BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Blacks Lives Matter is a terrorist group

Let's look at this: The United States Code (18 U. S. C. "2331) "Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. " A good amount of them are in fact terrorizing our country. Have they intimidated a civilian Population to attempt to influence the government, yes. Let's look at a rally they had about a year ago. They were chanting that they wanted the pigs (Police Officers) to be burned. That doesn't sound too nice doesn't it? My opponent has failed to explain why they aren't a terrorist group, for that reason vote pro. Black lives matter also wants to have "reserved places" for blacks, sounds familiar? Well it should, that's called segregation. Hundreds of them have called for the shooting of police officers, that doesn't sound too friendly. Black Lives Matter is a terrorist group, I have proven why.
Blacks Lives Matter is a terrorist group

I am going to start by stating my position. Black Lives Matter is not, by majority, a terrorist group. There are definitely some protesters who are violent (1), however the majority are not. When my opponent points to the FOX News article (2), this professor is not the Black Lives Matter leader. He is simply a man who showed his students an essay defending the looting. My opponent failed to understand the rhetoric of FOX News which uses a different definition of leader in order to have a better headline. A leader can be more than the man at the top of an organized group, something that Black Lives Matter is not, but rather can be just one man attempting to make a difference. Therefore, I can only conclude that some radical protestors qualify as terrorists, but the core of the group is not. Tea Party (1) http://www.teaparty.org... FOX News (2) http://www.foxnews.com...
Blacks Lives Matter is a terrorist group

Like I said Previously: Terrorism- the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. Let's look back to Ferguson. So, this was caused by Michael Brown getting shot by a police officer. No matter what you believe, the way the protestors acted was not right. Protest- a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something. The Black Lives Matter group was certainly protesting, but not in the right way. In the First amendment a group has to right to protest, but can not endanger public safety. The Black Lives Matter group went above and beyond. They looted stores, and causedover 6 million dollars in damage. Looting and burning stores is certainly a violent act that scares people. The group leader defended the looting. That's like when Hitler defended the looting of the jewish businesses. They are not fixing anything, all they are doing is creating more problems. They terrorise businesses while claiming to protest and make the matter worse. Sources: . http://www.foxnews.com... . http://www.teaparty.org...
If a god exists, it is impossible for him to care about the human race.

Couldn't, just knowing what a person would do doesn't mean they did it, besides I was dexterity how it was not as time travel would be relative to us, also it isn't like everything is happening at once relative to our concepts of action and present time but relative to our concepts of memory, and given our scenario an afterlife would have to be accounted for and would have to be accounted for either way considering 3/4 pounds that just vanish when you die (what) , this concludes that they would not be both alive and dead but that he would r err member or simply know that they die at a certain period, also I would like to reply to a comment you made in the second round: "It would be like us being concerned with a couple microbes" I would like to point out that NASA funded billions to have microbes brought to the moon, then time magazine published an entire article about them, and how they survived the moon, it's not too far off actually.
If a god exists, it is impossible for him to care about the human race.

fun texts from the scientific community of the world: Nasa: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... PBS: http://www.pbs.org... smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu... these are all peer reviewed studies by scores of world renowned scientists supporting my claim. Also if a being exists outside of time, then a beings death or well being literally could not matter as the person would be alive at some point, as death would not even be a concept he would be worried about, as someone would always be alive and dead in the eyes of god. I am not suggesting time travel, I am suggesting an all knowing being would know whether or not you would do something, and that he could prevent harm coming to the victim while still allowing the perpertrator to do the action, thus not impeding his "free will."
If a god exists, it is impossible for him to care about the human race.

Carbon dating is flawed, a clam that was just pulled out of the water dates billions of years with it, they do not account for chemicals which would destroy carbon (such as oils and acids) or chemicals that would preserve carbon, they also fail to account for how much carbon was in its composition originally, in addition to carbon ratings inaccuracy, a human footprint wasps found inside of a dinosaurs in south America, the human race is most likely more than 200,000 years, and we have no reason to believe that the universe is actually 14 billion years old as you are accounting for it being formed randomly which is inherently impossible even if it were trillions of years old, in addition the previous 5 "days" in genesis, the actual Hebrew word was that of a period, which means it could have easily been the length of the cretacioous period, I will now discredit your statement that God could simply undo an action, God exists outside of time, preventing him from doing it would not be like us preventing something (if time travel was available) as he would be doing it in the present, besides, when someone chooses for their life to go one way (doing the action) they have to openly choose to turn away or God would be affecting free will.
If a god exists, it is impossible for him to care about the human race.

first things first; we presupposed that god is omniscient, meaning that he knows the results of all outcomes, as he is all knowing. Even if one were to choose to do something, that choice would be known to a being who knows the exact chemical structure of the persons brain, as well as their background, and the state of every single object in the universe. He is also omnipotent, meaning that even if he let someone do the negative thing, then he could just as easily undo that action, so that he could preserve "free will," while still preventing harm to pass on the victim. Beyond that, I am saying that, under the conditions that were previously stated, it would make no sense for god to care about the human race. the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, during which humanity has existed for about 200,000 (please lets not bring this argument to creationism, because as the entire scientific community can attest, that argument does not hold up and has not for about 50 years). We are a dust speck upon a dust speck etc. in the eye of a being who has existed since the beginning of the universe, and will exist once we die could not, logically, care about our existence. we do not care about the existence of a single bacteria, and god would not care about us for the same reason. This point is amplified especially when looking at the size of the universe, and our relative size compared to it, especially when considering the fact that the probability that the human race is an anomaly is statistically impossible.
If a god exists, it is impossible for him to care about the human race.

This argument presupposes a few things, so bear with me. First, it assumes, for the sake of argument, that there is a single god. This god is omnipresent, meaning that he is everywhere, omnipotent, meaning that he is all powerful, and nothing is out of his grasp power wise, and finally that he is omniscient, meaning that he knows literally everything. Other than that, anything may be assumed about god. Good luck.
Feminism.

Now seeing as you forfeited that round, I can conclude that you have either lost interest in the subject, or you have no other statements to disprove me. I would like to finish the debate because I do not like winning by default. This round will be conclusions so I will write mine now. Feminism has been around for a long time and is still going strong. When it first began, it was fighting for women's rights. The organization itself has nothing to do with males at all. So in conclusion, feminism does have a gender. It may have male supporters, but it promotes the female population. It does nothing for the male population except belittle them in the eyes of the public.
Feminism.

But that is still promoting FEMALES as you said. It in no way promotes men. It simply belittles men in the eyes of the public. I agree that women are raped and sexually assulted by men but that has really nothing to do with the feminism I am speaking of. That is where feminism has come. It started as a civil rights movement in the 20s when women gained the right to vote. It has since pushed for women's rights which is fine. But the way the organization itself belittles the male population is disgusting. It has turned from a civil rights movement to a full blown rape awareness campaing. Rape has nothing to do with the rights of women. Rape is simply an action performed by an ignorant human. Women can rape too. Although not as common, it has happened and cases have been dismissed involving a man being raped. It is very clear that feminism does have a gender and that gender is female. It may have male supporters but it is a organization that promotes women and women only.
Feminism.

Feminism Has NO gender. I am a Man And I am A Feminist. Feminism by definition stands up for all my perspectives, ambitions, desires and behaviours. Feminism is the ACT of Advocating (though perhaps passively in some circumstances) against Woman Abuse, and EVERYTHING which leads to women being slandered - Including False propaganda of Feminism by SLuts who enable womanizers and glorify perverts such as homosexuality. { It is not an act of feminism to defend a slut who enabled an adulterous man. That WOULD be counter productive. } I am Pro Feminism, that is why I accepted this debate. And Feminism has no gender, Nor Negative attributes.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.

Thank you Lannan for this debate. Before I start, I will go over what He3 is. He3 is a light, non-radioactive isotope of Helium. It is sought after for research for Nuclear Fusion. It is what the Sun uses as fuel, along with other elements. In short, if we are successful in mastering Nuclear Fusion, then that is a massive step in moving along in the Galaxy, and since we are riding the Space Highway with our asses out the window, the faster we get to move other planets, the better. Argument One: Nuclear Fusion is a source of energy. Like I said above, we are at risk when we chew the fat on Earth trying to see who can get the richest or who can have the coolest iPhone. It is feasible we can get this done if we give NASA the funding it needs to give us Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is really, really cool. For one thing it is clean, and that it gives us about 3 times more energy then what our Nuclear Power Plants give us, using fission [1][2]. If you are wondering if it is feasible to build such a thing, Lockheed Martin built a prototype a while back. [3] The above sources state that Fusion is a cheap, and powerful energy source. Using He3, this can come to fruition. The cost of a few round trips to the moon, or even a lunar base are subtle compared to the answer of the energy question. Argument Two: He3 has more uses. These include cryogenics [6], some health uses [4] and neutron detection, which can detect dangerous elemental material [5]. Mining the moon can give us a new source for all of these things. Thank you again, Lannan. I eagerly wait for your rebuttal. [1] http://www.mnn.com... [2] http://www.ccfe.ac.uk... [3] http://www.popularmechanics.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.ill.eu... [6] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.Hello, this is a debate challenged by Geographia to Lannan. This is a judge-voted debate, however, I stress that I rather this be well-read and not voted , then well-voted and not read at all. This debate, like the title implies is over whether or not the US Federal Government should mine for He3 on the Moon.TERMSUS Federal Government should go undefined. "Should" concerns the legitimacy of going to the moon to mine and the reasons and benefits."Moon" is Earth's main Natural moon, also known as Luna."He3" is Helium-3, a rare element found in the regoliths of the moon and rarely found on Earth.No semantics, and I will ask Lannan if that the title implies that we start to mine fairly quickly, as in 5-10 years.If Lannan as anything to say, he could PM me, or comment.Thank you.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.

Contention 1: International Law and Global Hegemony On August 1st of 2005, George W. Bush signed a Presidential Decree stating that NASA's space shuttle program will no longer be funded. Here is President Bush on the decision. "We cannot find any justification to continue the deficit funding of a program that has no application other that proving that with enough money America can do anything," said Bush. (. http://www.spacedaily.com...) As I brought up in my last round the US has had to rely on the Russian Space shuttle program to get anything into space as NASA no longer has a Shuttle Program. So we can see that with us trying to impliment this economic plan it will be blocked by the Russians as it violates the Treaty as it will also be backed by the other 100 nations who also signed the treaty. Though Russia may sabber rattle they can still break the deal if they precieve it as a threat and many times, even when the US has tried to defend Europe with Russian missles, Russia has acted strongly against which even means that the Russians will precieve something like that as a threat could one only imagine what they will think when they hear that the US is developing nuclear energy on the moon? Pro has also dropped by China overtaking the US in Hegemony argument so I extend that across the board. Contention 2: He-3 from the moon not worth it, alternatives exist. My opponent wants more sourcing, then I shall give him a source that he was content with earlier and here is a quotation from it that states practiacally the same thing. "deuterium reacts up to 100 times more slowly with helium-3 than it does with tritium. In a plasma contained in a tokamak, Close stresses, all the nuclei in the fuel get mixed together, so what's most probable is that two deuterium nuclei will rapidly fuse and produce a tritium nucleus and proton. That tritium, in turn, will likely fuse with deuterium and finally yield one helium-4 atom and a neutron. In short, Close says, if helium-3 is mined from the moon and brought to Earth, in a standard tokamak the final result will still be deuterium-tritium fusion. " (. http://www.technologyreview.com...) I had explained this one in an earlier round that we get this from taking the He-3 out of natural gas in order to increase the combustion of natural gas. This leads to the 5 billion bottles of He-3 that we get rendering this point useless. I extend across my Li-6 argument as my opponent dropped it in the last round. Contention 3: Price Tag I understand that it can be done cheaper, but the rate that NASA, a government agency can do it for is more expensive and via the resolution, the only option you can take is NASA's $10,000 per pound.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.

Admittly I regret not making this 5 rounds so Im not cramping for sapce, but whatever.This will be short.Contention One: Lannan is getting into another beast with politics. If Lannan is implying we need Russia to send Space Ships to space, he is wrong. We did that for decades. Second, I already explained why this is bunk. The rest is not relebant enough.Treaty or no Treaty, there is little reason to stop doing it just because of a Cold War era treaty. I welcome Lannan to debate this later. In short, Russia will raise a fuss about this, but they will just Saber rattle.Contention Two:I wanted sources. If you merely point to this guy, it is a fallacy. He coulld be 6'5 and have a 13 inch penis and have a IQ of 300, along with everything you said and I would still say the same thing. This is why I am "dropping" contention two. First because of your fallacy, second, there is no source beyond yours. I looked over your 5 billion He3 source and could not find where we got it.It appears that we can't get [much of] it from gas, and it is in short supply on Earth irregardless.[1]Contention Three:I might have not been clear enough. What I was saying is that we can do it cheaper then what you have said. I did not say SpaceX would do it.Thank you Lannan for this debate. It was fun. If you like to debate me more, I am open in ~3 weeks.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine the moon for He3.

Thank you for your excellent rebut.I will now began.Lannan’s Contention 1:While this seems reasonable on paper, there is no reason why that this would stop us. This treaty is unenforceable. It is arguably also in the way of progress, but that is irreverent. To say that a treaty would stop the “should” is just politics. If there was a Treaty to stop making/producing/spreading around nuclear material, and we discover there is a cheap cure for cancer that involves nuclear material, as absurd as it might be, would it not be odd to turn it down on the basis of a treaty?Lannan’s Contention 2:I tried googling Lannan’s first source to find out it is behind a login wall, then I tried to google the quote, and only 47 results came up, including this debate, the source and some downloadable docs. However, the point seems to be in the next source.I think I might have used this source myself, but the website cites that fusion would take 6 times the temperature of the sun. There appears to be no cited source on this or proof, so I don’t really know what to say to this. Close seems to be a smart guy, but again I want to see more.Then Lannan brings up alternatives. He suggests Boron Trifluoride, or BT3. BT3 has some use, but it is toxic and can cause irritation in one’s eye, nose skin and respiratory system. It also cause nosebleeds and skin and eye burns. In animals it causes pneumonitis and kidney damage.[2] Lannan also suggests L6, but it is still in the works and Lannan’s source for this doesn't mention it again. Lannan’s Contention 3:The Price tag is surely not small. However Lannan’s assumptions that we need to raise taxes is false. We don’t. Simply put, we take it from the Military Budget and the VA. In the Fiscal 2014 year, we spend about $560 Billion in Military and the VA[1]. We can double NASA’s budget by only taking $20 billion from them. We have no reason to be pumping this much especially how far ahead we are in terms of funding. Lannan also mentions that it costs $10k for a LEO mission, however, SpaceX can do it for only ~$700/ib. No, I didn't leave out a zero. That is less than 1/10th of the mentioned price tag.In Lannan’s technologyreview source, it is stated that the only He3 reactor “is barely in the 6 figures”. There appears to be no citation to that claim. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.cdc.gov...[3] http://www.buildtheenterprise.org...
McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term, specifically with war in Iraq.

I negate, Senator McCain is not running for Bush's third term. I will make 3 main points in this round: P1: "John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. John McCain doesn't think that 47 million people without health insurance is a crisis. John McCain wants to privatize Social Security. And in 2008, he still thinks it's okay when women don't earn equal pay for equal work. (Clinton's Speech delivered at DNC)" Am I arguing with Hil or Smith here? Anyway, can you point to me a specific time where he said he thinks sexism is alright? Senator McCain recognizes the healthcare crisis and has stated "Unlike the Democrats, I'm going to preserve that quality of health care, and at the same time stop the inflation & the skyrocketing costs of health care. And there's a couple of principles:To make the recipient of the health insurance much more responsible in health-care costs." To address wellness & fitness. To give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go anyplace in America to acquire the health insurance policy that best suits their needs. zed the healthcare crisis, and has said that he will give tax breaks to families that can't afford healthcare so the families can buy it for themselves." Source: http://www.ontheissues.org... On Social Security: John McCain supports "supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts--but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept." Not privatizing, Smith. P2: 100 years in Iraq, WMDs, etc. First off, we still have bases in Germany and South Korea. We'll most likely always have some sort of presence there, whether you like it or not. Senator McCain wants to get out as soon as you do, but not without the Iraqi defense force being able to hold its own. Secondly, your comparison to Russia invading us is completely off. We invaded Iraq because our best sources at the time believed there was WMDs in Iraq. Many Republicans and Democrats agreed on that point. Also, if there were no WMDs in Iraq, what do you make of the yellowcake uranium (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) that was removed from Iraq not too long ago? Just to be fair, that link is from MSNBC, so it's not right-wing propaganda. As for the Bomb Iran thing, he was JOKING. If Iran did pose an imminent threat, yes, we would invade. Would McCain just bomb them for the hell of it? Of course not. Give me some sources, polls. Do you seriously think the Iraqi people are confident enough in their own security forces that they want us out? As for our standing in the world, I guess abortion doesn't fit into that argument, considering much of Europe is much more strict on abortion than us. Captain America