got more support. Mitt’s Policies are More Favorable Examples of Mitt’s promises once he becomes president: - A simpler and equal tax plan for all - Improving Universal Health Care - Cut unnecessary spending, which could solve the debt crisis - Legislate more Pro-Life bills - Supports traditional marriages, but supports some LGBT privileges This aren’t enough and I know it’s too broad and weak, but I won’t waste my time researching and writing an eloquent case if it’ll just go to waste. I await my opponent’s response. If he does, then this might just get more interesting.
Minimum wages should be raised

Well, I wonder where you get your information. Raising the minimum wage does not raise taxes. On the contrary, states and federal governments are able to collect more taxes from the new higher "income". It doesn't cause inflation, either. There hasn't been an increase in wages to keep up with inflation since 2007. In other words, the $ 7.25 an hour of 9 years ago, do not buy the same amount of goods in today's dollars. Homeless people are homeless for several reasons. None have to do with raising the minimum wage. It has to do with a lack of a supportive system, mental health mostly. Other homeless people are our beloved veterans of wars, who fall in that category because our system has failed to support them appropriately. Economists have agreed that the more disposable income a person has, the more they can reinvest in the economy. More goods purchased equals more demand, therefore manufacturers can produce more and sell more. It's that simple. It is unfortunate that the raise of the minimum wage has become a partisan issue. Getting information from reputable unbiased sources is a great way to increase our knowledge and be independent thinkers.