BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
tobacco rights/abortion

I'm glad you took the time to check out my profile! Now, there are a few little things I would like to clear up. First of all, the widget on the home pages which give all of our beliefs are not structured very well. The reason I say that is there are a few things on there that could be more clear, or less biased. I wish there was a "somewhat (dis)agree" button. Also, I'm not sure if you noticed (you probably did), that I filled in almost all of the reasons on my profile. But, I can go more in to depth here. There was one thing you said that immediately popped out at me as a fallacy that I would like to clear up. I am not pro abortion. Politics is all marketing. Pro-Choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I realize that is one of the issues with the widget, but I just wanted to clear that up. I think abortion is horrible. I wish people would not as readily think of abortion as an option. The main difference between me and a so-called "pro-life" person is that they believe that the government has a place in regulating Abortion, and I don't think the government has that right. Now, in reference to the tobacco rights, you might want to check back on my other debate, "Smoking should be made illegal." I would also just like to add that, although I think it is disgusting, I am not against chewing tobacco, or snuff, or snus, or any unsmoked tobacco. The only reason I am against smoking rights is that it impedes upon other peoples' rights. The can impose as many regulations as they want, but the only way to tackle secondhand smoke is to outlaw smoking. Now, to reference it back to Abortion, yes, a fetus is life, I won't deny that. So are cows, chickens, pigs, and even broccoli. And yes, fetuses are technically human. However it is really a debate of whether they are simply human life, or if they are actually humans. If that made any sense. Let me clarify, as it seemed a bit confusing. There is no question that it is living. There is no question that it is human life. The question is whether there is a difference between a human being and an embryo/fetus. I attest that there is. Murder is only against adult humans (adult beginning at birth that is... *sigh,* you become a confusing person when you start understanding biology too much). And b the way, I am completely against partial birth abortion. By the time a baby could be born and survive without an incubator, they become an adult in my book. "I can't understand why anyone would be against tobacco rights, but I'm assuming it's because it would have a negative effect on people who use it." You assume wrong. Read my other debate, but basically it is about secondhand smoke. And, as I said, I am not against smokeless tobacco. And by that, I mean that it is nasty, but it should be legal. Perhaps, in a later round, you can try and bring it back with that logic. So, I believe I did an adequate job defining the difference between abortion and smoking. I am looking forward to your rebuttal, and it will be a challenge, but I think we are both up to it.
tobacco rights/abortion

Ok, I was looking at your profile, and I saw some serious inconsistencies and was just wondering if you'd maybe back it up. Here's my argument: If someone (you) was pro abortion, then they are saying that, even though a fetus is being killed it's ok because it is the mother's choice and we live in a free country so they should be allowed to choose. Ok, that's fine. The problem is that you're against tobacco rights. This makes absolutely no sense. I can't understand why anyone would be against tobacco rights, but I'm assuming it's because it would have a negative effect on people who use it. now tobacco is bad for you, but abortion is bad for the baby. If you're arguing in one case(abortion) that even though it's bad for the fetus, it's still the people's right to choose, and then you come back and argue that tobacco should be illegal because it's bad for you, then that makes zero sense. I thought you said it was the people's choice? Please explain. Thanks
The existence of God, or an omnipotent being is probable.

I welcome my opponent to DDO. Pro has offered a resolution that I have never seen upheld. He has taken on the heaviest of burdens as the instigator of this debate. As Con, I will only offer a negative position. He has to show that an omnipotent being MUST exist and that this being "completely disprove[s]" atheism. I will start with definitions. Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God. http://dictionary.reference.com... Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god. http://dictionary.reference.com... I will accept the lack of belief in a god, also. You can chose as I don't think it will make a difference in this one. Agnosticism: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. http://dictionary.reference.com... Must: to be inevitably certain to; be compelled by nature http://dictionary.reference.com... Dissecting the resolution with the opening argument: Pro presented the resolution on the premise of "probable", but he further clarified in his opening statement that this being, whatever it is, MUST exist. In addition, this being's existence disproves atheism. Given the definition of atheism, this being must be a god in the sense of existing outside of, and controlling, to whatever degree, the natural world; therefore, it (god from the resolution and opening statement) is not testable and is unfalsifiable by any of our work in science, as science deals only with the testable universe. If Pro can show this God must exist, then atheism and agnosticism cannot survive. I am not familiar with any agnostic positions that coincide with a statement that God "must" exist but Pro is certainly welcome to provide these positions. I await your case Pro.
Ban the use of coal in energy production

Coal isn't the biggest source of pollution if there are a billion cars on the road emitting hazardous gases. As I stated before, coal makes up forty to fifty percent of our energy source, if we invest into cleaning coal it can be a major global discovery. America has an abundant source of coal and it's saving the tax payers millions of dollars by using it. So why should we switch to an alternative if we have other major sources of pollution that need to be tended to? Switching from oil to a natural gas would be a greater impact than changing from coal to natural gas. Especially if we can introduce a technique that can change the world. Coal has been the nation's staple of energy since it's discovery. If we don't use coal for energy, what alternative options do we have? As I state before our alternative energy sources are ineffective and expensive. We can simply use techniques like the one used by Ohio State University to make coal less "harmful" to the environment. This would save everyone the pain of transitioning and funding another energy source. In addition, if cars are the biggest source of pollution we should ban the use of oil rather than coal by this logic. We shouldn't ban the use of coal in energy production.
Ban the use of coal in energy production

I stated that using coal for energy production is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in the US. This information is correct as is yours about cars being the largest source of air pollution in general in the entire world. I'm glad we established that car emissions are globally worse than coal emissions, however that steers us away from the main issue which is whether or not the use of coal should be banned from energy production. Cars being worse does not change my evidence of the severe damage of coal emissions to the environment and I maintain that the air and water pollution that result from it are strong enough reasons to ban the use of coal in energy production. The issue of cars is for another debate. To alleviate environmental damages measures must be taken one step at a time. Banning coal from energy production is a step of many that can be taken involving cars amongst other pollutants. As for the second portion, it seems that the argument has become whether or not economic benefit is more important than environmental benefit. You're looking at the picture "from a pure economic standpoint" while I am more concerned about the environment that is being destroyed due to coal being used in energy production. I argue that the economy is not as important as the planet we humans inhabit and are steadily destroying. Nevertheless, even from your economical standpoint, the economy does not have to suffer if proper measures are taken. Many of these potential measures such as the Google Clean Energy Proposal are outlined and planned out so that energy production does not fall behind and hinder the economy. They can be found here and outline legitimate possibilities of clean, efficient energy production without the damaging effects of coal. All alternatives: http://www.sourcewatch.org... The Google Plan: http://www.sourcewatch.org... Furthermore, the proposition you mentioned of "clean" coal is the equivalent of switching to alternate energy sources because it would require an entire upheaval of all the existing coal production agencies. Switching to the unproven to be entirely "clean" coal would be as much of a transition as it would be to follow the Google Proposal and thus a significant leap for society to take as well. One of the many alternative proposals could be followed and the economy does not have suffer from the transition from coal to clean energy. The environment still trumps the economy in importance on a global perspective, but since it is possible to help both without damaging either, coal should be banned from being used in energy production.
Ban the use of coal in energy production

Cars are the biggest source of air pollution, all the exhaust emissions that come from these vehicles destroy the ozone layer. "Fossil fuel combustion, particularly as it occurs in motor vehicles, has been identified as the LARGEST contributor to air pollution in the WORLD." http://www.epa.vic.gov.au.... These cars run on oil and this has been a huge problem for the environment, not coal. There are two types of pollutions that come from them, exhaustive emissions and evaporative emissions. Exhaustive emissions come from the tailpipe of the cars while evaporative emissions is any fuel vapor that isn't burnt and is released into the atmosphere. There are approximately 1 billion cars in the world, if there's 1 billion cars emitting hazardous gases, that's the main cause of air pollution. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca... Clean coal energy is a very realistic possibility for society. Ohio State University worked with only 5 million dollars to develop this technique. http://www.foxnews.com..., There is no way to transition from coal to any other energy source if it provides for almost half our energy production. It is just too much of a leap for society and the country to take. Despite all the talks about alternative energy sources, solar and wind energy only make up 4% of our energy source. That alone costs tax payers and funders millions of dollars. There is no economic benefit either by replacing coal with another source of energy. If coal continues to save the country a large amount of money, why should we throw that away to experiment with other alternatives that are costly and aren't nearly as effective. For example, "That means that from a pure economic standpoint, the upside of replacing coal with natural gas is zero, while that of replacing oil with natural gas is $12.7 per mmbtu" We lose by switching from coal to an alternative energy source, instead of replacing oil (in cars). Conclusion: We shouldn't ban the use of coal in energy production. Read more: http://www.politico.com...
Ban the use of coal in energy production

Addressing P1: The use of coal in energy production results in the most carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States (1.7 billion tons per year). It is also responsible for acid rain, smog and toxic air pollution through emissions of other dangerous substances including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), particular matter and mercury. The sources of damage that you listed are no better, however coal remains to be the worst of them all particularly in CO2 emissions. Its efficacy does not change the fact that it is harmful to the environment and there are alternative energy sources such as wind and hydro that are also effective, but not as harmful. Source: same as in previous round Addressing P2: According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind and hydro energy sources are and will be cheaper than coal. Source: http://www.eia.gov... In addition, while coal may become a clean energy source in the future, there is no chance that the thousands of damaging coal production industries will quickly and easily switch to the futuristic "clean" coal. The price of altering the entire energy production process just for the sake of "clean" coal will be costly and it is not a given fact that all production outlets will switch to it. By the time they do so (minimum of between 5 to 10 years, according to your article), billions of tons of CO2 and other dangerous chemicals will further damage the air and water on this planet. Furthermore, there is no absolute guarantee that coal will be ever be fully "clean" in energy production, but an alternative to ensure coal is not responsible for any further damage to the environment would be to ban coal entirely from energy production. My second premise regarding the damages to the planet's water due to coal was not addressed.
Ban the use of coal in energy production

P1: There are more severe causes of air pollution such as cars, planes, oil, natural gas etc. so why should we ban the use of coal if it's an effective source of energy? http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... P2: Coal is by far the cheapest energy to use and has the potential to be the cleanest source too. http://www.foxnews.com... C: Coal shouldn't be banned from being used in energy production.
You cannot prove your existence

You cannot prove that I am a light on your screen. I still do not know that you are not a robot or a machine with mechanically powered words all ready to be typed on this debate; I do not know you are real; and I don't know who YOU are, whatever 'you' is. If 'you' do not prove OR refute any of my arguments in this round than my case has been proven. But no matter what happens, thank 'you' for "debating" me!
You cannot prove your existence

Then you must prove to me that you have had experience. Your experience is nothing to me unless you can prove that you experienced it. Since existence is all experience and you cannot prove to ME that you experienced anything at all, it is impossible for you to prove who you are or that you are real in that way. Unless I am wrong, which of course is a possibility. How do I know that I am not debating a robot and you are not computer-generated or a Sims played by a higher Deity? This debate would be more interesting if you (Con) provided more than 4 words. At any rate, I know vi-spex is something/one, but I don't know what. And I don't know if he really exists or he says he does, only SAYING he can prove it. I will patiently wait for his next argument!
You cannot prove your existence

You have 2 rounds to prove your existence, I will attempt refutations. Sounds fun, right? There aren't many limitations or rules. I'd rather not have 'short' rounds because it would be more interesting with more arguments. The deeper we dig into philosophy the better the debate will be! 3rd rounds will be final rebuttals but Con must only do a feasible conclusion leading to the point where he can easily say "I have proved that I exist". Before we do anything however, here are some intriguing websites that may help you in debating or voting (whichever one you are reading this for): - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... - https://www.physicsforums.com... Thank you to anyone brave enough to try and prove their existence. :) LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
We should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia

I thank you for your advice but i do not fall. I will continue with my arguments with why i do not utterly fail this debate but in fact win. This debate will decide on my two point: 1. As what we are fighting on this debate today is about that we should bring democracy in Saudi Arabia. Should we not? But my opponent and i were fighting about what people think. And that is what this debate is really based on with our arguments. But one of my arguments still stands saying that the people opinions say that they want democracy but my opponent says its one guy from social medica but :http://www.voanews.com... says that social media can bring democracy in the midde east in which Saudi Arabia is in the middle east. 2. Secondly the topic here says we should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia and since i difine we as american citizens http://www.thewire.com... says that president Obama hopes to have democracy in the middle east using some of his ideas that he is using in which that means president obama is want represents the U.S in which we should bring democracy into saudi Arabia.
We should bring democracy into Saudi Arabia

My argument is that the Saudi people do not want democracy, and are entirely satisfied with their way of life. Having lived in Saudi Arabia for years, I can attest that the general attitude of the population is that they love their king.During the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia was the only Arab nation that did not erupt in protest. With a few minor outings by Shiite minorities, one might argue that the rest of the people were just too afraid to protest. That is refuted by the fact that the people did indeed take to the streets, not in protest, but in celebration of there king and government. Here are a few youtube clips of those celebrations.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...These people love their way of life just as much as we Americans love ours. To force our style of government on them is like the Russians forcing communism on us, claiming that they are freeing us. It is wrong and oppressive.That is my pitch. I believe that since my opponent is proposing a change to what is already established, then BOP is on him.
voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages

You are required to take a literacy test to assess your knowledge of the English language, unless you are: 1. Unable to comply due to a documented disability; 2. Are more than 50 years old and have lived in the United States for 20 years or more as a permanent resident alien; 3. Are more than 55 years old and have lived in the United States for 15 years or more as a permanent resident alien. And it is a known fact that if you are born on United States soil, you are an American citizen. Everyday thousands of illegal immigrants have children in the united states. These children are united states citizens by default. A large portion of these citizens are raised in their native tongue, because their parents can not speak English. They grow up and also can not speak English. By denying these circumstanced individuals the right to vote, you are now not only discriminating on language, you are discriminating on family history and background and once again denying the freedom and personal rights that the United States stands for. Source: http://www.visaus.com...
voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages

OK...explain this in china there are over 300 characters of chinese literature and that would make it nearly impossible to translate chinese citizens ( 20% of the US population) would not get to vote do to their native language but in order to be a citizen in the US u have to pass a test that says that u can infact speak and write english. if this person is not a citizen then they do not desirve to vote!
voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages

The increase in the cost of voting ballots, would not be an issue, if those wishing to vote in their native language, were only allowed to do so on electronic ballot machines. A simple reprogram is all that would be needed. You said "We cant afford to give out ballots to someone that cant vote properly" In 1965, Lyndon B. Johnson, had the Voting Rights Act passed. This act allowed all american citizens the right to vote, ignoring any discrimination. To quote Lyndon B. Johnson, "Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote." This act already covers language disabilities, and there fore it is the government and states duty to provide voting supplies not based on any discrimination. If you deny the right to vote based on language you are discriminating against those that do not speak english. By doing this, you are simply creating another example of the 1960's, when African Americans were not allowed to vote. America does not need this kind of negative attention, when we are already getting enough from the war in Iraq.
voting materials for U.S citizens should be provided in native languages

First of all I am in support of voting material being in different languages. The United States is at a critical time in its history, where foreign and non-foreign speaking citizens are mixed evenly. The United States has no right to deny a person the right to vote (With the proper rights to do so) because they do not speak English. If Voting was allowed in native languages, more citizens would be able to cast their vote, and our leader would be truly voted in by the citizens, not just a select few. "votng materials should not be given in native languages because it would be too hard on the town/city to keep track of the amount of a native language there is in their town/city." This would provide much needed jobs, to rural the more rural areas of the country. It would also provide jobs to those who do not speak english. And thus opening up more jobs for those that do speak english. America seems to be the only Country that wants to deny rights to speak your native language. Countless countries have learned English to cope, with tourists and english speaking employers. It's time that The United States, takes a knee and learns foreign countries languages. Americans have been spoiled in their arrogance and stubborness.And it's time for that to change. With the allowing of native languages on voting material, this change would be more welcome and easier to swallow.
Communism is, on paper, the only good form of government

Extend all arguments Class Struggle: con agree's that it has been a part of human struggle and re aferms my point. Checks and Balence: Having a middle class that evryone is in IS structure, and might remind you that this is on PAPER, and so any arguements pretaining to prctice in the world are completely irelivant.. Also, I must unfortunalty end this debate with finals next week I simply dont have time for this right now... I hope utahjoker would please end this debate where it can be picked up later, and I encourage people not to vote, My apoligizes, G-Rock