BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Climate Shift

Actually another survey found only 52 percent of meteroligist believe climate change is man made. Liberal meteroligest where far more likely to believe in climate change. Climate change has slowed even those co2 is increasing. How is this? More co2 was released in the industrial era then now but there was no climate change. The sun was also giving of a lot more light in the 90s and that could have raised the climate. Their is no proof co2 causes the earth to warm. I would remind you that in the 70s, some scientist said that co2 would cause tempature to drop and create a new ice age. I again state that climate models have failed and none of the apociliptic predictions have happened. http://dailycaller.com... http://www.principia-scientific.org... http://www.forbes.com...
Climate Shift

"Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says 'the scientist say its right, so its right. '" Actually what I'm saying is that scientists have proven sufficiently that it's real, so it is real. As for the rest of my opponents argument, it might be compelling to consider if it was confirmed by any evidence. Since my opponent cited no sources, we can only assume that this is only from his personal knowledge and expertise. A) my overwhelming bulk of sources overrides this. B) My opponent is not an environmental scientist, and even if he was, his opinion would be drowned by the 95% consensus Furthermore, my opponents points regarding the shift being "normal" should be cross referenced with my points regarding the scientific consensus that it is not "normal. "
Climate Shift

Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says "the scientist say its right, so its right." Climate change models have been failing for years now. It was predicted that by 2013 there would benno polar ice left. In 2013 the ice capsnincreased massively. In fact, there was little polarnice in the 1930s, but the ice increased rapidly until the 80s when they started to shrink again. The warming of the earht is not unusual. The medieval warming period had heats hotter then the heat today. The little ice following it had tempatures far colder then today. This shows heat change is normal. In fact overall planet tempature has decrised since the 90s. The super hurricanes predicted by envirmentalist have not come. The hurricanes of the early 1900s were far stronger then today's. The hurricane that destroyed galvistonnis a good example. If anything shows the fallacy of climate change, it is the mound of failed environmentalists predictions.
If atheism/materialism is true, it is impossible to know anything about reality.

In response to pro, I accepted this debate simply because i contend this resolution.( I apologize if the first round was awkward i have reread the resolution and now clearly understand my posistion.Please ignore any comments i have made that seems to not correspond to my posistion.) I will attack this resolution by first explaining true materialism and how one can still know of reality,secondly how one can be an atheist and still understand reality.( pros quotes will be underlined.)True materialismcon·sti·tute-To be the elements or parts of.True materialism isnt the premise in witch pro presents being," My argument stems from the premise of materialism that all of reality can be explained completely in terms of matter." true materialism doesnt teach this. As we see by the definitions i have offered materialism teaches that most of the universe can be explained in terms of matter and not completely. As we see by the definition of the word used in the definition of materialism being constitute witch is defined above.The universe cannot be described in whole as matter witch is what pro is proposing. There also exists antimatter witch is obviously not matter and witch is present in the gamma rays of te solar system.[1] Moving on this debate is not a matter of is materialism or atheism right but is more so saying if both are true thecan reality be known/perceived. The awnser is yes.( please refer to the definitions of reality and real.) If i belive in materialism reality can be known.I would still know thatthe sky is real.I would still except that in the reality of 2012 Barrack Obama is the president of the U.S. There are many more examples. Just because one accepts materialism that doent mean that person cannot understand reality. Materialism doesnt hinder the senses. Witch means we can still percieve reality if materialism is true.Also pro made this comment earlier," If there is to be anything knowable about the universe, it must be true that we are not merely physical beings but also possess immaterial minds. Beings with free will that exists apart of the laws of physics and chemistry." We dont have seperate brains.There is no part of the brain of witch isnt physical. All humans are subject to the lawcs and chemistry evident by gravity.AtheismLets say god doesnt exist while we do for this debate. Does this situation mean that we know cannot percieve reality? Of coarse not. I will still find a stove turned up high is in fact hot and is reality. Does atheism hinder any of the senses? Absolutely not. So why then would our ability to be cogniscent of reality be compromised. This premise of my opponent isnt factual at all nor can it be proven. For thee reasons If one is a atheist reality still can be known of and will still be percieved as reality. Even if both atheism and materialism is accepted by a person that person is still able to undtand reality. So through my explanation in this round we can see this resolution should be negated.Sources1--http://en.wikipedia.org...
If atheism/materialism is true, it is impossible to know anything about reality.

( please note that I am non-atheist. ) I believe it is possible if the existence of god argument is not possible, that it is still possible for life to know and experience reality. I also reject materialism. It seems my opponent is only arguing the second definition dealing with philosophy. I reject this ideal because all of existence is not made of matter. I realize upon first hearing this I'm sure everyone is thinking I'm a idiot for saying that but I'm not and my argument will actually prove to be factual once I post my contentions. Of coarse mankind and our experience are the result of chemistry and physics taking place. I will lastly add that we don posses both a physical mind and then a spiritual mind but that we only have one mind where both are supposed to exist. Atheism- disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Materialism- 1. preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values. 2. the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies. Reality- the state or quality of being real. Real-existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious. Exist-1. to have actual being; be2. to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions. Immaterial- having no physical substance: not made of matter, or not physically real.
If atheism/materialism is true, it is impossible to know anything about reality.

Hello everyone, this is my first debate on this site. I will be arguing that if atheism/materialism is true, then it is impossible for us to know anything about reality. My argument stems from the premise of materialism that all of reality can be explained completely in terms of matter. At its base, mankind and his ability for rational inquiry are the result of the laws of physics and chemistry. If this is the case, then everything a person thinks, does and believes is merely the result of interacting particles of matter according to the laws of physics and chemistry. In fact, for an atheist/materialist to try and convince someone to believe otherwise would be futile, because they are no more free to believe anything other than what the matter in their brains allows. If there is to be anything knowable about the universe, it must be true that we are not merely physical beings but also possess immaterial minds. Beings with free will that exists apart of the laws of physics and chemistry.
Athletic Collegiate Players Should Be Paid

As you have forfeited your round, I assume that you agree with my points, which are that:1. College athletes sustain injuries on behalf of their schools and deserve compensation, and2. College athletes should receive the money that rightfully belongs to them.My first contention as stated in the first round will be supported by my original second and third contentions.I will continue to elaborate.1. College athletes sustain injuries on behalf of their schools and deserve compensation.For males, concussions at all levels of football are a tremendous problem. Among college football players, 30 percent have had two or more. As the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Neurological Surgery reports, death is highly possible if one has two concussions in a small time frame. A total of 26 deaths since the year 2000 are attributed to this. The neurological effects of concussions in college athletes also can result in learning disabilities and severe memory impairments. Females, on the other hand, are liable to receive ligament tears in the knees, which are costly to repair. Also, cheerleading is by far the most dangerous sport for girls – it accounts for 70.5 percent of fatal, disabling, or serious injuries. If these young adults are willing to run such high risks to play a sport for their school, shouldn’t they be paid a satisfactory sum of money for their ardent devotion?2. College athletes should receive the money that rightfully belongs to them.Many times, colleges who have good athletes playing for them attempt to attract more fans by selling them collectibles, jerseys, t-shirts, and autographed items. Even though most of the products have the athlete’s own signature or name on it, the athlete does not receive any money. According to USA Today, athletes are being scammed as they do not receive a single share of the revenue derived from jerseys, equipment, and autographs sold by colleges that recognize them in any sort of way. These athletes deserve the money as their fans are the ones who are buying the products. Most fans only buy the products because their favorite player is embossed right on them. Also, the Forbes magazine of 2012 states that college athletes filed a lawsuit concerning the likeness of players in the new game NCAA Football. They argued that the players have all rights to their own personality and features and should have compensation for the use of their likenesses in this video game. The San Francisco District Court supported the athletes. This simply proves that college athletes are not getting the money that rightfully belongs to them. Not only are their personalities and likenesses being used, but jerseys and autographs are being sold with the athletes’ names on them, and the athletes aren’t receiving any money at all. All this money only goes to the colleges. This is unjustified!I look forward to your response.
Athletic Collegiate Players Should Be Paid

First of all, by arguing the con side of this topic, you are propagating the idea that athletic collegiate players should not be paid. Keeping this idea in mind, I do not understand why you are including the statement that “if a college refuses to pay their athletic students, athletes will not be able to participate in any qualifying collegiate athletic competition” in your con argument. Clearly, those eager college athletes participate in college athletics largely for that competitive atmosphere, and paying them will allow them to compete and fulfill their dreams. Therefore, you are supporting the proposition. You also state that college athletics are simply a “side hobby. ” Quite on the contrary, as I will elaborate on later in this debate, college athletes devote much of their time and well-being to their sport. In the process, they drive a large amount of revenue for their schools. The institutions are plenty able to reimburse their athletes for their dedication, without which their teams would not exist; however, they do not. This is utterly immoral. Lastly, I would like to state that, contrary to your argument, high school and college athletics are far from being the same thing. However, college and professional athletics are indeed exactly the same, except for the fact that professionals are paid and collegiate players are not. I will be explaining further in my second round argument. I would like to clarify that as college athletic scholarships given by the NCAA barely cover the necessities of college life and leave plenty of expenses for the athletes to pay out-of-pocket, they do not qualify as payment for those hardworking collegiate athletes and cannot be used in an argument along the lines of “college athletes are already compensated through their scholarships and do not merit additional earnings. ” In this debate, “payment” is hereby defined as “monetary compensation, outside of scholarships, provided to collegiate athletes. ”I have three main contentions:1. College athletes should be reimbursed for generating revenue for their schools,2. College athletes sustain injuries on behalf of their schools and deserve compensation, and3. College athletes should receive the money that rightfully belongs to them. I will be elaborating on each in the next round, and look forward to your response.
Athletic Collegiate Players Should Be Paid

Athletic collegiate players would be any student enrolled in any of the participating NCAA programs at colleges, playing any sport. If a college refuses to pay their athletic students, athletes will not be able to participate in any qualifying collegiate athletic competition. NCAA Administration will be in charge of enforcing this law. College athletes should not be paid. It's the same as high school. Just a higher level. They don't pay you in high school to play sports, why should you get paid in college? You're not a professional athlete just yet. You're still in school. It's not your job. It's a side hobby for the time being in college.
Slapping a woman's azz should be perfectly acceptable

Women wear tight jeans and dress up and put on lots of makeup for attention, Women want to be noticed by men, A slap on the butt is a compliment to the woman that she has a nice butt. Women (not girls) might say it's sexual harassment but in reality they want the slap on the butt, They would rather that than being ignored. Just look at Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton, She started the affair, But later recanted and said it was sexual harassment once the media got hold of the story. There has been a dramatic increase in butt implants in the last 10 years, And why do you think that is, Because women want their butts slapped and noticed. This gives a woman power as men become lured by the butt and a woman can make men do things just for the reward of a butt slap. This gives power to the woman. Woman flaunt their butts all the time, And why do they do it, Because they want it slapped. Butt slapping is also very enjoyable for a woman as it increases blood flow to that area which in turn increases the sensitivity of her genitals. I do not consider women property, Butt slapping is more of a gesture of attention and favor in order for the woman to know that you like that azz and you are interested in her. For women this should be a compliments. After all would you rather get a butt slap or be ignored all day long?
Slapping a woman's azz should be perfectly acceptable

This does not have to do with whether or not you feel it is a compliment for them. It all depends on the fact that this person does not want you touching them. Consent needs to be spoken. The "azz" is a personal body part. If I don't want you touching me I shouldn't have to push through it. That is called harassment. If it is particularly on a "private part" as it is in this topic of debate, That is sexual harassment. Many women do not want that type of attention. It is inappropriate. You will rebuddle with a quote from a girl at your school saying they like it. That is why I selected the word "most". Just because people in older generations did it, Doesn't mean we need to. Older generations thought of women as property. We are not property. We are people. We deserve respect and honor as other beings in this world. Do not treat us like inanimate objects.
Slapping a woman's azz should be perfectly acceptable

Why is it inappropriate to slap a woman's azz now? Did I miss a memo of how this is now considered sexual harassment. Men did it for years in the offices and other work places in the 50's, 60's and before that, But now all of a sudden it's wrong. Slapping a nice azz as it goes by is a compliment to the woman that she has a nice butt and you like it, That is why you are slapping it, Or grabbing it for a nice feel. How is that wrong. Women want attention and this is a compliment. Nothing like grabbing a handful of butt as it goes by. Slapping a woman's butt is a compliment to a woman and should be perfectly acceptable in the work place or out on the sidewalk. Why not?
Religion Shouldnt be Debated on.

Since religion is debated frequently and so far it has done no harm moreover religious debates not only make people think but also it is liable to convert few, I don't see why religion shouldn't be debated. My opponent has clearly the burden of proof. definition of "Debate": "a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote"oxforddictionaries. com "to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc. ): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton"Dictionary. com Since I should start first, here are my arguments: 1. It makes people think! All debates make people think and religion isn't exclusive to this however my opponent is free to argue that this is not true. 2. Religion is an important subject just like war,crime and love are big subjects. All of these are debated so according to you we either stop debating all of those topics or for some reason we exclude religion. As to why this should be is your burden. 3. Its against most peoples beliefs. I as a Christian believe that I should spread the gospel also there are other religious people who believe that they should spread their faith. One must have strong reasons to prevent me from debating religion. Hence your arguments must be persuasive and very convincing. 4. No one can force you to have a debate hence if you don't like a certain topic like religion, you can simply ignore it. I await my opponents response because I'm interested in hearing his arguments.
Napoleon was not a warmonger.

Ok, so a warmonger is a person who constantly starts and advocates war usually having no reason to do so, or just for the sake of their own glory. Let's look at the wars he did start, the only times he was the aggressor during his rule as First Consul and later Emperor of the French were the invasions of Spain and Russia. One being justified, and the other . .. not so much, but the invasion of Russia happened four years after the invasion of Spain, so he wasn't declaring war left and right like a typical warmonger would do. If you really want to point fingers and call someone a warmonger, blame Britian. They were the ones who financed coalition after coalition to get Napoleon of the throne and to replace him with a Bourbon king that the French despised, while Napoleon always looked for peace after his victories. Anyway, let's talk about his Invasions: Peninsular Wars (Invasion of Spain) Ok, while Spain was an ally to France, in Napoleon's perspective, the king was unreliable and incompetent, the Spainish people also shared this same view. Remember that Napoleon's main goal was to stop the British, but invading them wasn't possible because he had lost most of his navy when they were defeated at Trafalgar. So, instead he tried to do a continental blockade of British ships to weaken their economy, and force them to a peace. If Napoleon put his brother, Joseph, on the Spainish throne, he could further fufill his goal to block all trade from Britian to Spain. When he first invaded Spain he didn't think it would take much effort because he thought that the Spanish would see him as a liberator, unfortunately this wasn't the case, and it became of the most destructive wars of his reign due to guerilla warfare tactics used by Spainish soilders. 1812 Russian Campaign (Invasion of Russia) In my opinion, this war was justified unlike the Invasion of Spain. Before Russia and France were allies, Russia fought agisant France alongside Britian, and when Napoleon beat the Russians, his treaty was VERY generous. All they and to do was to be France's ally and to stop all trade with Britian (for reasons mentioned above). The Tzar later broke this treaty, and BOTH sides knew a war was eminent and started to prepare their armies for one. Napoleon just made the first move. Also, this doesn't have much to do with this his debate, but Napoleon wasn't ignorant about the cold Russian winter, in fact he invaded in the summer because of this, however since the Russians kept retreating whenever Napoleon advanced, by the time he left Moscow winter had come early that year, and since the Russians burned down their own capital he knew their was no way he could get them to surrender and was forced to retreat. For the reasons I mentioned above, Napoleon wasn't just some warmonger bent on glory and controlling the whole continent, but an enlightened emperor who brought important changes to Europe such as schooling for the public, emancipating and making Jews citizens, and heavily promoting science during his reign. See you in the next debate and good luck! s://lh3. googleusercontent. com. .. ; alt="" width="624" height="416" />
LifeMeansGodIsGood will go to heaven when he dies

Well now. My opponent demonstrates an incredible ignorance of what I'm saying. I'll admit that we can have a reasonable knowledge of whether or not we will go to heaven. However, as I have shown, it's impossible to be 100% certain. Everything my opponent says about Catholicism is besides the point, and has nothing to do with the debate. He concedes all my points, and has not presented any arguments of his own.