BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Resolution to Increase Natural Gas Production

WHEREAS US demand for oil continues to grow, and WHEREAS the United States furnishes just two percent of its supply from native sources, and much of the oil in the rest of the world exists in conflict areas, and WHEREAS the price of oil will likely rise as the finite global supply dwindles further, and WHEREAS the United States economy could be bankrupted by attempts to purchase this unsustainable resource from hostile foreign powers, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Student Congress here assembled that significant monies be spent to increase research and development of Hydraulic Fracturing or "Fracking," a process which releases and captures underground reserves of natural gas. Our estimated 2587 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would produce enough energy for US consumption for years to come, during which time more sustainable resources can be developed to replace fossil fuels entirely. Start off, con!
Intelligent design VS Evolution

Second, some clarifications as to what this debate is, and is not about. This debate is not about these two theories as a whole but about me defending my own views on them. Meaning that it is my job to present these views, and my opponent's job to attempt to refute them. If at the end of the round I have not upheld my own views I lose, if I have I will win. =Framework= Intelligent design and creationism are not the same thing. Intelligent is the umbrella which describes the idea that an all powerful being created the universe, creationism is the more specified variation upheld in abrahamic religions. The difference is, intelligent design is a theory in science to explain the origins of life; just as evolution is. Creationism is a religious belief, thus a matter of faith. I have made it abundantly clear time and time again, that I cannot prove God to be true; to do so would belittle the all-important aspect of faith. Accordingly I would not argue Creationism as it is a matter of faith, and not scientific theory. =Arguments= + Since both are unproven theories, neither is more legitimate than the other. + Intelligent design has been more widely accepted, for a longer period of time than evolution. + Evolution has only even been considered a legitimate theory for a few years. I apologize for such short response, back to my opponent.
Intelligent design VS Evolution

I want to begin by saying how pleased I am to get the opportunity to debate BangBang-Coconut on the topic of evolution. The science that describes the development of life on Earth has always been particularly fascinating to me. And I can only hope to adequately convey this enthusiasm as I proceed to argue my case. Let me make one thing clear in my opening statements. I consider calling creationism "intelligent design" to be an undue form of capitulation to pseudoscience. As such, I will henceforth be referring to "intelligent design" as creationism. Having said that, it is my intention to argue that evolution and creationism are not both equally valid scientific theories. Accordingly, in this debate I'm going to defend two basic contentions. First, there are no good reasons to think that creationism is true. And secondly, there are good reasons to think that evolution is true. I'll leave it up to my opponent to provide us with the scientific evidence that he believes demonstrates that creationism is true. With formalities out of the way, I eagerly await my opponent's arguments.
Intelligent design VS Evolution

Usually I make explicit rules and restrictions, but I trust my opponent not to make any semantic or otherwise dumb arguments. But as a brief explanation, this is the way this debate will work; starting round two I will present my beliefs on Intelligent Design VS Evolution and con will attack them. If at the end of the debate I have not defended my views that they are equally legitimate theories, then I will lose. If I have defended my views, my opponent loses. If my opponent has any questions he may ask them in the comments section prior to acceptance. After he has accepted I will make clarifications in round only as I see it necessary.
Universal Truth/Morality

Here's what this debate comes down to: you are confused on the distinction between what we THINK is true and what is actually true. This quote from you is particularly telling: "To most of us, one plus one equals two. But to someone who doesn't know what numbers or addition is, they don't agree. In their minds, it is correct, and, for them that is true." essentially, you are just denying that anyone can ever be wrong. Empirically, this seems false and it goes back to my first point in round 1. You do not actually believe this because you are debating with me over what's true. If you bought your own argument you should just say "the universality of truth is true for you, but it's not true for me". Look, it's built into the concepts of 1, 2 and addition that 1+1=2. If you disagree, you have not understood the concepts. A priori knowledge (knowledge independent of experience) works this way, the fact that some people disagree is no argument against it. In fact, even if everyone agree, it would not change the truth of the statement. You are working off of a definition of truth that is inextricable from public opinion -- this definition does not work. The Truman show example is also a poor one. When Truman thought his family really loved him, he was wrong -- no two ways about it. Now, your point is that I could be wrong in all of my assumptions and I grant this point, but the actual truth of the matter is independent of my beliefs and is universal. Our ability to approach it, however, may not be. In fact, "I think therefore I am" is a good example of a statement that is true for everyone if you have understood the concepts of the syllogism. This also links into the morality debate. Solarman's disagreement that the holocaust was wrong has absolutely no effect on its wrongness. Morality is universal, some people are just wrong.
Universal Truth/Morality

Well, I guess I probably should have made the topic something more specific, but I'll still finish this one with the set parameters. You claim that morality is not relative on the grounds that some morals are just confused. Who is to say what morals are correct? In response, you might say, just because no one can know, that doesn't mean there isn't one correct moral code. But again, I believe that perception is reality. To most of us, one plus one equals two. But to someone who doesn't know what numbers or addition is, they don't agree. In their minds, it is correct, and, for them that is true. For example, let's take the movie, the Truman Show. Truman truly believed that his "friends" and "family" were real who they said they were. His reality turned out to be false his whole life. How do you know that the reality that you know to be true is really not? For all you know, your life could be a TV show. I know this is a totally ridiculous thing to say, but really, you don't know. That is why nothing can be universal. Because no one can prove that their is one answer, there can't be just one. However, you could prove that morality is relative because of the millions of different perspectives people have. To simply say, "I think everyone else's moral code is wrong, therefore there is only one universal truth and that truth is mine." Everyone will always think differently and no one can change that. That is why I think that truth/morality cannot be universal. Now, the Holocaust. It is true that most people believe that the Holocaust was completely wrong. But there are many (Solerman1969) that think the Holocaust was justified. Although these people are racist bigots, their moral standards tell them that they are right in defending genocide. In other words, the Holocaust was really not objectively wrong, but subjectively, because some people still disagree. I'm not supporting the Holocaust or genocide or anything, I'm just stating the fact that if truth/morality really was universal, everyone would believe the exact same thing. We wouldn't have opinions or personal beliefs. You would have to be insane to believe otherwise.
Universal Truth/Morality

OK, so what I understand is that you agree with my argument more or less, but intended that I refute something other than the actual topic. I think that I could technically win this debate by simply complaining that if you wanted to discuss this new topic, you should have specified it. But, that's not very interesting. Let me elaborate on point 2. If two claims directly contradict, it cannot be the case that both are true. I cannot be a man and not a man or kvaughan and not kvaughan. So, one must, by the very principles of logic, be true. This is supposed to be irrefutable proof that truth does in fact exist. TO defend that truth is relative you say: "I was in a car accident not too long ago, and I made it without any serious injuries. She truly believed that it was her prayers that saved me. That is her reality and nothing can change that. But for me, I think that I was just lucky. This is a great example of subjective truth; no one can know what really happened, so both of our theories are true. My grandma's theory is true for her, as mine is true for me. This is still keeping to the law of contradiction because in my mind, there is only one theory that is true and the same goes for my grandma." Here, you're confusing the limits on our human knowledge with what is actually true. It is either the case that God saved you, or this is not the case, but we can know for sure, given the argument above, that God either saved you or God did not save you. Saying that it is true for your grandma that he saved you and it's true for you that he did not makes no sense. It is true that you each believe this, but only one event actually happened. Now, you are correct in saying that we do not technically know what happened, but this does not mean that both people are right, it means that one person is right, one person is wrong, but we don't know which is which. Morality: moral relativists love to point out that different people and cultures have different notions of morality. I'm inclined to think that this is totally irrelevant. For example, if a culture existed where rape was the accepted norm, it would be open to me to say that their morality is just confused -- rape is wrong and the fact that they don't realize this is irrelevant. This is true for all kinds of facts. If I don't know that 1+1=2, it doesn't make the statement any less true. So, at a minimum, this argument fails to demonstrate that morality is relative. Second, all we need to defend that morality is not relative is a single agreement on something as objectively wrong. Let's take the Holocaust for example. If we can agree that the holocaust was objectively morally wrong, then we can figure out why it was wrong and from that we can create a set of objective standards that define why the holocaust was wrong and generalize this to everyone.
Universal Truth/Morality

Good argument, but let me clarify what I mean by truth. Of course anyone could pick up a pen and say, "This is a pen," and it would be true without a doubt. But I don't mean truth in that literal sense. I mean philosophical truth. For example, I am debating whether things like morality are constant throughout the world. I don't think they are. I think you might be taking the topic too literally. But, still, you make a very good point. In this debate I will use logic and reason to prove my stance and you must do the same. This way we can still debate on something seemingly undebatable. In other words, we have to ignore your 1st point and try to use evidence to support our sides. Does that make sense? If not, say so in the comment section, and I'll try to explain better. Can you please elaborate on your second point? I kinda get what you mean, but I need some more explanation. Now, your third point about typing. Again, when I say truth, I'm referring to philosophical truth and morality. I'm sorry if I was not clear or specific enough. You bring up some very good points, especially about our approach to truth. But I think that becuase our approach is flawed, that that in itself makes truth/morality subjective. Because I am a firm believer in the concept of "perception is reality." For example, my grandma is crazy religious. And she is always praying. I was in a car accident not too long ago, and I made it without any serious injuries. She truly believed that it was her prayers that saved me. That is her reality and nothing can change that. But for me, I think that I was just lucky. This is a great example of subjective truth; no one can know what really happened, so both of our theories are true. My grandma's theory is true for her, as mine is true for me. This is still keeping to the law of contradiction because in my mind, there is only one theory that is true and the same goes for my grandma. Wow, this is getting complicated. Again, if you need clarification just ask. Let me quickly mention morality. Morality, just like truth, is also relative. What is the moral norm in one culture is not true in another. Some cultures (for example, Sparta) train their children to kill ruthlessly. When they grow up, murder and death are second nature to them. Violence is embedded in their minds. This was not the case in somewhere like Athens, where humanism reigned superior. These two city-states show how customs can change our moral perspective, making it relative.
Universal Truth/Morality

I want to provide two forewarnings: first, it is necessary to be very specific and careful about what language means on this topic. I will lean heavily on the distinction between what we can know and what we do know. If my language is confusing, ask about it in the comments and I'll get back to you. Second, I am not religious, so I won't be using that as an argument. Your thesis is plainly stated: "I believe that truth is not universal, but relative and that it changes as a result of personal opinion" I have a few arguments: 1. Does this argument apply to the claim that truth is relative? That is, is the claim that truth is relative also relative. If so, when I disagree and say that truth is not relative, what could your response be? You can't disagree with me, because truth is relative. How can I take anything you say seriously and how can you have a debate at all? 2. I will define truth roughly as "agreement with reality". So, proposition P is true IFF (if and only if) P is the case in the world. Now, a basic principle of logic is the law of non-contradiction which states that two mutually exclusive claims cannot be simultaneously true at the same time. So, let's take the claim that I am typing and the claim that I am not typing. Both cannot be true and both cannot be false, because they contradict, so one must be true and one must be false. This fact is true for all people, in all places, at all times. Now, this does not mean that I, or anyone, knows which is true and which isn't. I am highly sensitive to the claim that it is beyond our epistemological ability to know what the truth is in many situations. But, what I am arguing is that TRUTH itself is not relative, the problem only comes in our ability to approach truth.
Universal Truth/Morality

Note: Please do not base your whole argument on religion, the Bible, the Church, etc. Also, for this debate, truth and morality can be interchangeable words. I believe that truth is not universal, but relative and that it changes as a result of personal opinion. How can one person know that "one true answer." Who is to decide what is truth and what is untruth? The answer is no one. Because no one can know the answers to life's great questions, truth cannot be a universal, constant thing. I think people blindly follow what they believe to be true. It is for this reason that people enjoy the notion of universal truth. It gives them a sense of security and purpose that they don't get when they approach things from a logical standpoint. Looking at things through reason may give us answers that we don't like or make us feel less significant. That is why people like the idea of a universal truth: it never let's them down. Does not truth change with new scientific discoveries? For example, in the Middle Ages, everyone was told by teachers and priests alike, that the universe revolved around the Earth. However, with the dawn of the Enlightenment and Galileo, it was proven that the Earth actually revolves around the sun, and is nowhere near the center of the universe. But why did people assume that the Earth was the center? Because it gave this planet, and all of those on it, meaning. They thought God must have made the Earth at the center, because we are the most important things to him. This far fetched theory is an example a universal "truth" that not only changed, but gave millions false senses of belonging and purpose. I don't see how a "lack of common good" takes meaning away from our lives. Again, I think that this is just another example of how the author and others like him use the idea of a "universal truth" to mask the things that seem to make our lives less significant. For example, if a loved one dies, many people conclude that everything happens for a reason or God thought it was their time to die. These notions are just euphemisms that make the difficult times in our lives easier. This sense of blind acceptance of what no one knows about is what really makes our civilization decay. If more people would learn to put logic and reason first, instead of these so-called "universal truths," our society would be much better off.
Baseball Players get Paid to Much

I believe that Pro-Athletes don`t get paid to much. For example, a tornado struck Moore, Oklahoma. Kevin Durant, from the Dallas Cowboys, donated 1 million dollars from his personal salary to help the devastating tornado relief efforts of the Red Cross. The rest of the team also donated the same amount. That is 2 million dollars! They are not always greedy! They can also be very kind and helpful. That is why I believe that Pro-Athletes don`t get paid to much.Life as a Pro-Athlete can have serious consequence. This includes injuries. Also, they risk losing their jobs because of this. They must also pay for all their expenses. Like food, doctors, water, electricity, e.c.t. Also, as I stated before, the money can be used for good.
The earth is a spheroid.

I contend that the place we call home could not possibly be a spheroid that is 25,000 miles in circumference as modern astronomy claims. My opponent carries the burden of this truism. He must prove, conclusively, curvature or axial rotation, preferably both. The proof must be presented through the scientific method. He must start in round one and post only the word forfeit in the last round, since it is his burden, and I'm using the first round for clarification. Good luck. Voters must use OPT-IN voting standards when voting
gayness

I would just like to point out that my opponent, this Vinny character, has all the traits that a criminal would in fact have. First of all, he tries to threaten me, even though he has mentioned to me that he is my good "friend".. yeah, really classy threatening your friends. Secondly, I would like to point out that this man is, infact, a beezy. This is a term that he takes no pleasure in being called, it affects him in a negative way actually. But it is necessary for his true colors to be shown through this word. If I were to describe this person in one word, guess what that word would be? It starts with a B and ends with a Y.................... Yep, beezy. He thinks he's so cool calling me mentally unstable, but he is actually the one that is mentally not there. This man is so emotionally/mentally unstable that he actually missed Jersey Shore tonight to play Halo. Who does that? You never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever reject Jersey Shore for Halo. But this man did. I feel like this a good note to end on, seeing as it reflects just how messed up this person is. Stay classy debaters. Tooooodaloooooo mother f************ckerrrrrrrs(:
gayness

Oh wow. I like it when people are just extremely mean to other people. I would like to point out that earlier today this "Vinny" threatened to rape me. And this is not the first case of this scenario. He has threatened me multiple times with this....I think he is the one that is mentally disabled. Who threatens to rape someone multiple times in one day? Thats not very classy... Just saying. Besides, this argument is suppose to be about gayness, not about whether someone is mentally functional or not. At least I tried to stay on topic until I had to defend myself.
Vaccines do not cause autism

You're forgetting a couple of things. Where is your proof that it was a massive scam? Vaccines have several side effects and are known to cause Autism at times. Depending on what vaccine you are getting the side effect could be a small chance for a cold, or a small chance for Autism. Vaccines come from a weak celll of the disease. flu vaccine has weak cells of the flu so the body system can attack those cells and know how to prevent it and fight it. A lot of times to much of the vaccine can be put in and side effects happen a lot. There are a couple of cases where vaccines have caused Autism and not just one major scandel.
Vaccines do not cause autism

the main arguing point for people who believe that there is no like between vaccines and autism is the lancet medical journal article published in 1998. the paper stated that several children were given an MMR vaccine and later developed symptoms of autism. after a long investigation, a reporter wrote that the author of the article received money from legal aid board lawyers to write a fraudulent paper to use against vaccine manufacturers. as you can see the first real mention of a possible link between vaccines and autism turned out to be a massive lie.
Businesses should make more of an effort to have good CSR.

Rebuttals : "you will find consumers boycotting companies that are damaging the environment" - Why would consumers abandon companies if they are getting what they want ? In addition to this, how is diverging from a company going to help the environment? When profits start to decline, they increase their production , flooding the markets with their goods, therefore, increasing the damage to the environment. Maybe that is why my alert opponent keeps resorting to say that their products would be cheaper as with a glut in the market the prices would drop immensely "increased profit margins" - My outgoing, enthusiastic, opponent has brought up this phrase numerous times but has not explained how these profits would increase after the large amount of money has been spent. I shall not rebut against anything said in my opponent's final round as it would be unfair because he can not rebut against me in this round. Conclusion: In summation, I believe that businesses should not have to make more of an effort to have a good CRS because of economic issues such as high costs, damage to the global market place and the interest of potential buyers and investors as well as social reasons which include green washing, the responsibility of the government and non-profit organizations and false praise. My opponent has failed to properly present his case as he insufficiently explained his point but tries to by using long, repeated examples. He also spent a lot of his argument trying, in vain to disregard my points that he ran out of characters to properly explain his points and present his case , as can be seen in round 3. I will end by saying this. CSR tries to pose ineffective market-based solutions to solve social and environmental problems. Sources : . http://www.colorado.edu... . http://smallbusiness.chron.com...