BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were not orchestrated by the U.S. government

Thank you, Con.Rebuttal #1 - The Pentagon wreckage is consistent with a 757 crash The idea that there was no physical evidence of a jetliner crash at the Pentagon is blatantly false. It stems from the mistaken belief that there should be large portions of the plane intact after the impact. Failing to see such wreckage, conspiracy theorists assume that there was no debris at all. Pictured above is the crash test of an F-4 into a concrete barrier. As you can see, the plane appears to have nearly disappeared. This illustrates the complete possibility of a jet to be reduced to tiny fragments upon impact, rather than leaving behind significant amounts of debris.Moving on, there is documentation of debris from the 757 found in and around the impact site. Pictured above is one of the larger pieces of debris found outside the Pentagon facade following the attack.My opponent alleges that the "hole in the building" does not meet the measurements of a 757. This Truther claim is based upon selective presentation of the photographs of the crash, in which the first floor is obscured by smoke and flame-retardant spray.[1] Below is a photo showing that the extent of the damage was roughly sixty feet, rather than the typical Truther claim of less than twenty feet.[2] Rebuttal #2 - The motive of the governmentWhile I certainly would agree that those in political power capitalized upon the terrorist attacks, this is hardly proof that they were the perpetrators. Motive does not mean the guilt, and this is especially important to remember given that it is the politician's job to use current events to his or her favor.Sources1. http://911research.wtc7.net...2. http://911review.com...
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were not orchestrated by the U.S. government

I believe the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government. First of all, there is no evidence that a plane ever hit the pentagon except for the hole in the building. Which doesn't measure up with the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon. Also, a "terrorist attack" is the perfect excuse for George Bush to start a war which boosts the economy.
NASA should develop a hybrid Startram system to save fuel

"If I cut fuel costs by 70%" You CANNOT cut fuel costs by 70%! You would need 34 000 kph of delta-V, or change in speed, to reach orbit. You are assuming the maglev track can accelerate the rocket 70% of the speed needed to get to orbit, which is 34 000 kph * 70% = 23 800 kph. Therefore, if you want to decrease fuel costs, you would need to launch the rocket from the maglev tube at 23 800 kph, and as you said "1070 kph is not realistic for an open-air maglev system," I think 23 800 kph is also not realistic. "I am not supporting this with a bridge, I"m supporting it with a mountain" But how? I hope you realize a mountain is not a straight 30 degree incline towards the top; but it is rather rugged. http://checkconnect.net... From the picture above, the only possible route up is the blue line. Now, how would you put a maglev track on that rugged mountainside? There is a reason why we need to build a bridge to support this massive vehicle, and that is to provide it with a straight incline towards the peak of the mountain. When you have something over 1 million tons travelling at 300mph, you wouldn"t want a track that looked like this (https://i.stack.imgur.com...). Therefore, the track needs to be built on a low bridge that compensates for the bumps and hills in the mountain, which increases the cost even more. "Also, It should be noted that the Falcon 9 weighs 480 tons at liftoff" It seems we are using different sources here. The official SpaceX website shows that Falcon 9 weighs 1,207,920 pounds (http://www.spacex.com...). "We cancel it" WHAT? Cancel a 62 million dollar launch excluding expensive payload? Are you serious! "it won"t destroy the track" Yep. Totally. Over 1 million pounds of highly explosive fuel and metal travelling at over 300 mph will not destroy the track.
NASA should develop a hybrid Startram system to save fuel

1 how to build it 2200 ton where fuel weighs 20 times more than the shuttle. If I cut the fuel costs by 70% I cut the weight costs by that much as well. 2100 X .3 = 630 + 100 = 730 (100 tons for the shuttle taken out of the percentage drop) I’m not supporting this on a bridge, I’m supporting it with a mountain. So the pounds per foot is higher on concrete anchored to stone than a bridge, as well as the weight cut by a third. I don’t need a bridge at all, none of the track is suspended in air. It either sits on the ground or it sits on a mountain. Now there may be some issues as it goes up the mountain and gets to be closer to vertical, but given the width and length of contact area in a U channel I feel like it would be dispersed much better than against a flat surface like a road on a bridge. The delta-v refers to acceleration needed to do something. If you are talking about something else you’ll need to clarify please. https://en.wikipedia.org... I did refute your argument about magnets affecting internal systems when I said “just to clarify when I say space shuttle I understand that it would need to be redesigned to work with my system, so it would not be the same space shuttle that is currently in use today, I’m just using that as a generic term.” To go further into depth on the matter if one side of a track can hold 100 tons without bothering the people inside, then the same track with two additional sides could 300 tons without bothering the people inside. On top of that the width of the track and the side would be bigger. So there would need to be some shielding, but the magnets wouldn’t need to be some super strong craziness. 3 escape velocity 1070 kph is not realistic for an open-air maglev system, and I’m not suggesting it. I feel like it would top out around 350 – 400 mph at best, and those wouldn’t be consistent release speeds. However, making up the differences in speeds would easily be possible with a few additional seconds burn at the end given that gravity will not be affecting you as much Also, It should be noted that the Falcon 9 weighs 480 tons at liftoff coming in almost half of the 730 calculated above, and it’s still launched from sea level so it need a lot more fuel than my system. Therefore the thrust would not be fighting as much weight. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com... 2 safety Fire in mountains covered with snow is not legitimate problem. We cancel it, and it won’t destroy the track unless it destroys the mountain which is not a legitimate problem.
NASA should develop a hybrid Startram system to save fuel

1. How to build it. First off I said it would reduce fuel, I didn’t say that it would remove the need for fuel completely. The track does not need to achieve escape velocity. Your acceleration calculations are incorrect. I only need to get to 300 mph, so with an acceleration of 1 m/s2 (based off Transrapid high-speed monorail completed in 1987) the track would need to be less than 19 km long to get to 134.11 m/s2. The cost was 1.33 billion for the Transrapid for 30.5 kilometers (plenty of distance to cover my needs) and supported a 50-ton train and 20 tons of cargo. https://en.wikipedia.org... The magnets would need to be stronger, but unlike the Transrapid my concept has a track as a canal with sides. Obviously, this would increase the track costs, as well as the location, and going up a mountain would increase the costs, but I can’t see them doing more than tripling the costs. So my estimation is between 2 – 3 billion. (the Startram is estimated at 60 billion) Also, because the escape velocity at sea level is 11.2 km/sec that mean the escape velocity at 37k km above sea level is less. http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu... Half the Earth's atmosphere is found at less than 20,000 feet (3.8 miles), so at the release point of 23,000 feet the drag is much lower as well. http://www.g2mil.com... All making it so the amount of fuel, and the total weight required for the shuttle would be much lower. Just to clarify when I say space shuttle I understand that it would need to be redesigned to work with my system, so it would not be the same space shuttle that is currently in use today, I’m just using that as a generic term. 2. Safety Mountainous regions are sparely populated if something did fall to the ground it shouldn’t hit a highly populated area. Also, it won’t need that much fuel as previously stated. Burning of all the fossil fuels isn’t doing our environment any good as it is. An earthquake or shouldn’t hurt the track, but it could cause problems with an avalanche. Obviously, we would need to monitor seismic activity. 3. Escape velocity Again I don’t need 34,000 kph as I’m not launching at sea level. When calculating, the energy required to get 200 tons going 300 mph I think you’ll find the required energy is a bit more than “measly”, as the inertia 200 tons is no small thing. I’m just looking to cut the fuel costs in less than half, not completely remove them. As stated this isn’t a Startram system, this is just something to give it a bit of an oomph to get it started so it saves fuel. That saved fuel should pay for itself in 20 or so flights. $450 million was the average cost, if I could half that cost, and save 225 million X 20 = 4.5 billion. https://en.wikipedia.org...
NASA should develop a hybrid Startram system to save fuel

Here are my arguments against Pro. 1. How would this be built? Pro suggests that the exit velocity of a space shuttle is 300 mph, or roughly 133 m/s. If we assume a constant acceleration of 1 G (9.8 m/s^2), then the track length will need to be 864 m long (Distance squared divided by 2A). The Chuo Shinkansen line costs 51 billion dollars for 286 km of track. This equates to 178 million dollars per kilometer of track. This is not a maglev bridge, which the final StarTram design needs to be, but instead a maglev track on the ground, which would be way cheaper than building a bridge. 178 million dollars times 864/1000 is 153.8 million dollars. That is the cost if you want to build a flat maglev track carrying 60 tons of train, on flat ground without the need for bridges. Of course, this cost would skyrocket up to build a heavy duty maglev track capable of supporting 605 tons of highly explosive rockets up Mt. Elbert. The magnets would also have to be 100 times stronger to support the weight of the space shuttle. Putting that aside, those strong magnets would also affect all the control systems and computers that allow the shuttle to go into low earth orbit, and the payload cannot be metal or else it would get affected by the super strong magnet that does not exist yet. 2. There are also many safety issues that we need to consider. What happens if the engines fail and don"t start past the point of no return? It glides (read: tumbles) down into a national park with 478 tons of fuel. An ecological disaster would be an understatement. What happens if there is an earthquake? Traditional earthquake mechanisms won"t work, as this elevated track stretches almost half a kilometer up the side of a mountain! 3. To achieve low earth orbit, we would need 34000 kph of delta-V. A maglev track releasing a space shuttle at a measly 480 kph (300 mph) won"t do anything to make rockets lighter or cheaper. However, it will probably make launching rockets way more complicated than it should be.
NASA should develop a hybrid Startram system to save fuel

It currently takes NASA over 3 million lbs of fuel to get the space shuttle into space. A hybrid open air maglev system releasing the shuttle going 300 mph at the top of Mount Elbert (23,533 ft above sea level) could provide initial thrust and reduce the amount of fuel used per flight dramatically, from 0 mph release at sea level that is currently in use. The cost to build the hybrid system would be a significantly lower capital expense than a full startram system. (even if the cost per launch would be more expensive with the hybrid system) A hybrid system would provide a proof of concept, and put cargo in space for a fraction of what it currently costs per kilo. ($10,000)
If you believe in the god of the bible, Then you have no free will, None

Isnn't making claims with little to no substantiation amazing. The difference between the videos and the verse were you showed the videos to argue instead of you and you abandoned Galatians (after asking for the verse) because you claimed verse wasn't good enough. As for your conduct, Calling people toilet wipes and stupid is very nice. There are two types of people in a debate, The ones that you try to debate to change their mind, And the ones you debate to make an example of and change the people's minds who are watching. Unfortunately, You were the latter. You hate the very concept of God. All you've done is call God evil throughout this debate, My guess is for a very deep personal reason, And no amount of logical reasoning or arguments could change your mind, You made that clear. Your closing statement is an attempt to shun responsibility from yourself to how I am a hypocrite. If I am, Show the world, Make an example out of me. And here's a bit of advice, If you have any standards at all you are a hypocrite as we all fail to meet those standards at some point in our lives. To everyone reading this, I encourage you to base your judgement on our arguments, Not the personal issues we have with eachother. I still believe if you do that and vote as such I will win. The basis of his argument rests on claims which he himself has failed to defend. He has failed to even frame the question so that it makes any logical sense because he doesn't want to risk implying God exists. Is that not what this debate's been about? Have I not tried to focus on of God of the Christian Bible exists we have free will? Have I not shown multiple fallacies in his objections to my arguments as well as fallacies and inconsistincies in his? My goal has been to focus on the issue, While his goal has been to attack me and any person I loosely reference. He made a character assasination attempt on a 500 year old Spanish Guy for crying out loud. As Socrates said "When the debate is lost, Slander becomes the tool of the loser. " My only request is you judge who, Regardless of who you agreed with before, Had the better argument. I do hope my opponent changes his mind and comes to find Christ, Because I in earnest want nothing bad for him. I fear however he will live out his days as a testament to the verse Psalm 14:1 "Only the fool says in his heart there is no God. " Based on these arguments, I have no reason to think to the contrary. Thank you again for opportunity to debate, No matter how horrible you think I am and no matter how deeply this degradated.
If you believe in the god of the bible, Then you have no free will, None

You are a true 100% contradictory hypocrite. "As for the videos, I tried to watch them so, Again I'm sorry but I'm not watching them. " "Now, As for Galatians 5:13, To throw it out is just ludicrous. " I under no circumstance do I EVER, Not for any reason become involved with people like you. If you do not understand that, Then that's entirely YOUR problem. If I lose this debate because of my "conduct" in which isn't being harsh at all, Then so be it. Please tc and have fun.
Resolved: On balanced, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

Since my opponent is still holding his lines I shall continue this debate. Here are my rebuttals. My opponent has stated in his first point that "it isn't fair to decrease the public sector's pay because of the recession". Well, if we pay someone who does not work, what good is this for the companies? If we pay a equal amount of money to someone who does nothing at all and someone who works very hard, it would not be fair to the people who work very hard. Also, if people get a "stabilized pay", the companies would lose more money and more customers. Considering that our economy is in the toilets our economy would also go down. For this, I think that this point would be more bad than good to companies. My opponents second point is "the deficit isn't the fault of the public sector". Actually, it is, Like I have stated in my first rebuttal that public sectors make people lose money, worsen the economy, and would not be fair for hard working employees. Also, pensions is a fixed amount of money to pay for retired people, how is this bad? Pensions help retired people take care of themselves, after all, these people paid the labor unions to help them. And my opponents third and last point was "specific unions have benefited the United States. ". While this is true, like I said over and over again that the unions probably only benefit the people but not the companies. Can you state how many unions have benefited the U. S. ? Obviously, this may be a good impact on the United States but it could worsen it by making the economy go down.
Resolved: On balanced, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

I shall now present my own case 1. The employer could start losing authority over his or her company. 2. Employee wages would skyrocket. 3. Government pensions can be really high. 1. The employer could start losing authority over his/her own company. The power of the labor unions enable them to make employers lose their control by stopping them from firing someone when they are in a tight spot like when another depression or the economy goes bad and the company loses jobs, they will need to fire some people in order to stay in business but since the people are protected by the union the employers cannot fire them so they will start losing money and the companies will be forced to close down. This also is bad for the union member because they also lose a job whether they like it or not and they will especially have a hard time to find a new job. On to my second point 2. The labor unions would not only make the employers lose power but they could change the wages a lot higher than usual causing the employer to start losing money and going into debt so they cannot afford to pay other people and therefore like I said in point 1, people would start losing money and the economy would go down considering that the economy is in the toilets, people would probably want to do there best to make the economy go up. Now to my third and final point 3. According to the huffington post labor union pensions will be quite a problem. Note that a pension is a fixed amount of money paid to a retired person but according to the huffington post, like I have said earlier, the pension will start increasing the longer the person lives, that also like I said in point 2 will make the economy go bad. Some people may think that the United States is one of the richest states in the world but actually I believe we are the 10th so we would probably want to make us look better and increase our economy. Therefore, I believe that labor unions does more harm than good. Thank you.
Resolved: On balanced, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States

Resolved: On balanced, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States I will be standing in firm affirmation of the resolution. These are my points: First, it isn't fair to decrease the public sector's pay because of the recession. The affirmative should argue that these people make our country run and need to be compensated well for their work. Affirmatives can assert that we shouldn't short postal workers, teachers, and firefighters just because some bankers on Wall Street made some bad decisions. If we take pay away from these people, they are likely to leave their jobs. If anything, affirmatives can argue that we should at least stabilize pay for these positions. Second, the deficit isn't the fault of the public sector. Many people will argue that pensions, health care, and retirement benefits for public sector workers, cost too much and the taxpayer shouldn't be responsible for them. Affirmatives can argue that it isn't the deficit isn't the fault of public sector workers and that it is not fair to punish them for others' mistakes. Third, specific unions have benefited the United States. Teachers' unions have been critical in raising wages for teachers, thereby attracting well-qualified individuals to the field. The National Education Association, the country's largest labor union, has been years ahead of the United States in terms of civil rights since before the Civil War. Four years before the war broke out, the NEA was admitting black members. Also, they elected a female president a decade before the United States gave women the right to vote. This organization has lobbied congress on some of the most important issues to face our country, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the establishment of the GI Bill, the Bilingual Education Act, and several other things that have advanced the status of education and civil rights all over the United States. Unions for other professions, such as fire fighters, police, and sanitation workers, have also been beneficial. Given a little bit of research, you can find a huge number of similar examples. Fourth, government employee labor unions are beneficial for the United States because they encourage people to go into the public sector. The private sector often offers more lucrative pay, better benefits while employed, and an increased ability for promotions. Affirmatives can argue that labor unions are essential to fight for workers rights so that the public sector can compete (in terms of job related benefits) with the private sector and attract new and talented employees. Affirmative debaters can claim that the public sector is necessary for the security and stability of the nation and that labor unions are essential to protect the interests of not only those that work in the public sector, but for all citizens who use the public sector's services on a daily basis. And if you have ever gone to a public school, taken out the garbage, or mailed a letter, you have benefited from the public sector. Thank you, and I look forward to your response. :)
Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Strong Atheism

I hate to turn this into a debate about semantics, but it appears my opponent has accepted under false pretenses. In the forum discussion that prompted this debate he said: "Weak Atheist: Its possible that God exists, but no evidence yet. Strong Atheist: God cannot exist. Impossible. I'm proud to be a Strong Atheist!"[1] He also said: ""I do not believe that God does not exist... I know for sure." - Osho That's my stance, and no its not contradictory."[2] I challenged him on the basis of statements such as those. His current definition is little more than a cop out. In fact, if you consider what my definition of weak atheism and his definition of strong atheism imply, they are nearly identical. Both would affirm that because the evidence for god is largely lacking, he most likely does not exist. Both would affirm that we cannot state with certainty that there is no god. If we accept Geo's definition, the resolution becomes "Weak Atheism is Philosophically Superior to Itself". In other words- nonsense. If he didn't want to defend the statements he made above, he shouldn't have accepted the debate. There are also further problems with his explanation. In his round he claims that "Nothing in science, nor rational thinking can be asserted with 100% certainty" as the basis for his change. Unless he wishes to invalidate logic completely, that statement is false. I can say with absolute certainty that a square circle doesn't exist, for example. Indeed, his source makes the same assertion later on[3], even though he cited it in his round to support the claim that nothing can be proven with certainty. Not only is Geo contradicting his earlier statements, but his source itself is contradictory. For all these reasons, I reject Geo's definition of strong atheism in favor of my own, unless he can provide a persuasive argument to the contrary. Until such a time, I see no point in making any other arguments. 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://www.strongatheism.net...