BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

Fossil fuels are not just dangerous because of the co2 released into the atmosphere causing climate change. When fossil fuels like gas and oil are spilled, destruction follows. Thousands of animals have been tortured and killed from an oil spill or leakage in their environment. This usually happens in oceans, but can also happen on land. Fossil fuels also release toxic chemicals that cause lung disease to humans. When these fine particle emissions are inhaled, they can enter the blood stream and can cause diseases or problems almost anywhere in the body. If Renewable sources of energy are utilized, there is no chance of harm to the environment or people. Exploring new renewable energy resources will not only benefit our environment and communities, but will also benefit generations to come because of new innovative ways of the mass production of energy. Our current rate of fossil fuel usage will eventually lead to an energy crisis. To overcome this crisis, renewable energy research and production will grow in awareness and the government will rely on this innovative new source to power our country and eventually our entire world. 1) http://www.ehow.com... 2) http://www.alternativeenergysecret.com... 3) http://www.alternative-energy-news.info...
Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

Nuclear and fossil fuels are not a huge contributor to c02 and greenhouse gases, as originally thought by most people. Humans and the use of fossil fuels contribute a very, very small amount of carbon compared to natural causes of carbon. All carbon produced by humans in any way, shape or form is only 29 giga tons a year. These emissions are tiny compared to the 750 giga tons produced by natural causes each year(1). Carbon emissions are inevitable and will happen regardless of our contributions at the same speed. Renewable energies produce carbon emissions as well. in fact, a single running wind turbine can create more c02 emissions than that of the most efficient gas turbines. Finally, I believe that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are far more superior and efficient than renewable energies such as wind and solar power. (1) http://www.skepticalscience.com... (2) http://www.theguardian.com...
Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

Another main reason why Renewable energy resources are more superior and efficient than fossil fuels and other non renewable resources is that there is no possible harm to our environment. While nuclear energy, oil, and gas usage releases profound amounts of carbon emissions, renewable energy resources releases very little to no carbon emissions. Renewable energy resources like solar power and wind power has been used more and more by large businesses and companies since it has costed them a lot less for electric and heat in comparison to oil and gas prices.
Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

Renewable (Clean) Energy resources are more cost efficient that fossil fuel and nuclear energy resources. There is little to no direct access to low cost fossil fuels. It costs more money to run nuclear and fossil fuel plants including billions a year to operate plus millions more for workers payments and compensations. Also fossil fuels and nuclear power creates other problems in the surrounding enviornment which ends up costing billions more. As an example, the clean up required for a bad oil spill costs over 10 billion dollars. Renewable energy processes are recyclable which means that their is little to no operting cost. The construction cost for more renewable energy machines and resources costs millions, but still not close to the construction and operating cost of Non renewable energy resources like fossil fuels. Jobs will be created from supporting renewable energy operations, and this will benefit the economy substancially. Because of these reasons there is more of a demand for Renewable Energy resources mandated by the United States every year. 1) http://www.world-nuclear.org... 2)http://www.epa.gov...
Nuclear energy and fossil fuels are superior to renewable energies.

The cost efficiency of nuclear energy and fossil fuels far outweigh that of renewable "clean" energy. Most of the commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed(1). That is not including maitnence of the machines. Solar Energy is also very expensive at about $10,000 for one home to go solar and would take almost twenty years to pay itself off(2). Fossil fuels offer one of the least epensive methods of producing energy in the world. (1) http://www.windustry.org... (2) http://www.solarenergy.net...
Gay Marrigae should be legal and gays should not be discriminated against

Homosexuals are people just like heterosexuals. They deserve the same rights. It should be as simple as that. We are spending time money and energy fighting love. It doesn't matter if you believe that it is right or wrong, it's still love. People should not fear holding hands with the person they love, or kissing them in public. And everyone should be free to Marry the person that they love. This isn't gay rights, It's human rights.
Men and women are equal

Men and women are not equal. Due to evolution (or "god" if you are one of the cray crays), men and women have evolved into different roles. Men are better at being the hunter/provider type, and women are better at being the nurturing/mother type. Of course, these are generalizations, but since we are talking about men and women and general, we will be speaking in generalizations. Because of these differences, men and women have different strengths and weaknesses as well (in general). Men can build muscle easier than women can, for example. http://www.livestrong.com... The list of course goes on and on, but in order for a statement to be false, only ONE example needs to be given. Men and women are not equal because men can build muscle easier. /Debate
amir khan is better then preity.

ladies and gentlemen my debate first of all amir khan has a more fans then preity . but i agree its ur opinion. amir khan really has made more movies then preity amir khan has made :tera zameen per, and way more but i don't know how to spell urda next i am not saying preity is ugly i am saying that she has poor profermonce. preity is a talented actress but it is her fans that are letting her down. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Argument amir khan has have 10 super hit and 3 flops. how many did preity have.if u are going to want to help preity to be the best female actress u are going to have to alot of work and i am talking about alot.fans websites ,polls, and posters.amir khan 3 all time blockbusters.preity zinta in 2007 all of her movies are flops.she makes so many faces on screem and she does not act mature and she is a freaking retard.amir khan on the other hand is a mature and shows responsibility.amir khan has won more awards then preity zinta ans his directors are really good and he really has a smart agent.amir khan has won the best acter award and best directer in taare zameen par. and preity zinta has not won any awards she just wastes her time at the shows.amir khan has stared acting in 1988 and preity zinta "ugly" stared in 1988 and she is still a flop actress but she only had 1 super hit that is nothing compared to amir khan rep.that all.
amir khan is better then preity.

First Of All U Are Sort Of Out Of Topic So Get To The Main Point. Ok U Said: amir khan has done more movies then preity cause he is a better actor -That Is Your Opinion Some People And U Might Know some people to but they do not like Aamir khan it is not that I Dont Like Him I Do But Not As Much As Preity. U Said: but amir khan gives out more emotion then preity as u know that in the movie kank she was not showing no emotion that srk talked back to her she just made a face. -That Is Wrong Because Preity Did Do Her Emotion.Probley The Director Told Her Too.She Does Get Emotional In Lots Of Movie Example:kank,Veer Zara,kal ho naa ho,.....and so On) what do u see in her that you don't see in other female actress. -That Is Sort Of Off Topic But I Still Am Going to answer it.I Like Her Because I Really Love Her Looks Her Style And Her Sweetness And Most Of All Her Acting.She Is Sweet And Just Cant Explain But She Is The Best In My Opinion. U Said: just because she has the looks that doesn't mean she is the best of the best like srk he says he is the king that is his opinion other people say that amir khan is.. but it is not about the looks fans "no i am not insulting" it is about the acting that that person does -I Did Not Get That Argument And Dont Get Off Topic Like I Have Said. U Said: they make people laugh cry have fun and what does preity do. -In Dil Hai Tummhara That Movie Was Commedy And Sad At The Same Time Does Amir Khan Have A Movie Like That I Dont Think So. U Said: she is losing her fans her fame but amir khan is getting better and better, soon u know he will be off the chart. -That Is Your Opinion Because she is getting lots of fan too.she has millions or i could say ...... websites that people are crazy about her.(just like me) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My Arguments: Preity Is Better Than Amir Because Preity Is Younger Than Aamir Khan And So That Actully Means In The future Preity Is Going to Be Able To Do More Work Than He Is.Preity Is More Popular In The World Than Aamir.Preity has done 25 Movies In The 2000s And Aamir Did 7.He Was Like In OLD Good Actor He Did More Films In The 1900s But Preity Did Both. p.s Dont Worry My Bro Doesnt Care and no i m not letting him type dream of it!!!
amir khan is better then preity.

amir khan just had a movie released called "tare zamen pein" it was a sad movie but back to the subject. amir khan has done more movies then preity cause he is a better acter but i am still not saying preity sucks i like her "as a actress"but amir khan gives out more emotion then preity as u know that in the movie kank she was not showing no emotion that srk talked back to her she just made a face. tell me something I searched all the debates that u did and they were mostly about preity. what do u see in her that you don't see in other female actress. just because she has the looks that doesn't mean she is the best of the best like srk he says he is the king that is his opinion other people say that amir khan is.. but it is not about the looks fans "no i am not insulting" it is about the acting that that person does like in fanna mostly movies of amir khan are sad but they are good as well.they make people laugh cry have fun and what does preity do. she is losing her fans her fame but amir khan is getting better and better, soon u know he will be off the chart. P.S.don't let your brother write it for you.
Michael Bloomberg would make an excellent president.

Our country is not a major corporation. Bloomberg runs a major corporation and is the mayor of a city. He has no idea how to handle the war we are in. 1. War -My opponent clearly forgot to rebut my point and therefore basically gave it to me. - We are in the middle of a war. A war that has hurt our reputation. We need a person who has experience dealing with war. A mayor of a city has no experience what so ever dealing with this war. If Bloomberg makes the slightest mistake, he could make our reputation go down and could hurt our country very much. 2. My opponent talks about how Bloomberg would have advisers, however he would pick the advisers so they potentially would have the same experience as him, and make many wrong decisions. Additionally, although he has advisers, the president will make most of the decisions and can do a lot of things to hurt our country. 3. Policies In Our Country - Because he is the mayor of a city, he has no experience dealing with national social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, internal and homeland security, and much more. This would be a problem because this is something that our president must deal with and must make the right decisions. - My opponent failed to rebut this argument in the last round therefore I also win this argument. 4. Not A Corporation - our country is not a corporation and it is not the same as one city - Bloomberg has no experience dealing with taxes on a large scale and no experience with international trading because Bloomberg LP does not trade internationally, it just gives news and trades on the market. Right now we need a president who knows how to deal with trade with countries such as China. Bloomberg has no experience in that. 5. Importance of Foreign Policy - According to Time Magazine, The New York Times, and Newsweek Magazine, the most important thing for our country right now is to build our international reputation with foreign policy. I agree that recent presidents have made great mistakes pertaining to foreign policy, and I think Bloomberg will make the same. You said that he would be surrounded by the greatest minds of the white house, yet he chooses those minds and those minds will make mistakes and as I said, the "minds he chooses might not be very good. you said that our image would become better because Bloomberg is an international figure, yet do you think that if Oprah, who has a tremendous international figure, would make our image better, I think not. Our image depends not on what kind of a figure the president is, but on what decisions he makes and how they affect other countries. 6. Adaption - Bloomberg will not adapt quickly to the conditions of being president because he would make mistakes and wouldn't have time to adapt. In conclusion, because I have successfully rebutted all my opponents arguments, and my opponent has either failed to rebut my arguments or hasn't rebutted them at all, I have won this debate.
Michael Bloomberg would make an excellent president.

It is clear that all the issues brought up by my opponent are key in the coming years. Yet, the single most important domestic issue will be the economy. It is clear that we are sinking into a recession and our housing market has essentially collapsed. Of all the potential candidates, Bloomberg is by far the most proficient in the economy. So, onto my opponents arguments. Everything said by my opponents implies that the President is the only person in the government. There was no "Presidnet Kissinger" or "President Albright". The President has advisors who are excerpts in specific fields, including international relations, military strategy and operations and taxing. For instance, the war (including the current one) is fought based upon plans drawn up by the President. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the SecDef exist to do those things, to be modified and approved by the President. On foreign policy, if what my opponent says is true, than both of our last two Presidents would have made foreign policy disasters. While Mr Bush may have done that to some extent, it's clear that it wasn't the fault of a lack of knowledge of foreign policy. Bloomberg would become quickly adapted to the conditions of being President and simply being around the greatest minds in IR that work in the White House would allow him to make intelligent foreign policy decisions. About our image abroad. If anything, Bloomberg is an incredibly international figure, especially in major financial centers. Running as an independent, if he were elected, he would signal to Americans and people abroad that times are changing in America and we are ready to look at new ideas and people. My opponent claims that he has no experience in foreign economics, but this is simply false. Just look to the success of Bloomberg LP in foreign nations. It is clear that Bloomberg will do good if elected president. He has already fixed the New York economy and he has set into action a realistic plan to combat climate change. As the head of a corporation, he will be able to trim unnecessary government expenditures. While my opponent denies it, America is like a corporation. And the citizens are all stockholders in that corporation. To best protect their interests, they should elected Michael Bloomberg as the next President.
Michael Bloomberg would make an excellent president.

1. Foreign Policy - Being an owner of a corporation, Bloomberg has no foreign policy what so ever. - In our country today, we need to work on foreign policy. Our gov't is one of the least respected in the world. - Our reputation is horrible because of Bush. When I travel and I tell people that I am American, they tell me how much they hate America - If Bloomberg was president, he would have no idea what was going on with foreign policy. Then, our country would be doomed to have a bad reputation and maybe worse than we have now. 2. Effects Of A Bad Reputation - Many countries wouldn't respect us and therefore might not trade with us. - Countries on the Security Council might veto our proposals. - Our gov't would never be taken seriously. 3. Our Country Is Not A Corporation - just because Bloomberg has experience in the economy of one city, doesn't mean he has experience in the political economy of the whole US. - also, he has no experience in foreign economics 4. War - We are in the middle of a war, Bloomberg has no experience with war, this equals trouble. - If Bloomberg were to make the wrong decision, he might end up wasting money and lives. 5. Politics - Although Bloomberg has been Mayor of NYC, he has no experience with national politics including: A. Healthcare B. Abortion, Gay Marriages, and so on C. Internal an Homeland Security D. Foreign Policy E. Military Forces
Michael Bloomberg would make an excellent president.

While he has yet to indicate that he is running and stipulates almost daily that he is not, Michael Bloomberg has engaged in a secretive investigation into his viability as a candidate. He would not only be a very strong candidate, due to his ability to fund his own campaign and his national network of business and personal associates, but would be the best potential president of everyone running. He has excellent executive experience, both as the head of his corporation, Bloomberg LP and as Mayor of New York City for the past seven years. Likely his strongest attribute, however, is his knowledge of the economy. He succeeded in turning around the sinking ship that was the New York City economy under Rudy Giuliani and turned a $6 billion deficit into a $3 billion surplus. He cut out unnecessary spending in nearly all city departments, excluding fire and police, and has a realistic stance on taxes. He is personally opposed to taxes but knows that during hard times, taxes sometimes must be increased. Following the budget turnaround, he subsequently proposed substantial tax reductions. He started the PlaNYC to deal with global warming which included green buildings and running public transportation on cleaner fuels. He believes that cities can't wait around for the federal government to fix things for America and know that he and his local government have to act for anything real to get done. It is this attitude that he would bring to Washington and why he would make the best president of anyone running.
Genetically Modified Organisms

GMO foods could ruin ecosystems. If the pollen from a GMO crop that was bug resistant got onto a natural plant, any bug that ate that plant would die. A decrease in bugs could ruin ecosystems and food chains. The use of GMO on crops could also lead to the creation of "superweeds" .GMO is also being introduced to pets and animals. One example of this is glow in the dark fish. If one of these fish made it out into the ocean or to a river, all aquatic life could end up glowing. This would forever alter the world and could even make it to land one day. What about future generations? They will never get to experience the beautiful wonders of life as we know today. The public knows this as well. Some experts believe that one of the leading GMO companies, Monsanto spent buckets of money influencing congress and the white house to pass laws in their favor. Apoll done by ABC news stated, that "55% of respondents would be less likely to buy a food if they knew it had been genetically modified."Let the public be heard, why keep GMO? Answers: 1) I do think that we should count that study as evidence. Even if we can"t make a conclusion it still shows that there is a huge possibility that GMO foods do cause health problems. 2)I do still stand by my argument. The quote did not say how old those studies were. GMO crops could have changed greatly by then and could still change in the future.
Genetically Modified Organisms

Answers to questions I don't believe your first question is relevant based on the evidence from my second question. In answer to your second question, the scientists who developed the GM banana would like to give them out to millions of families for free (and banana trees regrow from clippings). Questions (1) According to an article on Academics Review.org, the 1999 study conducted by Arpad Pustzai was faulty. "Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work." Do you think that study should still be used as evidence? (2) 1783 studies on GMOs were recently reviewed by a team of researchers. Their conclusion was simple "We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops." Do you still stand by your argument? Climate change is one of the big topics right now. Humans are pretty well equipped for warmer or cooler temperatures. But plants cannot put on the AC or bundle up in a scarf. For generations we have been using selective breeding to better equip plants for harsh conditions. Selective breeding is when you breed together plants with specific traits to get desired results. But along with our need for high speed internet, we need high speed adaptation. Genetically modifying organisms lets us get that desired trait quicker. With our growing population, we can't afford to lose crops to droughts or bacteria. Wheat is one of our three major exports, along with soy and corn. Most of the soy and corn in the US is genetically modified, wheat however is not grown genetically modified anywhere in the world. This has posed a big problem. Since most wheat is grown in the central plains, one of their main sources of water is the Ogallala Aquifer. The Ogallala Aquifer is quickly being drained of its water, some people predict it will be half gone in less than fifty years. With decreased access to water, crops without genetic modifications have great difficulty surviving.
Genetically Modified Organisms

GMO foods could potentially cause health problems. This is not just a guess. In 1999 a study was done in Europe by the biochemist Arpad Pustzai. It showed that rats who were fed GMO potatoes developed a weakened immune system and stomach problems. This is not the only evidence. In 2000 there was a batch of GMO corn from Starlink that had not been approved to be eaten. This corn made its way into taco shells. Some of the people who ate these taco shells had allergic reactions. Some experts said that these reactions were linked to the corn. This is just one example, if it happened once why won't it happen again? Foods that would be destined for gas or some other non edible purpose could end up on someones plate. After these incidents and studies, why should GMO foods be trusted? Questions: 1) What heppnes to all of those hungry people if the GMO foods start to make them sick? 2) What starving country would have enough money to pay the farmers and scientists for all of those GMO foods?