BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Ice Ages are real (I don't expect you to argue that ice ages are NOT real)The Earth has experienced five ice ages that we know of Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo Ice Age and the Quaternary glaciation. The current ice age that Earth is in is the Quaternary, within the Quaternary we are in an interglacial period known as the Holocene Epoch. "The Holocene is a geologicalepoch which began at the end of the Pleistocene[1] (at 11,700 calendar years BP) [2] and continues to the present. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...As you can see from the table ^ posted above, The earth has experienced temperatures far warmer than we currently are experiencing, and likewise has experienced temperatures far cooler than we are currently experiencing. And this is just in a relatively short period (geologically speaking) and within our current ice age. The Greenland ice sheet is thought to be fairly young, only to have formed in the Oligocene epoch, and most likely to have retreated and advanced many times. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The beginning of this ice age is referred to as the time when permanent ice sheets were established on Greenland and Antarctica, thus the end of the last ice age was set by the absence of those permanent ice sheets. In summary, we know there have been five separate ice ages and within those ice ages there are multiple glacial and interglacial periods where these ice sheets have retreated and advanced. I contend that with all the geological evidence available to us, the Greenland ice sheets would retreat with or without the impact of humans. We may in fact be having an impact on glaciation, but regardless of that impact, glaciation would occur with or without us as it has for hundreds of millions of years. There are forces at work that affect our global climate far greater than the man made Co2 which is measure in ppm (parts per million)These forces include but are not limited to:Solar Output . http://en.wikipedia.org...Orbital Forcing . http://en.wikipedia.org...Volcanism . http://en.wikipedia.org...Plate Tectonics . http://en.wikipedia.org...Ocean Currents . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

Resolved: Ice Ages are real, we are currently in an interglacial period and the Earth will warm further with or without the influences of mankind. Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: opening arguments (Thou shall not refute current round) Round 3: refutation of opponent's Round 2 argument. Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire. Any sources used must be linked to directly. Linking to WWW.climate.com will not be considered quality sourcing unless you link DIRECTLY to a specific article within the webpage. (WWW.climate.com was just an example.) As Pro I shall argue as Resolved above. As Con (if you accept) you shall argue in support of man made global climate change.
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

In conclusion the evidence is unmistakable. Everything points to the conclusion of anthropological global warming. With both graphs made from measured temperatures and from supercomputers performing trillions of calculations per second to simulate the physical laws governing the climate I have shown great evidence to support man made global warming. It has also been shown here that conspiracy theories are riddled throughout arguments provided by denialists. I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only appear in the long run on the order of centuries. Also that last graph did predict a fall in temperature quite accurately and it was CO2 centric.
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

Round 4: closing arguments & response to R3 refutations if you so desire.In my closing argument I would ask the readers to "put aside" their preconceived conceptions of global warming as it has been told to us repeatedly and LOOK at the graphs that Con provided. Everyone can clearly see the same event repeating over and over again as we enter an interglacial period. A sudden rise in temperature and Co2 on each peak. Mankind was only here during the very last peak. Con argued that "This statement is false" in round 3 but why is it false? we can all see the graph for ourselves.We can see that on each peak, The left side of the peak rises sharply, and then there is a much slower decent on the right. the temperature of the Earth on the left side of each peak rises sharply, then slowly descends back down into glacial periods.Just because we are measuring a rise in Co2 and the temperature, doesn't mean that correlation is causation. Correlation is not always causation.The 3rd Graph might be based on data from the biggest super computer the world has ever known, that doesn't change the fact that they are not observations of the REAL WORLD. Someone wrote those models to support their own theory, and all of our Co2 centric models FAILED to predict real world events. That is why the IPCC can not explain the 20 year pause in warming, That is why Germany wanted to DELETE the pause in global warming from the IPCC reports."Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change"http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

"In the previous graph which covers 450,000 years, we see the exact same relationship between Co2 and temperature" This statement is false. In the graph of graph of 450000 years and the graph of 1850-present the relationship between CO2 is different. What's different is that CO2 and temperature start rising simultaneously when before they didn't. It's also interesting to note that the"unimportant" perfluorotributylamine gas started to be produced in the Mid-20th century is only a decade or two off of the time when global temperatures started rising more drastically. The last peak is actually quite different. It shows that the temperature started to rise less rapidly and then it suddenly started rising at a much higher rate when you look at it closer up in the 2nd graph."The final graph provided by Con shows a speculative difference between our current measured temperature and then the "blue line" shows what would have happened with "NO HUMAN INFLUENCE". This is pure speculation and has zero bearing on reality. Unless the creators of this graph have somehow managed to visit a parallel universe where Earth has no human inhabitants, this graph should be disregarded entirely because it is pure fiction. This is a big part of the problem with Global warming science, many of these exaggerated claims like this last graph are based on nothing but speculation."Actually this graph is not pure speculation. This graph was created from data taken from a supercomputer which modeled the climate using all available knowledge. So it should be taken quite seriously. In addition the red line so closely following the actual temperature is good evidence that it is not pure fiction or speculation and is actually likely to be quite reliable.
RESOLVED: In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

I would like to begin by apologizing for forfeiting the last round. I was on a camping trip, and was unable to post. This debate is one of ethics. PRO states that it is an irrevocable principle that just so long as the cause is noble, anything is justified in getting military information. As CON, I simply must prove that at least one scenario does not follow this principle, and I will win. For this debate we will assume that there is such a thing as "benignity". Also, making it trickier for me, we must only stick with scenarios in which the cause is benign. In order to maintain any sense of Humanity; of morality; of good and bad, we must follow a doctrine of Human rights. I am not here asserting what these Human may be, or even that it is fundamental what they may be. I am only saying that theoretically there have to be some Human rights that we accept. These rights are meaningless if we make exceptions. For them to be Human rights in the first place, they must be considered to be fundamental and unbreakable; not even in warfare; not even to mortal enemies. It is supposed to transcend this nation of people vs. this nation of people…it applies to all HUMANS, hence: "Human rights". They lose all meaning when we start thinking of them as conditional. …And so I assert that it is unethical for the military to break said theoretical human rights, no matter the cause; no matter how noble. We can not let fundamental, natural human rights be clouded by idealism. Your argument largely revolves around the concept that the wellbeing of the masses trumps any possible argument against a military action. To this I reply: we can not measure ethics in statistics. By this I mean, when discussing ethics, numbers and statistics are, in essence, meaningless. It is shameful to decide whether something was ethical or not based on numbers; numbers of casualties; number of wounded; number of survivors. To kill one to save the many is not moral because of numbers. The mere instance of killing innocent humans –no matter how many- make the whole act immoral, no matter the intentions. Morals must be treated as basic and fundamental, regardless of numbers and statistics. For a moral code that can be overridden by numbers is not a moral code at all; it has too many holes; too many exceptions; it becomes meaningless. Though it may seem clichï¿½, very appropriate to summarize this is the well known saying: "two wrongs do not make a right". So to prevent an immoral act by doing something immoral does not make any of it moral. We live in an ugly world, but we must remember our humanity and morality. -King Harlan the great
RESOLVED: In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify the means.

In the world we live in, any country could be annihilated in less than an hour. Nuclear warfare, along with terrorism, are becoming quite problematic. Without the knowledge of where and when these attacks take place, innocent people will die. The government needs to actively seek this information no matter the route taken. This is why military espionage should be used, no matter the means taken. I await your response...
Creation (Pro) versus Evolution (Con)

I believe that, as a Christian, you should believe that God is a Creator and, if you believe in the Bible, you also believe that God made each specie and animal OF THEIR OWN KIND (meaning ANIMALS DID NOT EVOLVE). I am the same age as my opponent so this shall be an interesting debate! Each will be defending their thoughts on the theory we believe in, whether Cre. or Evo. Give reasons why you believe that, etc.
Creation (Pro) versus Evolution (Con)

I love and respect the bible very much, but you are taking these things too literally. The bible should be interrupted in our own way. "Genesis 1:1-31 (KJV) says: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. [1] . .. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. . .. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. " This could have been over thousands of years, not at one very moment. "Isaiah 48:21 says, 'They did not thirst when he led them through the desert, he made water flow for them from a rock, he split the rock and water gushed out. ' In modern-day Saudi Arabia we have found a split rock exactly as the Bible said it was. The base of the rock shows heavy water erosion, as if millions of gallons of water flowed from it--in the dessert! [2] Exodus 15:27 says, 'Then they came to Elim, where there was 12 springs and 70 palm trees, and they were camped there near water. ' Now, in the place they still call Elim (pronounced "Ee-leem"), there are exactly twelve springs and also a place of palm trees" The bible is something that was actually written in history,so I do not see the point in talking about this. We know it was actually written in that time frame at that period of time. Many things in the bible represent the real world, but NOT creationism. "BIGGEST VERSE: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [1]" Again, this should not be taken in a literal sense. (If you want to take it that way, then by all mean do. but do not tell others how to interpret the bible. )
Halo is an over rated hyped up game that does not deliver...

All your attacks are against the single player 1. Storyline 2. Gameplay 3. Graphics You state multi player is acceptable so 1. Storyline I must say your opinion about the storyline is simply that. An opinion If the storyline is sooo bad, why are there: 5 books 3 games a new game coming up a possible movie Have you played the full storyline? It has mystery, conflict, resolution, suspense, betrayal, developed characters. It has all the key components, and then some, of some of the better games out there. The facts claim the storyline is good, your opinion says that it's bad. I say it's good. 2. Gameplay You claim it is not realistic because it takes many rounds to kill someone. First, if the real damage for the weapons were used, then it would take one shot to kill with any weapon. There are a handful of guns that kill in one shot. But a plasma rifle? real life would kill one hit. Assault rifle, the starting weapon? it would be the best weapon. There is a sacrifice of realism for fun. Besides, on Easy, everything dies in about one hit. You only say it takes a lot of ammo to kill someone. Wow, that does not make a game "over rated" and "hyped up". 3. Graphics Halo 1's graphics were revolutionary for the original Xbox and so early. Halo 2's Graphics were good, not the best, but Bungie claims they were rushed in production. But Halo 3's graphics, as you agreed are good. So there is nothing wrong with the graphics. Besides, Mario is fun and has bad graphics. All your attacks have done nothing to prove Halo is a bad game GameSpot gave it 10 for 10 so did Game Informer and who knows who all else So no, Halo is not an over rated hyped up game that does not deliver.
Halo is an over rated hyped up game that does not deliver...

I have played all three games of the series, and it does not deliver. It is unoriginal and generic. The story line is pathetic and the equivalent to tabloids that state big foot was shopping at Macy's last Tuesday. This, in the end, is utter crap. The gameplay is really basic. There's not much in it that has not been done. Most of the guns are insufficiant killing machines. Wasting round after round on enemies that in reality would have fallen down after a single pistol shot in the foot. The graphics have been quite sad until the 3rd installment. $65 for another generic game. Fool me once, shame on you Bungie. Fool me twice with dual weilding, shame on me. Fool me thrice, thats it, I am done with it all! As for sightseeing, I havent seen anything worth looking at other than the dull looking generic Conventant forces. Multiplayer is the only acceptable part of this game. The Halo world is vast and you can pick a fight with any person anytime, if you have Xbox Live. If you don't, well you're stuck with regular splitscreen multiplayer. Which, unless you're a social Halo player (not many leave the house, or socialize with locals that dont have Xbox Live). Overall, Halo does not deliver the hype that has been accumilating over the past few years, and I am not going to waste my time or money on Halo Wars, or any other Halo installment from Bungie.
Affirmative Action is Good

Look, I have a busy schedule, so I'm going to make this argument short. Between giving minorities bonus points on SATs and required percentage of minorities in a company, with the same thing occurring for women, affirmative action somehow manages to be racist to all races. Racist/sexist to minorities and women because it is based on the thinking that they aren't smart enough, so they need help; also racist/sexist to men and majorities and by giving them a disadvantage in the market for jobs and in the SATs.
This is the Best Way for a Government To Stay in Power

1. The secret police of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan were intentionally brutal. They were made to be brutal. The secrecy of their police doesn't guarantee that they would be brutal. They can still have a constitution granting the people basic rights. 2. If the soldiers are secret, then they cannot interact with the civilians as soldiers, therefore they cannot act brutally. 3. Simple. The people would be left notices on their doors that they're to leave their taxes in a certain place, and the money is confiscated by two or three soldiers in ski masks. Also, they could enforce laws because they'd be watching everybody. 4. You are totally right about this point. The government is for the people, and the people should be able to trust the government. However, the people would know that this government existed, and the government would have a spokesman. And like I said, this government would be temporary, until they grow strong enough to come out of hiding. Not to mention it's in a Middle Eastern country, where the leaders are all dictators anyway. As for the military abducting people, they would abduct lawbreakers and criminals, not political opponents or critics of the regime. That's what I originally meant. 5. Perhaps they couldn't hide their bases from drones, but civilians don't have drones, and the nations surrounding them wouldn't have advanced enough armies to do this. 6. The people could still have faith that the military could protect them. As for rebellions, they could be convinced that the military is weak, but one rebellion would show that it wasn't. Also, they'd know that they couldn't prove it was weak. And governments showing themselves doesn't guarantee "trust," proven by the instability of the Middle East. In the region like the Middle East, the people should be treated with respect yet at the same time the government should be able to control its people, because the people over there tend to sometimes act like savages, toppling regimes and massacring minority groups. Yes, I know that my arguments were weak. If I am to be totally honest, I mostly advocated this system because it sounded cool. You'll probably win this one, considering your side of this debate is a lot easier to argue for, and I didn't do that great a job arguing my case. Thank you for this debate, Jifpop09.
This is the Best Way for a Government To Stay in Power

1. This government would not function as the secret police in the sense of forcing the disappearance of people who speak against them. They wouldn't be any more brutal than a regular government. In fact, the less the people see them the better, so soldiers in this army would not get much of a chance to bully others. If he did, then it'd be as a civilian. This government, though hidden, would serve the country's needs in the same way a normal government would. They'd tax the populace, work on construction, enforce laws, etc. The only difference is the people don't know who's working for the government and who isn't. And though the government would be clandestine in nature, they would have one or two spokesmen who would openly announce their government status. These spokesmen would represent the government's agendas and plans to the people. 2. They would have a communications system, and they'd hide their faces when communicating with other government employees from other branches. Consider Al-Qaeda. Though clandestine, their organization is surprisingly efficient in nature. They would enforce laws by having hidden guards or security cameras watch areas and have their soldiers abduct lawbreakers. But then again, this does not ensure brutality. And this system does not mean that no one in the government knows who anybody else means. It simply means civilians don't know who's in the government. But still, information would be on a need-to-know basis for government employees and soldiers. They would have buildings and army bases. However, the things is that civilians wouldn't know where these places were. Only government employees would know where these were. 3. This is true. However, when recruiting people to join their organization they find you, you don't find them. They check you out first before recruiting you. This way, they have much more control over who's in their groups. 4. Such an army being "cowardly" is irrelevant, provided this tactic works. When an army invades, this guerrilla group wouldn't have to start from scratch. They would start out well-organized, well-informed, and with enough manpower to engage in guerrilla warfare, giving them an edge that other guerrilla groups don't. 5. Actually, they could have a representative at the UN, a person who acknowledges his or her role in this government. But I do admit, trade would be difficult. Perhaps all traded goods would have to be confiscated and then returned to the traders after they've been inspected. This government would officially exist. It's just that all information on it would be hidden from outsiders. And this representative could establish military alliances with other nations, so that invading them would be harder.
This is the Best Way for a Government To Stay in Power

I call it the Arcane Regime System. Imagine in the fictional nation of Kabyristan the government is overthrown by Islamic insurgent groups known as the "Mojhadin" (Kabyr language for "freedom fighters") and they take over the country. In most scenarios the insurgents put their soldiers out in the open within every village and city, patrolling the streets in vehicles with machine guns in the back. However, in my scenario, the people do not see the new regime. There might be an open police force or town militia, but other than that there's apparent government...on first glance, that its. The regime's soldiers are trained in hidden camps, and the soldiers live double lives in times of peace. Few people know the identities of these soldiers. However, if there is civil unrest, they'll put on ski masks and suppress the uprising. If an enemy invades, they'll fight the enemy in disguise and go back home later. The invaders won't know who the enemies are. The government controlling the soldiers would be hidden as well. They'd be hidden in buildings, and few people would know who those buildings belonged to. They'd have an underground information network and that's how they'd pass information from one branch of the government to the other. When the nation and the new regime is secure, the Mojhadin would bring their government out into the open and make their presence official. But not before then. You're probably wondering what the purpose of this would be. Well, for starters it would provide security against new insurgent groups and against invading armies. If an invading army came, the government would not be overthrown because the invaders wouldn't know where the government buildings were. At best the armies could occupy cities and villages, but the hidden government would still be within occupied territory, planning to drive out the invaders. Nor would there be any open army bases. The Mojhadin could instantly initiate guerrilla warfare and resistance tactics against the invaders. And if another terrorist group tried to take power, there would be no way for the terrorists to take down the Mojhadin. They wouldn't know where the government buildings or army bases were, and the Mojhadin could spy on the terrorists without the terrorists knowing it. No one would know who was a soldier, so these soldiers could easily infiltrate the ranks of the terrorists. If you don't think this is a good system, accept this debate. I await a response.