BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Warming Exists

It is sad that this debate will not be focused solely on whether global warming exists, but now I must respond to her accusations. Pro is still persisting in error despite the fact that I sent her to do her homework regarding Burden of Proof. To her, and anyone who still doesn't understand, I recommend google "burden of proof" and spend some time to see what is about and how it works. Maybe you will now understand: You can't prove God doesn't exist, so he exists! You can't prove global warming doesn't exist, so it exists! If you don't find anything wrong with this kind of argument then you have a serious problem. You state that global warming exist in your profile. I challanged that opinion. You are pro for it, I am con. You have burden of proof, not me. "Any non-noob to DDO will attest to the fact that "allowing your opponent to go first" is nothing short of a punk move that often loses conduct points in the voting period." Why do you insult me? Are you this weak, really? Or must be that time of the month maybe.. Conduct points and also grammar are irrelevant things when deciding who has more merit in an argument. The fact that conduct and grammar can win you an argument shows that this debate thing on this website is just a game, nothing more. And I take it as such. I don't care about perfect conduct and I don't care about perfect grammar. "Convincing arguments" is only thing that matters, and I use my wisdom from my brain as a source, mostly. You accuse me of poor conduct but insult me after this. Can you spell hypocrisy? === Refutation of her arguments === All her arguments are basically one FALSE assumption : Global Warming = Climate Change. Then , she makes a straw-man, saying that I don't believe in Climate Change, and that people are responsible in part for it. Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Weather changes all the time. The average pattern of weather, called climate, usually stays pretty much the same for centuries if it is left to itself. However, the earth is not being left alone. People are taking actions that can change the earth and its climate in significant ways. It is obvious that human activity influences the climate change, I am not disputing that. Pro says: Con notes that people continue to die from frost bite and low temperatures, and then presents a bunch of irrelevant statistics" Statistics regarding temperatures and whether from recent years are irrelevant in a topic called "global warming" ??? This should be only about these kinds of statistics. "In short, my opponent has proven that he knows absolutely nothing" As the highest ranked debater on this website you sure are lame. I know that the last winter was the coldest winter of my entire life. I know that in some parts of the globe , average temperature increases, and in other parts, it decreases. And I know that somebody, somewhere, makes tons of money because he or she was able to fool a huge part of the massess to believe this bogus "global warming" theory. I have nothing more to add. If I could vote, I have 3 points for convincing arguments, 2 points for source, and theLwerd has 1 point for grammar. Conduct is tied.
Global Warming Exists

== INTRODUCTION == Con sent me this debate challenge, though apparently had no intention of defending his position. Technically I don't have to say anything at all in this round considering Con is the instigator of this debate, and thus has the burden of proof. I have nothing to respond to, meaning I can/should leave this round blank. However since Con decided not to say anything at all, I guess I'll provide a few opening statements. == OPENING ARGUMENTS == Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Since it has been scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, then the definition of what global warming is has already been affirmed. Most people acknowledge that global warming DOES exist (and is occurring); the main conflict is whether or not humans are responsible for it. While there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning "Global Warming" again exists. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. This is undeniable. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Another fact. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years; one must only know simple science to understand The Greenhouse Effect and how this issue impacts the earth's heating and cooling [1]. Our endeavors have led us to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat emission. Simultaneously, we have implemented continuous deforestation... meaning we rid of the trees and plant life that help balance out our carbon emissions... so obviously there is going to be an impact. I'll leave it at that for now. == SOURCES == [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Cannabis use kills brain cells

While it is true that using cannabis once or twice as a party drug will not cause permanent brain damage, there is a direct correlation between long term-use and a heightened risk of schizophrenia and memory impairment. This was tested by Hall, W. & Solowij, N. (1998). A study in Sweden of 50,000 individuals found a dose-response relation between the frequency of marijuana use by age 18 and the risk of a diagnosis of schizophrenia over the subsequent 15 years. In the study, it was determined that the relative risk of schizophrenia in those who had used cannabis before was 2.4 times greater than in non-users, and for individuals who had used marijuana more than 50 times in their lifetime the risk was 6 times greater than non-users.
Resolved: Affirmative action to promote equal opportunity in the United States is justified.

As the role of Con, I believe that affirmative action promotes more inequality in the United States and has an unjustified place in government. Since we have five rounds to duke this out, the first round will serve as our introduction. I challenge you to persuade me that affirmative action holds a spot in our government and promotes skill, the effects of consequences, and absolute equality or all. First points are yours. Best of luck! HiOedipus.
The theory of creation on how the world began is more plausible than the theory of evolution

I believe that the theory of creation is true, based on the facts we see in nature and historical records (such as the bible), and that evolution is false, as it does not have enough proof to back it up.The theory of creation: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.The theory of evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.Debate Me.
bible christians - if u lived n old testament days u shouldve supported stoning/ executions listed

The bible says at least many of the killings were dictated by God. Most people just say they would not stone anyone, nor support it, as if that is the proper response. Then they are unable to articulate why. If you follow the bible though as God's word, as most of these people do, doesn't that mean you would be compelled to stone exectute and/or support it? 'Matthew 15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!" 3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."' 'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)' almost every 10 commandment has a following death punishment later in the bible. most people dont realize that. here is another death sentence example. Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
2 Chainz is a God

Two Chainz is a lord of Hip Hop and a immortal being for these reasons. 1. His name is 2 Chainz. Come on people. 2. His ability to pull off rhymes such as: i. " She's got a big booty so I call her big booty" ii " dope enough to go in yo nostrils" iii "you the realest n**** breathin' if i hold ma breath" Only a god could make such horrendous rhymes (gramatically speaking) work in the way 2 Chainz does.
2 Chainz is a God

If 2 Chainz is a god, then why isn't he worshiped religiously? 2 Chainz being a God is not possible to coexist with other religions, like Christianity: they believe Jesus was the one and only god, therefore your belief can't coexist with theirs. Pro said: 2 Chainz name refers to the number of Chains he must have been wearing at the time. The stupidity of his name is evident, but he pulls it off due to his godliness. What time? Yes, his name is stupid, but who says he actually pulls it off? Also, maybe we humans are just so stupid that we accept really stupid names, like Honey Boo Boo, for example. Pro said: 2 Chainz does not require his lines to rhyme. That's how he rolls. That did not support your case at all. Anyways, this is over. Time for voting.
2 Chainz is a God

To Address your previous arguments... -God makes himself visible to humans in various forms, such as Jesus, Miracles, and Liam Neeson. -Being a god, 2 Chainz can do whatever he wants, Frankly. You have to respect his choice. -2 Chainz coexists with all other religions. This is proven by the existence of 2 Chainz and Liam Neeson in the same realm. To Address your other arguments... -2 Chainz name refers to the number of Chains he must have been wearing at the time. The stupidity of his name is evident, but he pulls it off due to his godliness. - 2 Chainz does not require his lines to rhyme. That's how he rolls. (PS Your courage is commendable given you took the impossible task of refuting the fact of 2 Chainz's Godliness)
Cherymenthol should not be winning this debate.

I am intrigued to see the results of this debate, however I feel we have both strayed from the true debate, However with that said I will begin my rebuttal. ========= Contention 1 ========= Dropped 0-1 ========= Contention 2 ========= Actually the funniest part about this argument is when we look at the debate in question/ argument in question ( 3rd post by PRO, under introductions sub B) He never once proved that Portfolio's test by question pupils. The definition he said he would conform too. And because I said they didn't, and he didn't disagree, we extend the fact that portfolio's are not SEEs. so actually it would be 3-1 Therefore any following arguments fall because he could not turn my VC. .. ========= Contention 3 ========= I am not assuming it was an attack on my character, as the other voter agrees it was clearly an attack on character. And you never attacked my refutations on how it is bad conduct to forfeit, so we can assume its not. (note there is another voter who voted me up 7-0) 4-1 ========= Contention 4 ========= If the voters are to read the debate they will clearly find that I posted the credentials of Louis Volante, and a study (Its long because its thorough) to support my case. And if anything the length of a document does nothing less than bolster its reliability. 6-1 ========= Contention 5 ========= (Side note as my opponent obviously agrees he can't attack this point) Now probably the most important thing to keep in mind is the unattacked argument of the third voter. Who voted me up on every account, and because obviously there is another individual who agrees with my opinions we can have more faith in the credibility of my arguments and votes.
Cherymenthol should not be winning this debate.

"Correction: There are six criteria, so I must win in minimum of four. " No 0 pts - Before/After 1 pts - Spelling 1 pts - Conduct 3 pts - Arguments 2 pts - Sources That is how the scoring system works. After tallying these up, if the score is in my favor, I win. --- Contention 1 He drops this. That's 0-1. --- Contention 2 "I say extensions: points that are not to be argued later in the round, I was only talking about my extensions not a universal principle. " 1. He didn't EVER specify that anywhere in the debate. 2. There's no reason my drops count against me and his don't. 3. Yes, it IS a universal principle in LD rounds. "we must remember that he dropped the argument about how Portfolios are not exit exams" This a complete lie. Reread the debate; I address every one of his rebuttals, including 3 separate rebuttals to this particular attack. Ignore that argument if you want. He doesn't contest that he drops every argument. I turned the AC criterion, so even if you dropped the entire NC you'd still be voting for me on the AC. If you don't buy the turn, he still hasn't met his BoP as instigator and PRO after dropping every point. That makes the score 0-4 --- Contention 3 "we have to think that he means more than my actions" There's no reason to assume it's an attack on Chery. Read my other debates if you wish. I don't use ad hominem attacks in-round, but I do post such responses to people who have shown poor enough conduct to forfeit. 0-5 --- Contention 4 He never once posted a link to prove Volante said what he claims. His other source is a 110 pg document that he expects me to read. The Google link was actually a list of other reliable sources and if he thinks the "packet does not adequately support Nails's claim" then he needs to say why, not make unwarranted assertions. The debate wiki is reliable in what I posted it to prove.
Cherymenthol should not be winning this debate.

Correction: There are six criteria, so I must win in minimum of four. =============== Contention 1: Grammar =============== I'll drop grammar. ================ Contention 2: Arguments ================ His first point quotes me out of contact, I say extensions: points that are not to be argued later in the round, I was only talking about my extensions not a universal principle. When we discuss dropped arguments, we must remember that he dropped the argument about how Portfolios are not exit exams, thus making his case fall because it is revolved around the premise that they are. This point supports a vote for the PRO after the round. =============== Contention 3: Conduct =============== nowhere in the guideline nor rules of these online debates does it say anything that can be taken in the context of meaning forfeiting is bad conduct. However assuming that an individual is FAIL, a term that has blatant negative connotations is an outright assault on my character. Also when my opponent says explains it all, we have to think that he means more than my actions (I did rebut his points in my previous rebuttal). As we can see my opponent was clearly the ruder participant in the debate in question. =============== Contention 4: Sources =============== The extent of my opponents sources are Google, and a packet that does not adequately support my opponents claims. However. I cite Louis Volante, I provide two links: one to explain who he is, and another to explain why we ought to respect him (i. e. his former work). And the third (yes there were more than two) link was to a study that refutes my opponents statement that Exit Exams don't detract form curricula. And he actually cites, wikipedia and a list of debaters for a source. .. Extend permissibility to vote for oneself, and other debater's vote argument.
Cherymenthol should not be winning this debate.

My argument is that Cherymenthol should not have voted for himself in all 4 categories. Winning that he was unjust in 1 of these 4 is sufficient grounds to vote PRO. =============== Contention 1: Grammar =============== Misused conjunction + incorrect conjugation of 'determine' + unnecessary comma + missing comma be for 'be it' "And more specific...reviews, or portfolios." Subpoint A has an opening quote without an ending quote. Run-on sentences "Due to the...my Value Criterion." "Actually standardized tests...a child's schooling," "We are harming...fails to achieve." "Standardized tests are...background do matter." I don't even have enough space to document all of the errors he made in his first speech alone. ================ Contention 2: Arguments ================ He clearly agrees that unargued, or 'dropped', points can not be further contested and can be assumed to be true. He even states: "extensions: unargued/ agreed and not to be further argued points LD rules" He dropped every single point in the last speech, and, as per his view of 'dropped' arguments, he loses every point in the debate. =============== Contention 3: Conduct =============== He forfeited his round without notice. He makes the argument that refering to his avatar, 'FAIL', is poor conduct. It was no more than a reflection on his poor conduct: failure to give an excuse for forfeiting, failure to post an argument, failure to rebut any of my points at all. =============== Contention 4: Sources =============== I gave multiple reliable sources during the round. Chery initially cites authors with no credentials at all, with no link to prove they actually said this. He then posts links verifying the authors' credibility, but he never once gives proof that they actually said what he claims they said. One link is simply to a list of source citations; the other is to a 110 page document. -- All rebuttals will be covered next round. Good Luck!
Cherymenthol should not be winning this debate.

First off the resolution is flawed, there were three debaters in the debate under question, not the stated two. Secondly, due to the fact that I do not know the other debater, the debate according to the resoltion seems like a waste of my time, so I will take the initiative to only argue why I voted for myself, and why I should be winning. Now in order for an individual to "win" a debate round he must be superior to his opponent in the majority of the criteria Debate.org lists (Grammar, Spelling, Conduct, Arguments, Sources, etc...). Also the judging of every round on this website is inherently arbitrary, what one individual thinks is good conduct might be considered poor to another, therefore to contest the neutrality of voters is a waste of time because humans are bias by nature. Actions such as "vote bombing" are proof of this. Therefor to vote for oneself is permisable, furthermore the reputable 'Puck' debater even agrees it is fine to vote for oneself. (http://www.debate.org...) Now in the comments section of this debate my opponent recognizes two out of the four criteria are pointless, therefore there ought to be no argument against me awarding myself these points, because I feel I was more polite (Also my opponent insulted me in the final round), and I spent time correcting and fixing my grammar. Not agree with myself who be irrational therefore I awarded myself that point. Also if you are to read the debate you will see that my opponent violated the outline of the debate. He ran a policy structured case in a LD round, thus not complying with the outline that I desired and he said he would comply too. So I felt it would be wrong to allow a lie to win. And also I proved in my rebuttal that his case is solved for in mine and that it was not even an Exit Exam, what we were arguing. And if this is not evidence enough we can look to the vote of the other debater.
Should victims of extend abuse be allowed to use deadly force.

My opponent continues to try and make this point of murder look irrelevant, even though she is trying to legalize murder by upholding this resolution. So let's look at what happens to this murderer after they kill their abuser. They live the rest of their lives in prison. And while I clearly understand that this resolution is trying to legalize the use of deadly force on an abuser, there is not enough detail presented in her plan to have this pass in any court. Therefore, this simply cannot pass. Murder is murder, whether or not it is done in self-defense. The victim, if being abused over a long period of time, is still alive, then their life isn't in as much danger as one might think. It is very simple to get help when not caught in the middle of an attack. My opponent is not giving humanity due credit by claiming that most abused women won't go for help. After the first few times of abuse, or even the very first time, one can go get help. And most do. So both murders are prevented because of the use of common sense. If the argument is "They should murder the abuser before the abuser murders them" then this is an impossible problem to solve because either way someone dies. This is not an impossible problem to solve. But it's not, because there is always help. If you can't tell someone you love, tell the police. In the situations presented here, there is always an alternative to blood-shed. Since my case has been based on strong logic, I do urge those of you voting to vote for the con side of this resolution. Thank you for a unique, interesting round.
Should victims of extend abuse be allowed to use deadly force.

Ok my opponent proceeds to go back to murder over and over again but what my opponent is not saying is the fact that most abuse victims lives are put in to danger every time they are attacked, it is unfair for my opponent to say well murder is wrong when the victim's life is also in danger. I would also like to point out that most of the time when the victim murders the attacker it is often self defence. There life was so in so much danger that the victim lose all train of thought and dose what she/he feels is needed to save there own life and possibely others.
Should victims of extend abuse be allowed to use deadly force.

My opponent is seeing the radical as the only option available to victims of abuse. Yes, every human being has a right to self defense. However, this does not give every human a right to take another human's life. Yes, many victims of abuse feel worthless. And of course they will not always have access to a phone. However, the idea that taking someones life to defend your own is right is selfish and illogical. If anything is over the edge, it is trying to justify one murder because it will prevent another.
Should victims of extend abuse be allowed to use deadly force.

Well yes murder is wrong, but let's say your sister is being abused by her spouse? Are you telling that you would tell her not to defend herself? Let me also pont out that some males/females whom are abusing there spouse will beat in to there mind they are useless and no one will belive them why even try? One one is going to belive you over me. With some cases even the victem is so controlled that she/he has no power at all no actes to leave the home or place where the abuse is taking place and, If he/she has no possibel use of a phone? If you are telling me that if I kill him/her that I am in the wrong for defending my own life? I must say that is rather over the edge.