BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Alternative Energy used by 2010

Okay, now i belive you took this out of actual reality. I understand your point and i do agree with you that totally converting to alternative fuels by 2010 is impossible. What i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST. I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture. No thats a joke. Well these fuels such as wind, solar, and ethynol can be used very soon. You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it. If our big car companies would make more cars that could tolerate these fuels i would not have made this argument. But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money. Now is money more important than the environment. I think not. Just watch the movie "Who killed the Electric Car" and you will understand my point. Alternative Energy will help Americas future, and if this is what we need then why NOT DO IT?
Alternative Energy used by 2010

Hello bears: Let me get this straight first, I support alternate fuels, but having them by 2010 is impossible. For my argument, I'm going to focus on the car business. Having alternate fuels would be great, but 2010 is too soon. 1) Congress would agree with me here that 2010 is too soon, because their new Cafe Laws will require cars to have a minimum of 35 mpg' s by 2020(I do not support this law). This is a whole 10 years after than you propose. 2) Where can we fuel up. If we were to grow to full time alternate fuels in 2-3 years there would be no fuel to fill up. factory's and scientist need to find ways to these fuels at high demand. Another thing is we would need gas stations to fill up. It would take at least 5 years to get the right number of gas stations to fuel our demand. I know that General Motors is trying to get more E85 stations, but they are having a lot of trouble. It has been 2 or so years, and the only places that they are common are in Minnesota and Wisconsin (there are not that common, but there are more in those states than any other state). Lastly, how would we get the fuel to the stations. It would take billions of dollars ant multiple years to get a truck fleet to fit our demand for the fuels. Three years isn't enough time. It won't be till 2030 before alternative fuels are more common than gas.
Alternative Energy used by 2010

We live in a world in which the past is now blending with the present and possibly influencing the future. A world in which our most valuable resources are not being used and where our oil is thought to be depleted by year 2050. I am in strong affirmation that the United States must start using alternative energy such as wind, solar, ethynol, and electric type vehicles. We have to see that our Ozone layer is depeleting and our world as we know it will not be there for our children and our grandchildren if we do not start focusing on this topic. Corn is thought to produce a fuel that is cheaper and easier to make called E-85 and is already sold around the United States but we need to use it quick and stop using oil as our primary resource. The Nations with the most oil are our enimies at this moment and we must starting fighting this problem. Lewis Black once said "We live in a world without a Ozone layer, and we have men, we have rockets, and we have siran wrap...FIX IT!!"
Even if the world could abolish nuclear weapons, the world shouldn't.

The semi/non-lethal uses of nuclear weapons can save lives. There are many uses of nuclear weapons other than vaporizing a city. A nuclear weapon can be used as an Electromagnetic Pulse if detonated high in the atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated that high in the atmosphere there is no fallout, no soot produce to cause a nuclear winter, and no nitric oxides produce to weaken the ozone. Plus use of a nuclear weapon to produce an EMP produces few casualties, while some would die because of vehicle accidents and lack of electricity, it would over all kill fewer people than conventional weapon would require for the same effect. Nuclear weapons are the produce the largest explosion of all current weapons making them some of the best options to intercept a large number of ballistic missiles close together. While alternatives are cheaper for taking out single ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons are the best for taking out a volley or another nuke using counter measures. The shear fact that nukes are the best counter for massive amounts of ballistic missiles is a good enough reason to keep them. Low yield airburst nuclear weapons can be used to take out hardened missile silos. While conventional weapons have some capabilities to take out enemy ballistic missile silos, they don't have as high of probability of success as a single accurate nuclear blast. It is important to note that air bursting nuclear weapons produce little nuclear fallout and little nitric oxide. Also important to note is that low yield nuclear weapons produce less intense flash meaning they are significantly less likely to produce a firestorm and thus would not produce a nuclear winter. On top of that, enemy missile silos aren't filled with much flammable matter as a city thus producing no soot. Nuclear weapons can also be used to deflect incoming meteors and asteroids. It is important to know that meteors and asteroids can do several times more damage than any nuclear weapon can. Giving up the strongest thing we have against these forces of destruction seems like a bad idea. I much rather have a nuclear weapon and not need it, than need a nuclear weapon and not have it.
Pinkie Pie Could Exist If She Wanted To

Fvck, where did two days go?I forfeit full conduct to my opponent. I would have only really expanded on what I've already said anyway and being as this is the final round, it would be unfair for me to introduce new evidence and argument to which he couldn't respond. Sorry again Dumpy,I can guarantee you that if you are having a cruisy time and work and think you have time to do a debate, that's exactly when shjt goes down down down.Peace out.
Pinkie Pie Could Exist If She Wanted To

And, here comes the logic.First and most importantly,In One of the Infinite Universes, Pinkie Pie Exists.From Oxford:"According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy uncertain "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality. Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it works, but that hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon appears to be real."http://www.dailygalaxy.com...Since there are alternate universes, Pinkie Pie exists an unobserved one of these.Establishing that Pinkie Pie can Exist in Alternate Universes Besides the One She Lives In By evidence of the episodes, we know that Pinkie Pie can move freely to exist in alternate universes. "She is depicted as being aware of the cinematic elements of the show in the ending of Over a Barrel, where she holds back the iris-in in order to have the last line of the episode; she repeats this process in Magic Duel, before the episode can end with her mouth still missing -"http://mlp.wikia.com...On top of this, we see in the Friendship is Magic move, Equestria Girls, that horse Pinkie is fully aware of what is going on in a human universe, and vice versa.And if cannon isn't enough for you, Pinkie Pie bluntly "travels" to exist in the 90's Cartoon Network universe in the fanmade MLP episode, Double Rainboom.All of this directly points to Pinkie's ability to travel to alternate universes.Therefore...If Pinkie Pie can exist in any universe of her choosing (seeing no proof that there are limits on which universes she can and cannot exist in), she can exist in the universe we live in.Therefore...Pinkie Pie could exist if she wanted to.
We should save the bees by banning neonicotinoids

The second round is constructive speeches, no rebutting shall occur. The third round will the rebuttals. You may only respond to your opponent's argument and extend your case in these speeches. The fourth round will be the closing statements. Each side can: Respond to opponent's arguments, point out arguments that were either dropped completely or handled incorrectly; and summarize the debate as a whole and give the reason(s) why they think they should win the debate. Evidence use is encouraged, and evidence will almost always trump an analytical response--the exception being if the opponent can point out why the evidence is bad or should not be taken into account. You must give a link or source for each piece of evidence at the end of your speech. That's about all I have to say, message me if you have any questions. Good luck and have fun! :)Edit: Sorry for dropping your debate acceptance, I'll make sure it does not happen again.
ur mom goes to college

My opponent still provides no evidence. The only argument she does provide is that I was pwned. Even if I was somehow pnwed, I have still won the debate as my opponent hasn't p,roved that my mother goes to college. The argument that I have been pwned is completely irrelevant to the debate. My opponent then goes on the complain that I used an easy argument to win the debate. This is essentially a concession, meaning I won, even if he's mad about it.
People only do good things for selfish reasons.

"Most of everything a person does for their self is because of self interest. " But what if the thing they do for their self is something they do for someone else? "And that's their choice, Everyone is different. " I feel like you still don't understand my point. The reason why people do things for other people is because they want to. Their only reason is that they want to, Though they may not realize this. If someone doesn't want to, They won't do it, Which proves my point. "They expect something in return since it's for them. " Yes, But they might not expect something in return from the other person. Maybe the thing they expect is to feel good about what they've done, Or they expect not to feel guilty. As for the "accept" point, What I am saying is that some people don't accept this fact, But I do. "And what exactly is wrong with that? " I have stated, Multiple times, That there isn't anything wrong with that. My argument is not "people do good things for selfish reasons and that's bad. " I'm just debating the fact. "Does that really constitute them not caring about the homeless person but only carrying about themselves? " Yes. They act in their own self-interest. They aren't bad for this, It's just who they are. "What about doctors? Are they not genuine? " People are genuine if they believe they are. But the underlying truth is that people do things for themselves only, Even if those things benefit others and even if they don't know it. People act in their own self-interest, And that's fine. It's just a fact of life. When people do things for others, They don't realize it, But they are doing it because it benefits them, Not the other person.
Should children drink wine

Ok wine is a drug and can be a danger to your nervous system and can be addictive but if you are drinking small amounts of wine with your parents on a weekly basis you will not grow an emotional attachment to it you will probably not even like it first as a kid. Because you are used to it small amounts you won't drink it so much that you get addicted to it as you won't feel the urge as otherwise you will discover it and because of lack of exposure to it your body will go into overdrive and you'll be thinking "DRINK, DRINK, DRINK" as in father ted. Yes it can lead to high blood pressure but children in France for example have a good life expectancy France who encourage children drinking diluted alcohol 77 for man 84 women England who don't encourage it 77 for man 82 women So in France the expectancy for women is higher and the expectancy for men is the same even with the risk of higher blood pressure. I wasn't saying a drop I was saying a diluted cup but wouldn't you wonder more why you can't have alcohol then why you can but diluted because I certainly wonder why I can't have alcohol. Yes it doesn't teach them about one night stands but at school they learn about those things and with a bit of a clearer head they should no to avoid it but of course there always exceptions. I was not saying a few shots I was saying roughly weekly so from 8 - 16 x 52 = 516 so I am talking about 516 diluted glasses I think that could make a difference. Yes of course if children are told not to do then they won't do I mean if I'm told not to touch something I always touch it but if it can be a matter of life or death then I thing that the only way is to scare them about it and if they rebelled they would die it would stop me. Alcohol will still be a big deal for them as they will have acquired a taste for alcohol and will still want to drink it but just not in industrial quantities.
Should children drink wine

If a child is introduced to wine around parents they will asume that it is acceptable away from parents therefore could get intoxicated unknowingly and encourage friends who have not experienced wine to drink it. wine is alcohol and alcohol is a drug. all drugs affect the nervous system in the body. Drugs are addictive and the child could rely on the wine to make them feel accepted or more mature. Then getting an emotional attatchment to the wine and is then at potential risk of becomming an alcoholic. Alcohol is proven to give you high blood pressure even if drunk in moderation. http://alcoholism.about.com... the future health problems that could be caused seem quite severe. giving a child a drop of wine sparingly is not really going to teach them about safe sex, one night stands or hangovers. If the child is wrapped in cotton wool it will feel repressed and rebel against the expectations and become curious as to why the drink they get is diluted and rare. if they do rebel, they will pay the price and if it takes a bit of throwing up for a kid to realise you shouldnt drink vodka straight, a few odd childhood glasses of wine wouldnt make any difference. Also, if a kid is going out to a social gathering, they don't want to be the "responsible" one they want to be like everyone else experiamenting and moaning about the hangovers. If children are told what to do, they dont want to do it. i think people should ignore the issue perhaps the curiosity wouldnt be so great or the need to rebel so compelling. if alcohol isnt a big deal, they're not going to be interested in it.
Should children drink wine

children should not drink wine because it gets them to think of it like anyother drink they are allowed to consume." I wasn't suggesting instead of a coke they have a Shiraz I was more suggesting the French way of the parents drinking a chardonnay while the child joins in with a diluted substance of it on a weekly basis not daily. "They will not hold any respect for the power of alcohol because it will be the norm." That is not true because they have always had it and they will learn as they get older and have it less and less diluted that it is a substance to be drank in small quantities as that will be normal for them. "socially drinking is a huge part of life and it would be unfair to of a sort take away the child's future experimentation. It is good for children to explore things for themselves, and learn their own boundaries and reactions to alcohol" Okay socially drinking is a huge part and I am not saying to take it away but so that they can go to the pub after a match and enjoy it but realizing that if they drink to much they will come home throw up feel rubbish and realize there a father so it is to prevent that. They can learn there boundaries at home where they are safe and see how they react but not with there mates who will spike there drink give em drugs and chat up the girl across the bar.
Should children drink wine

children should not drink wine because it gets them to think of it like anyother drink they are allowed to consume. They will not hold any respect for the power of alcohol because it will be the norm. socially drinking is a huge part of life and it would be unfair to of a sort take away the childs future experiamentation. It is good for children to explore things for themselves, and learn their own boundries and reactions to alcohol. really interesting topic for debate im looking forward to seeing the following arguments
sun rises in east

Firstly I like to say that this debate is pathetic and a waste of my time, but I've decided to go through anyway since Ive got some time of my hands. First of all my opponent didn't event state or define the topic properly. sun rises in east. pathetic. The Sun the huge star of gas made a long time ago, rises in the easterly direction on our compass. However, my opponent did not state where in the world you would be when sun rose in the east. For the purposes of this debate and due to the reason my opponent has not specified otherwise and can no longer do so after I've defined it. The location in question is The South Pole, down in Antarctica. Point 1: Compass Bearing. Hopefully for this part of my debate the voters will understand my logic. Imagine you are standing on the south pole of the Antarctic. You have a compass in your hand and you are half freezing to death but what I'm thinking about here in this situation is in which direction the compass points. Now, being directly on top of the south pole, what is the main direction you can head in? North. In fact its the only direction you can head in. Of course its so simple. You can only travel north seeing as going east while you are on the south pole will just send you north. Ok hopefully the voters got their heads around that. leading on... Point 2: Sun Patterns If you have the time please venture a look on over to this site which in fact will tell you when and on which day the sun will rise. http://www.timeanddate.com... If you had a look at this site close to the time i posted this debate you'll notice that on some days the sun doesn't even rise at all. It doesn't even pass the horizon. Conclusion: Thus not only has my opponent not thoroughly thought through his argument but he has supplied no evidence and no argument what so ever. And so, for the topic in question, the Sun dose not rise in the east on the South Pole, it rises in the North and some days it doesn't all.
Twitter.com exists.

Pro's final argument after being dismantled- "get a job". 1) No relevance to the actual debate2) If you as the judge didn't believe he should be deducted conduct for creating this debate, then now you can deduct conduct for personal attacks.But, let's go to the debate.EXTEND EVERYTHING FROM ROUND 2. Simply scroll up. It's simple, Con's entire case has been cleanly extended, meaning Pro has failed his BOP, as he has not met even 1 of the 6 arguments laid out, and therefore has not proved that twitter.com exists.
Twitter.com exists.

Note: the pro is arguing that Twitter.com is real and exists, not solely that it exists. However I will argue on your terms. First of all, The Con side has asked, I believe in the hope that this would be an insurmountable challenge, for the Pro-side to prove that Twitter has physical existence. No website could exist without a physical existence. As the human eye to percieve light, for something to be perceived by the human eye, it must exist as photons. In Amsler's "Review of Particle Physics: Gauge and Higgs bosons", it is stated that a photon has a mass of slightly less than 1x10"-18 eV/c2, therefore it has mass, though it is negligible. In addition no website could exist without physical servers: a website is not merely an idea, it does have to come from somewhere physical, on Earth. Electricity, which powers computers and gives them either an on/off signal (0 or 1) telling them what to do, is defined as "the physical phenomena arising from the behavior of electrons and protons that is caused by the attraction of particles with opposite charges and the repulsion of particles with the same charge". Notice that it is a "physical" phenomena, not an abstract concept or construction. We can feel the charges running these servers, and we can touch them. Your first four arguments are thusly debunked. The fifth and sixth arguments deal with the con's opinions and paranoia. Paranoia, that acknowledging that servers, photons, and electricity exists will somehow lead to a robot invasion, and the opinion that this debate was created malevolently, in an act of "trolling." These are things the debator believes, they have not provided evidence/proof for these unfounded assertions.
Twitter.com exists.

Ah yes, another 100% setup win for the instigator. Just kidding, Semantics time. (This shouldn't lose me conduct, I am fighting a troll and beating him at his own game.) First is the Resolutional analysis: Pro has failed to give any definitions, so for the purpose of this debate, please accept mine.Exist is defined as to have life or the functions of vitality. (Physically). For example, Human's cannot exist without oxygen, or they would die. [1]Twitter.com is defined as An information network [2]Second is the argument from a physical existence:Twitter.com is not a physical human being. When we refer to twitter.com as "it", we are not referring to a human being named twitter.com. Pro must prove twitter.com physically exists on this earth, or the resolution is ultimately negated.Third is the argument from an ontological perspective:Our existence correlates to our identity. Twitter.com must be proven to have identity, in a physical sense, and be proven to have being.Fourth is the argument from Camus' perspective:Twitter.com is a social networking site. It does not exist, according to Camus, all knowledge of existence lies within what we can touch and feel, the rest is construction, lacking actual being. Using this logic, Twitter.com does not exist, because we cannot touch it in a physical sense, and it is a relative unknown, there is no true being, and therefore twitter.com does not exist.Fifth is the argument from a technological perspective:Technology cannot have existence. Giving existence to technology justifies a technological mindset that will allow for either artifical intelligence to take over the world, or more likely the interdependence upon technology and acknowledgment of it's being leading to a faster rate of extinction. While this is a drastic impact, it is true if we give technology being, and existence. Pro is ultimately creating the technological mindset that will lead to our downfall.Sixth is the argument from the semantical perspective:My opponent instigated this debate believing it was a 100% guaranteed win. This should automatically lose conduct by him at least, as he/she is ultimately confining me to one answer. If Con's arguments are accepted however, Pro will not only have failed to affirm, but failed in his/her own semantical games. Thus, a vote for con is a vote for countering a troll, and teaching him/her a lesson about creating seemingly "one sided" debates.For these reasons I urge a con vote.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] https://twitter.com...