BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Nuclear Weapons have Helped our Society.

==Nuclear energy==My second point involves Nuclear energy, which was created because of the weapons like the A-Bomb. F Nuclear energy alone is about 10.9% of the worlds energy, and growing. Not having this useful tool of the future would severely hurt our society.-Smaller foot-print It releases lower green-house gases, and is one of the safest ways of producing energy. NASA writes, "Human-caused climate change and air pollution remain major global-scale problems and are both due mostly to fossil fuel burning. Mitigation efforts for both of these problems should be undertaken concurrently in order to maximize effectiveness. Such efforts can be accomplished largely with currently available low-carbon and carbon-free alternative energy sources like nuclear power and renewables, as well as energy efficiency improvements."[1]NASA also caculated that nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) net GHG emissions globally between 1971-2009, preventing the harm of our atmosphere. Nuclear waste can also be easily recycled, and a company supported by Bill Gates in currently doing this.-Safer for workersNuclear energy is also much safer for workers in these nuclear plants, compared to coal mining and other fossil fuels. This graph, from NASA show my point. Mean net deaths prevented annually by nuclear power between 1971-2009 for various countries/regions. "There is no question," says Joseph Romm, an energy expert at the Center for American Progress in Washington DC. "Nothing is worse than fossil fuels for killing people." A 2002 review by the IEA put nuclear energy on top, as safest, and fossil fuels as the most harmful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - http://www.newscientist.com...;-http://www.ieahydro.org...-[1]http://climate.nasa.gov...;-http://www.inc.com...;==Saves lives== -medicine and treatments. Nuclear medicine uses radiation letting doctors to make a quick, accurate diagnosis of the patient's specific organs, or to treat them. Radiotherapy can be used to treat some medical conditions, especially cancer, using radiation to weaken or destroy particular targeted cells. Tens of millions of patients are treated with nuclear medicine each year Over 10,000 hospitals worldwide use radioisotopes in medicine, and about 90% of the procedures are for diagnosis. The most common radioisotope used in diagnosis is technetium-99, with some 30 million procedures per year.-Lives saved in WWII During world war two, the only other option for the allies to defeat imperil japan was operation olympus, and coronet. these operations would have cost about a million men for the allies and nearly twice that or more, for the united states. The A-bombs saved many lives, and gava a much needed end to world war two -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...-http://www.radiologyinfo.org...;
Resolved: Nuclear Weapons have Helped our Society.

Pro forfeits again. In the interest of ‘doing things right’ I’ll post a brief rebuttal. Pro depends not on the main focus of this debate, that is, nuclear weapons, but rather nuclear power/energy. This is another matter altogether. Nuclear power has drawbacks: waste, the danger of a meltdown, etc. He didn’t defend nuclear weapons, but rather nuclear power. As for his defense of the weapons in relation to WWII, that point is debatable. One A-Bomb was more than enough. The brutal firebombing and the vaporizing of a large part of Hiroshima was more than enough. Nagasaki was overkill. Thanks.
Resolved: Nuclear Weapons have Helped our Society.

C1: Nuclear Weapons seriously threaten the human race Nuclear weapons are so far one of the only weapons mankind has developed that could end the human race as we know it, and in fact, almost did more than once. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world was close to nuclear war. Former Sec. of Defence Robert McNamara said, “We lucked out. It was luck that prevented a nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war. Rational individuals! Kennedy was rational, Khrushchev was rational, Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies, and that danger exists today. The major lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations! ” Almost no other weapon besides perhaps chemical warfare has the kind of domino effect that nuclear weapons has. If one is launched, many will be launched. All it takes is the wrong leader with the right capability. A nation like North Korea, or Pakistan, or even Israel. If 100 small, regional nuclear devices were detonated, we would lose 20-50% of the ozone, followed by a brutal nuclear winter – difficult to survive. If a proper nuclear war occurred, with a real arsenal being launched, we could expect to see the extinction of the human race – a terrible nuclear winter, crippling UV damage, rapid cooling down -30 degrees Celsius, not to mention the primary effects of the weapons themselves. Bombs made fifty years ago were so powerful they could ‘scorch earth’ nine miles of land above ground and penetrate 230 m underground. When the Soviet Union tested the nuke ‘Tsar Bomba’ almost sixty years ago the resulting explosion was so powerful it blew a 5 mile fireball followed by a 35 mile high mushroom cloud that burst past the stratosphere into the mesosphere. This was 54 years ago, and that explosion blew the windows in houses 125 miles away and caused a 5.5 earthquake. Let’s not even imagine what kind of weapons we must have today. Sources . http://acd.ucar.edu...
Freemarket capitalism is both unsustainable and environmentally unsound.

I would likt to thank CON for the impressive rebuttals!"The focus of Capitalism is profit. I do not understand how this is problematic, and would like PRO to explain this to the audience and myself."Why I say it is problematic is because there will be more profit with more consumption."What does this have to do with FMC? What would a government-run business do differently from a business in FMC?"A FMC economy is driven by economic growth, usually with high consumption and production rates. A government run business probably just as bad if not even WORSE."What this principle means is that we may, and should, hold all individuals responsible for their actions. Authors are to be given credit for their books, inventors are to be given credit for their inventions, murderers are to be given credit for their murders, and, most importantly for this debate, businesses are to be given credit for their pollution.""I mention thisas an analogy for my next point. People possess the negative right against others to not have their land, water, and air, polluted. Pollutants are harmful to the human body, as well as the environment. Over-exploitation of land leads to harmful conditions as well."So would you for example consider polluting the ocean and causing food shortages for aquatic life through the destruction of their habitat and primary food source a violation of the NAP even though it doesn't directly harm the every day person? "1. What is the system that you propose? What are the implications, and how is this better?" I propose stopping the current industrial economy and having a steady state economy where consumption of resources does not go pass the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The implications are the environment of the planet is not destroyed, overexploited, and pollution is negligable, lower population, but quality of life would most likely be lower because of fewer luxuries (unless it could somehow be managed). It would be better because the environment (we all live in) would be balanced, cleaner, and allowed to be restored to a healthy rate and be able to flourish again. "2. Why is FMC unsustainable and environmentally unsound? What evidence do you have for this?" The reason I think FMC is unsustainable is because it is unrestricted with no way to limit consumption enough to maintain ecological balance. "3. Do you have evidence to support the position that government-owned resources and production would be better?"No, but I am not necessarily proposing government owned resources just not corporate ownership. It could be a post-capitalist, like a participatory economy, socialism through common ownership or something entirely different."4. As I have expressed it here, is FMC still unsustaiable and environmentally unsound?"If, and only if it maintains ecological balance, but I don't see how it could possible be limited since it is not really restricted, even the way you expressed here. I thank CON for being willing to have this great debate with me!
Freemarket capitalism is both unsustainable and environmentally unsound.

First I would like to explain why I think unrestricted capitalism, especially the way CON defines it, is inherently unsustainable. The underlying problem with capitalism is that it requires infinite resources in order to support increasing population and human's infinite desires and it's primary concern as an economic system is profit. Unsustainable uses of resources is , more often than not, more profitable than sustainable uses. But the main problem is that the endless cycle of consumption, desire, and profit cannot be supported by a finite earth. I would like to posit that sustainability is only possible if economic consumption is scaled down drastically where everyone only consumes the same amount they produce. For this to happen, the current power structure must be taken down and industry must end and be put in the hands of some sort of local government or other organization. I do not know how this would be possible without violating CON's NAP and this may sound extreme, but since people in economic power want to continue the system at all cost, force will be needed to change it. I am excited to see CON's arguments and rebuttals. Am I correct CON posits regulation and laws (from government) are the problem and removing government intervention would improve it? If so, I am also interested as to how having the business world unrestricted and separated from the state will prevent overexploitation and high carbon footprint that we see with globalization or deforestation in Africa and South America for example, or does CON not think this a problem? Is a free market even possible without descending into uncontrollable anarchy, corporate monopolies and cartels?
Freemarket capitalism is both unsustainable and environmentally unsound.

The materials economy is comprised of the following steps Extraction Production Distribution Consumption Disposal Round 1 Define your terms. Identify at least one causal factor (Why is it this way?) Identify at least one intervention. (How can it be improved?) Opening arguments Feel free to challenge my definitions: Free market capitalism- an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit. Sustainability- Maintaining ecological balance: exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of an area Why is it this way? The current economic system is unsustainable because of industrialism, rampant consumerism, and too much freedom in the market. How can it be improved? Stop current capitalism, use green energy, force people to be sustainable and use sustainable business practices, get rid of big industry. Need a good debater to challenge me.
School dress codes

Ok, I get that. But that's the way they want to dress. I seen girls dress like whores and still succeed in school. I seen guys who sag their pants still succeed in school. And one of those guys is my brother. He sags his pants but he still gets A's and B's, he is a gentleman, and respectful. Don't judge anybody on how they dress. Looks are deceiving. Highschoolers should be able to dress anyway they like. Plus they are young adults, they should have fun with the way they dress.
School is failing

Rebuttal "The school is failing from it's real goal, because we all see right now that there's kids that don't know anything. " This isn't necessarily the fault of the school. If students don't apply themselves, then they cannot expect success. This is once again the students failing the school, for abusing the learning privilege. "The schools are also teaching a reality that is not true, teaching them to work for others," This isn't actually a false reality. Most people start out by working for superiors, so teaching students how to be a good employee is a vital skill needed for success. "not to be rich," In no way does school inhibit the possibility for a student to be rich in the future. "or develop their interests." Schooling actually allows students to develop their interests. As the school years increase, students are able to select more and more individualized courses that they want to take. Overall, we see that the school system isn't failing the students, but is abused
School is failing

My opponent appears to say that they believe that the school's are failing students; I will be arguing that the people are failing the school. The main reason as to why many people feel that the education system is failing is because of a lack of investment. Schools can't be as productive in teaching students if they barely have the funds to provide for the supplies needed for a healthy education. Because of this lack of funding, we see that many schools are unable to create new and more suited programs for the students. The burden to fix this falls on the people-- not the schools. The students also play a part in the issue. Students who do not use the education wisely will not see success. Those who do not commit themselves will not see the benefits. The concept that school is failing is wrong in itself. If school is failing, why do we have successful people here today? All of these people passed through their time in school and today have been able to be very productive in the world.
Criminal Testing

What easier and more moral methods? Experimentation on a biological creature is often necessary to achieve scientific goals. Most likely if I was in that position I would say I have rights, but they shouldn't care that I plead rights. I've done enough to rid me of those, and on death row I would be thinking different yes. Doesn't matter. Besides, death isn't always the outcome. You could argue that they would live in pain and shame, but they knew what they were getting into. Now, if they were severely mentally unstable, of course not. But you have to be somewhat unstable to commit such a crime anyway. Thanks for the argument, win or lose, I always enjoy myself a good debate.
Criminal Testing

Medical breakthroughs can be made through animal testing as well, without the need to torture humans. One can argue that a person loses their rights and get what they deserve when being tested on like that for murder, however if you were in the seat of someone who was to be tested, you'd change your tune fairly quickly. You would stop saying that those people had no rights, and you or I would most likely plead for yourself under the argument that you did have rights. On top of that, I think that the fear experienced when on death row would be enough. The deathrow patients would get to experience the exact same fear that their victims did without the aspect of torture or pain, and the quick death ensures that they keep some of their dignity and that not as many people complain. Humans have a right to live, and that right is already taken away when a person is put on death row. I don't see the reason to torture them on top of that. To sum up, the death penalty is already punishment enough, psychologically. We shouldn't take humans and use them as resources to help the world in a way that can already be done through easier and more moral methods.
Criminal Testing

Humans do have rights, but when a man, per say, rapes, he has lost those rights. Now what he deserves is death, but my point is not based on ethics. My point is on the positive/negative effect on society. Let's say scientists make a breakthrough in medicine by testing on that rapist, but it leaves him dead. He got what he deserved, and now many lives will be saved, curbing the negative impact he had on the progress of society by his actions.
Criminal Testing

What you are pretty much arguing is that torture is acceptable, which is an incredibly sadistic approach. Two wrongs do not make a right, and testing on humans is just as barbaric as whatever that human has done. The lethal injection is made to be as painless as possible to the criminal. A lot of the time, the criminal is already terrified and horrified at the idea that they're going to die in just as much cowardly terror as the people they murdered. Why prolong that torture for some sick vengeful pleasure? Sure, we'd save a lot of animals, but humans have ambitions, dreams, family, friends, emotions, memories.... And yes, I'm well aware that animals are much the same and I'm NOT supporting animal testing in anyway, but there is a big difference between humans and animals. What is that difference? One is sentient, the other isn't. Despite what they may have done, however despicable a murderer is, they're still a human being and all human beings deserve a quick death.
Ravenclaw (Me) vs Gryffindor (Con)

"Wisdom is essential to battles"No it isnt... Having bigger and badder weapons is way more essential for battle than being wise. We didn't invade Iraq with our unmatchable arsenal of wisdom, and if we did, it would have turned out far worse than the war already did since terrorists dont give two sh*ts about 'wisdom' "The swords of intellect and wisdom can slash even the toughest enemies"Not when the school bully has you pinned in a corner and is about to rearrange your face.... Wisdom and intellect are probably what got you bullied in the first place, now its time to punch someone in the throat and hope you can make a break for it. Id offer more counter arguments but thats literally all that pro said, so now I will offer my own arguments in favor of Gryffindor. 1) It is the house of a**-kickeryIt wasnt Ravenclaw that led the battle against Voldemort, it was Gryffindor. It wasnt Ravenclaw that housed the one who would slay Voldemort, it was Gryffindor. It wasnt the head of Ravenclaw who summoned Hogwarts's army, it was Gryffindor's. It also wasnt Ravenclaw that ended Slytherins House Cup winning streak either, it was Gryffindor. Gryffindor's claim to fame simply outrivals that of Ravenclaws. We can all name several people in Gryffindor (Potter, Hermione, the Weasley clan, Longbottom, Potter's father and all of his amazing friends such as Lupin, Black, etc.) yet most people cant name a single person in Ravenclaw. The only one I can think of is Cho Chang, who was mentioned only because he became a Gryffindor's love interest. Gryffindor simply has more a**-kickers and a longer history of kicking a** than Ravenclaw does, making it the better of the two houses. 2) HistoryIn a great time of need, the sword of Gryffindor will reveal itself to a member of Gryffindor who is worthy of wielding it, which is how Potter killed the Basilisk (One of Voldemort's Horcruxes) and how Longbottom slayed Nagini (Another of Voldemort's Horcruxes)..... Potter and his gang also regularly used the sword to kill other Horcruxes as well, making the Sword of Gryffindor quite literally the tool used to fight pure evil..... What cool object of Ravenclaw can match that claim to fame? The only thing they have of value was a tiara, which ended up just becoming a Horcrux as well....Ravenclaw became the victim, Gryffindor was its liberators. Point Gryffindor3) TraitsRavenclaws are wise and reserved, how nice (sarcasm). Gryffindor's are leaders, not followers. When confronted with a locked door, a Gryffindor will try to kick the door down while a Ravenclaw looks around for the key. Which of those two sounds like someone you want fighting in your corner? Gryffindor's have a better claim to fame, and they posses traits that automatically put them ahead of Ravenclaws in terms of leadership and fighting.4) Heads of Houses The head of Gryffindor is the undeniable bada** Professor McGonagall, the head of Ravenclaw is so insignificant I cannot even remember their name, and this is likely the case for many other people who are even just casual fans of Harry Potter. Gryffindor therefore has the better head of house.
Rape Battle

"Don't pray for me. I've sworn allegience to Satan and consider your prayers to God a form of psychic warfare. If you appeal to God on my behalf, I'll appeal to Satan on your behalf."Wylted, I wanted a conversation with the real you. No tricks, not trolls. I want to help you."Thank God (figure of speech). You have a tendency to take debates off course anyway."I disagree, Wylted. I see this debate as a cry for help, and I am here to help you. How can I show you this? "I find being a dik amusing and have alway tried to create shock value with whatever I do. You have no ideal how hard it is to reconcile that part of my personality with the part that likes to blend in and continually be behind the scenes. Oh, how much I hate the spot light."Finally, we see something of the real you. I am trying to get to the reason you are such an utter, inconsolable dikhead. Please, help us understand how you became... whatever this is?"I have no clue what this stuff has to do with this debate. I'm aware, I'll die and be forgotten as are most people by the time they teach my age." I am responding to your cry for help, Wylted. I am trying to see just how lucid you are.The problem with your plan, to create shock value in whatever you do, is that this isn't shocking anymore. When I think of Wylted, I think of a nobody so sad in their life that they must make others angry for amusement. You do not inspire shock, my friend. You inspire pity.
Rape Battle

I've already won. I guess I can sacrifice a round. "Oh dear, my dear Wylted. I am not a man of faith, but I shall pray for you. Because only divine intervention could save the creature I see before me." Don't pray for me. I've sworn allegience to Satan and consider your prayers to God a form of psychic warfare. If you appeal to God on my behalf, I'll appeal to Satan on your behalf. " I fear we won't have many more opportunities to discuss this, as I hardly doubt I will accept any of your debates again." Thank God (figure of speech). You have a tendency to take debates off course anyway. "Was I wrong, in my initial analysis? Does this stem not from your completely extraneous life (I'm having to go further down the synonym list for this, Wylted. I hope you appreciate the effort), but instead from some past experience? Were you bullied as a child, and instead of rising above this you decided to be an a*shole for attention instead?" I find being a dik amusing and have alway tried to create shock value with whatever I do. You have no ideal how hard it is to reconcile that part of my personality with the part that likes to blend in and continually be behind the scenes. Oh, how much I hate the spot light. "Did you know, on a relative scale, you will die forgotten and unmourned? 7 billion humans, but who really gives a damn about you?" I have no clue what this stuff has to do with this debate. I'm aware, I'll die and be forgotten as are most people by the time they teach my age. ". I'd ask you how it feels to be utterly irrelevant, but I doubt you could even answer me." It feels like I'm waiting to die. How does it feel for you? I answered some of my opponent's questions now award all 7 points to me, because con has forfeited.