BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Balance the World is Changing for the Better

Final RoundSimply stating that you've won does not mean that you have actually won, I'm afraid.I have not dropped any of my opponents arguments, instead I have flipped them on their head, proving that the things that he paints in a positive light are, in fact, more negative than positive. Thus, I have rebutted my opponents points successfully and he had the BoP to prove that the world is actually changing for the better, he did not fulfill his BoP as I rebutted all his arguments. My opponent asserts that:'and refuting them in the last round would be unfair, and he would have to have a conduct point lost),'Yet he used the entirety of his last round refuting my rebuttals in which he essentially claims that pain does not exist as the brain is just tricking it (which is true, the brain is what makes you feel pain, but that does not stop an individual from suffering. If you stab yourself then it doesn't matter how much you think 'it's just my brain sending signals,' it will still hurt), and claiming that global warming is due to solar activity and not carbon dioxide which, as we can see It's not. As for danger levels of CO2 not being reached until it reaches 8,000 PPM, allow me to read you the entire quote which my opponent harmfully cut to pieces:'[1]He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.' The CO2 levels may not be harmful to humans, but that is not the argument, the argument is that the variance in the temperature caused by the warming which is caused by the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is harmful, and has led to the extinction, of many species, which I proved in a previous round.It should be mentioned that source 1 was also published in 2009, 5 years ago, scientific views change very quickly so something which was posted 5 years ago is incredibly out of date.Most of my opponent's last round is him, essentially, being irrelevant. Stating that pain is a mental process does not mean that people cannot be in insufferable pain and stating that you have won does not mean that you have won. My opponent has offered no argument that has got unrefuted by me, despite what he may think, and in this last round I have offered no new arguments, so conduct points should not be lost.Thank you for this debate.Sources:[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com...
On Balance the World is Changing for the Better

1. Euthanasia Again, what makes this pain real? Who says for sure the patients were really suffering? The brain can fool the rest of the body in many, many cases. For one, The Rubber Hand experiment demonstrates how the brain fools you into feeling your hand in the place of a rubber hand, while in reality your hand is further to the left. Not only so, you can control your body temperature by pure will, or even by meditation. [source: http://news.harvard.edu...] The brain can also confuse you into thinking that the below lines are awry, not straight, or at the very least not lined up, while in reality they are parallel. [image source: http://www.allkidsnetwork.com...] http://www.youtube.com... 2. Global Warming My opponent only sources the time period of 140 years, from 1880 to 2020 predictions. He does not look at the bigger picture, at the general decline from year 1000 to modern time, or even from millions of years ago to now, there has been the similar pattern regardless of CO2 emissions. And even if CO2 does create global warming, (which, really, it's not even the main cause--global warming happens naturally due to climate changes, heavily due to changes in solar activity [source: http://www.breitbart.com...], it's not bad to us at all. "CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.", "if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. ", and finally, "Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 ....the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2." All of these quotes, from http://www.usnews.com..., show that CO2 not only helps the environment (remember who you are, Brazil, when you remember cut down their rate of deforestation!) it does not harm us humans at all. Opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof. He does evoke philosophical stances within euthanasia, and he even goes for environmental effects. But he dropped a majority of my arguments in round 2, forgetting to refute them (and refuting them in the last round would be unfair, and he would have to have a conduct point lost), and overall, I have won. This was a good debate, but I believe I have become the first person to ever beat out JayConar. We are changing for the better; the world is changing for the better. Vote for me.
There has been significant Global Warming

"i dont really know anything about global warming haha all i know is the poor polar bears home is melting"I had an argument already against this. .. "Ice is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. ". http://www.foxnews.com... "the ice is getting thicker, not thinning faster than Kojak's hair. Polar Bears will not be drowning, the Walruses will not be beaching themselves due to lack of ice (which by the way is normal and not something to get over-excited about) and the Arctic Fox probably doesn't need to go on the endangered species list because of that old faux global warming. ". http://www.iceagenow.com... "Note that the ice extent for October 1979 (when satellite measurements began) is 18 million sq km, for October 2008 the ice extent was 18.1 million sq km. Ice concentration shows even greater increases, from 13.6 million sq km, to 13.9 million. ". http://ilovecarbondioxide.com...Ice
There has been significant Global Warming

C1: The World is in a Current cooling phaseSome evidence for this is the ice caps are actually growing and not shrinking, this implies that the earth is cooling. [1] Some people put it as the earths fever is gone. [2] The earth has been cooling for a long period of time some estimates say. [3]C2: Overall trendshttp://www.debate.org...(this old computer wont post graphs)According to this trend there has been no significant global warming.http://www.debate.org...these US trends show a flat line trend, major ups then downs but overall there is little change.http://www.debate.org...These trends (comparison of 18th and 20th century tempertures) are actually not very different, hence little change.http://www.debate.org...These stats from iceland show very little change, mabe only a very slight increase. http://www.debate.org...These stats too show very modest warming.There is a strong correletion with sun activity and warming, and the sun is actually becomming less active, causing a doubt in the warming claims. [4]http://www.debate.org...This too shows very little warming...http://www.debate.org...summer: Flat lineSpring: flat lineFall: Very slight riseWinter: very small riseAnnual: Flat lineEngland recently had one of its coldest winters. [5] [6]Vote CON there has been little global warming.[1] http://www.odu.edu...[2] http://epw.senate.gov...[3] http://www.cbc.ca...[4] http://a-sceptical-mind.com...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Imabench's 400th debate! Resolved: Sex should be an Olympic sport

I will not argue the fact that we could put it as a pay per view event. Then you would loose ratings throughout the world at that point. It would have to be pay not watch not just in the US but every other country that is participating that has censorship on TV. If you take a standard pay per view event like wrestling. Where as 10 million people will watch it on a open air basis, only 2 million will the pay the money to watch it on pay per view. This is an 80 percent loss and we can assume this would occur with the Olympics too. I would even argue maybe a 95 percent loss, since children would want to watch it and most parents would not let that happen. Also this would stop around the same amount of people going to the event thus cutting any more that they gain from hosting it. All the money would be put into making it happen, but there would be no way to offset the cost. At that point no country would host it or help with it, and then the Olympics would cease due that structural issue. If you were to add this is as a sport, there would be no Olympics. So i win <3 If you want to to see sex as a sport send a letter to playboy get them to host a show where people wrestle naked, and the first person to premature ejaculate looses. Problem solved vote me
Imabench's 400th debate! Resolved: Sex should be an Olympic sport

Well this should be easy I suppose. .. . "I feel like I am loosing IQ points by even taking this challenge. "Then I must be doing SOMETHING right ;D"All throughout my opponents argument he forgets a fundamental principle. TV has censorship. This instantly shuts down this debate, because for it to continue he would have to either argueA: the Olympics should only be viewable to those who are over 18B: That sex should be allowed on tv shows and programs with no restriction of age. "Thats youre whole argument? Really? If censorship is that much of an issue then fine, we can make the Olympics a Pay Per View event, put it on HBO or Showtime, strategically put those little black bars over all the private parts, or it could simply be streamed live onto the internet where it would just join the mountains and mountains of other sex videos that exist all over the internet. .. . I dont see the point of bars though because I think we can all guess that under that big black bar is a big black rod. .. .. . But the point is, TV censorship is ridiculously easy to get around in this scenario and poses no challenge to making sex a televised Olympic sport. .. . "While it my increase tv ratings with the lazy, fat, single crowd. It will decrease it ratings in more educated homes. "And what evidence is there of that? I dont see why any intellectual wouldnt watch the Sex Olympics. .. . 'I say good chap, that man is really shticking his mongoose into that ladies well trimmed and well oiled badger repeatedly through a gyroscopial motion! ' - Intellectual. The sheer physics and mechanics of the sex making would be enough to catch the interest of intellectuals who I think we all know could probably use a lesson or two in sex. .. .. "His argument overall calls for Reformation of TV censorship, which will and can not happen due to federal regulations. "Oh yeah because tv censorship TOTALLY has never been changed over time or anything. .. . (Sarcasm)TV use to make it so that you couldnt say the word 'pregnant' on tv, now if you watch any episode of Law and Order SVU you hear something about someone shoving something into a vagina that doesnt go there! . http://www.neatorama.com...Con's arguments, much like his mother, falls flat on its back and just gets demolished. I extend ALL my arguments that con failed to address. :D
Imabench's 400th debate! Resolved: Sex should be an Olympic sport

I feel like I am loosing IQ points by even taking this challenge. All throughout my opponents argument he forgets a fundamental principle. TV has censorship. This instantly shuts down this debate, because for it to continue he would have to either argueA: the Olympics should only be viewable to those who are over 18B: That sex should be allowed on tv shows and programs with no restriction of age. While it my increase tv ratings with the lazy, fat, single crowd. It will decrease it ratings in more educated homes. His argument overall calls for Reformation of TV censorship, which will and can not happen due to federal regulations. I conclude he has proposed no valid argument to support his case. He has operated off of assumptions
An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist.

Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. http://www.dictionary.com... Omnipotent: adjective 1. almighty or infinite in power, as God. 2. having very great or unlimited authority or power. noun 3. an omnipotent being. 4. the Omnipotent, God. http://www.dictionary.com... Omnibenevolent: adj. All-loving, or infinitely good, usually in reference to a deity or supernatural being, for example, 'God'. Its use is often with regards to the divine triad, whereby a deity is described to be simultaneously omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This triad is used especially with the Christian god, Yahweh. https://www.wordnik.com... Con stated: "We were created with free will. Since we abused our free will,evil came into the world." This can't be the case, if God was Omniscient he would of known we would abuse our free will since he is all knowing. This comes into the case is God not Omniscient since he didn't know we were gonna abuse the free will. Is God not Omnipotent since if he realized we were abusing the free will he could of just changed the way we were thinking, and thus remove all the evil in the world. Is God Omnibenevolent? If he is how can he with his Omniscient powers, and Omnipotent powers could he stopped our evil if he was against evil. So either god is not Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. Omnipotent, none of the above, or only 2 of those things. God is either imperfect, not all knowing, not all powerful, or doesn't even exist whatsoever. I await con's second part of his argument, and thank you for getting me back to debating.
It Is Hypocritical To Believe Lincoln Was Right In Using Violence Against Rebels And George Wasn't

"As for your for allegations regarding the causes of war let me utterly refute you. Neither rebellion, American or Confederate, was based solely on one purpose." I have no allegations concerning the causes of the war. Only concerning the consequences of war. "Although taxation without representation (taxation in itself was not perceived as unjust by the vast majority of Colonists) " A mark of their philosophical inconsistency, nevertheless, as a consequence of the war taxes were reduced to have a lesser degree of influence upon daily life. Theft took a setback when they won. This fact is sufficient to justify the war, barring other differences in the opposite direction. "Frustraton with London's decision to HONOUR treaty agreements with Amerindian tribes west of the Appalachians and forbid unlawful settlement," London's decision to honor LONDON'S treaty agreements. And force them upon the colonists, who did not agree to it- despite the fact that many of the lands contained in the treaties were in fact uninhabited (The tribes were quite spread out), and thus not legitimate things to keep people out of. "disgust with the growing abolish movement in the Home Island (speeded by George's proclamation of emancipation for all rebels' slaves)" And yet, as I pointed out, when there was a political climate in which emancipating non-rebel's slaves would have been possible, George specifically refused. It was not George's influence which caused the emancipation of slaves in England, but other political factions- political factions which would not have spread to America were it to remain under English power. Until the colonists were themselves free, the odds of them granting freedom to their own slaves were slim to none. It is important to note that the first abolitionist society in the Colonies popped up in 1776. It was a product of the Revolution (see the book "Radicalism and the American Revolution." Out of characters, continued in comments.
It Is Hypocritical To Believe Lincoln Was Right In Using Violence Against Rebels And George Wasn't

As for your for allegations regarding the causes of war let me utterly refute you. Neither rebellion, American or Confederate, was based solely on one purpose. Although taxation without representation (taxation in itself was not perceived as unjust by the vast majority of Colonists) was regarded as a primary cause in the war's outbreak but it was not the only one. Frustraton with London's decision to HONOUR treaty agreements with Amerindian tribes west of the Appalachians and forbid unlawful settlement, disgust with the growing abolish movement in the Home Island (speeded by George's proclamation of emancipation for all rebels' slaves) , and various other small things. These were not at all 100% noble and just purposes, certainly not worth causing so much bloodshed over. The history books cast the Colonists as impoverished and oppressed when in reality they had the world's highest living standards and endowed with some of the most liberal laws in the entire world. As for the Confederate revolt, yes fear of the abolish movement played a part in exemplifying the cultural disunity, but it was not on the mind of many Union leaders. Few had any positive thoughts on Negroes, and most were motivated primarily by an obsession with national unity. Even if slavery was abolished, it was merely replaced with an apartheid system. Guilty lives? Is it guilty to standup for your homeland (viewed as many as their state, and many as their country) and fight as a patriot? Most Southern soldiers were not slave-owners, too lowly for that lofty postion. Even if it means disregarding noble things? Is so than surely both these leaders weren't justified, and total scum for causing such bloodshed. But not only 1 of them. If you believe otherwise, than both were principled patriots themselves who put preserving their country and the will of their people (the majority of Confederates and inhabitants of the 13 Colonies were against rebellion). Choose a postion, but don't be a hypocrit
It Is Hypocritical To Believe Lincoln Was Right In Using Violence Against Rebels And George Wasn't

" On the negative side both leaders spat into the face of democracy by refusing to allow separatist regions to go about their crafted polices (i.e. separate)." Democracy is not a good thing as such. Whether ignoring the will of the majority of a region is good or bad depends on what the will of the majority of that region actually is- The will of the majority of the Colonies, as concerns what the rebels were trying to enact and as concerns what George opposed, was the will to put a stop to various taxes. "Tax" is another word for "Robbery," therefore, stopping a tax is a good thing. The will of the majority of the Confederate region, as concerns what Lincoln opposed and ended up stopping, was to continue holding large numbers of slaves for agriculture. On the question of taxes the first time around, the rebels were justified. On the question of slaves the second, it was Lincoln, not the rebels, who was justified. Granted, the first rebels had slaves too- but slavery was not in any sense an issue in that war, the king supported it too (as evidenced by his order specifically not to abolish it http://www.sonofthesouth.net....) "Since both Lincoln and George claimed to respect the democratic establishment (Parliament or Congress) this mars their record of principled thought greatly. " It is of no fundamental importance to us whether Lincoln or George were "Principled" folk. The point is the extent to which principles exist that justify Lincoln's violence against the rebels, and to which principles exist that justify George's against a different set of rebels. As for the war being one that "Could have been averted..." So? It would not have been good to avert it, to go after a "Diplomatic solution" (which would not have ended slavery). It would have saved guillty lives. This is not a positive.
It Is Hypocritical To Believe Lincoln Was Right In Using Violence Against Rebels And George Wasn't

Let us look at this logically, Both President Abraham Lincoln and King George III are known well in history books, but under different lights. Since most of their legacy rests on American shores, the popular history written about them as an American bias. This is the only reason why Lincoln is praised and George's name is despised. Let us look at this logically though and see into the controversy. On the negative side both leaders spat into the face of democracy by refusing to allow separatist regions to go about their crafted polices (i.e. separate). Since both Lincoln and George claimed to respect the democratic establishment (Parliament or Congress) this mars their record of principled thought greatly. This is of course, what the people of the time acknowledged as democracy. If one was to count the votes of each and every citizen, neither region would have voted to separate, but Negroes were not favoured by Hancock or Davies. Both sought to rectify this problem by declaring all slaves in the separatist regions free, one failed. But both tried. In addition to this positive, they events they caused (i.e. pressing a war that could possibly be averted, had they yielded) created massive destruction to infrastructure and spillage of many litres of blood. Surely a more diplomatic approach could have been made? There for it is logical to assume that both these two men were great, or to assume the opposite and spit on their names. But to say one was something, and the other the opposite is utter bare hypocrisy.
Media Violence is having a negative effect on today's youth.

Having things on their mind doesn't mean that it's negative. If people would teach their child or children to stand up for themselves they wouldn't have to go to the media. The media is really for entertainment. Nothing negative rarely happens in movies or on television. Honestly, it's good for children to know what's going on out in this world and true enough things aren't meant to be taken into action. Children need to know about the crazy things people do out in this world.
People Can't See Genius

Everyone has a seed inside them that can be a genius, but frankly not even 1% try - the 99% are too busy getting high off of life. So many waste their time learning how to make money; learning how to get people's attention, rather than refining their mental capacity. Deductive reasoning is not a strong suit for geniuses because geniuses already broke everything down to the core. Deductive reasoning is required to reach those who have yet to break it all down. Which is busy work and frustrating because it does not equal their concession even though they are the ones who take life granted. The thing is, they are not geniuses in the sense that people see them as geniuses (hence people misinterpret their wisdom, a lot of the times), but rather people close to these geniuses took their death and propagated in a way which allowed them to be historically remembered. A genius that is alive, is not a genius - but a misunderstood genius. A genius that is dead, is a genius because intellects close to them took it upon themselves to prove they were a genius and simply got the word out. Otherwise, those same people are competing or serving the genius instead. It's a cycle. A genius alive is always disturbed - a genius dead is a tombstone left in peace.
People Can't See Genius

I think there's many different types of geniuses in the world. I'd like to think that everyone's a genius in some way, like Einstein said "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.", but I guess I'm not so sure I agree with all that. So you may be a genius in some way but if you don't know why I asked you to name people, particularly celebrities, more particularly famous scientists and mathematicians, then you are not very capable of deductive reasoning (a common trait of geniuses). The only way you can possibly have any sound argument at this point is by rephrasing your original claim, for the second time (for in round 1 I already had to clear up your argument for you in my first few sentences). You said Einstein, Newton, and Da Vinci were geniuses. Almost everyone in the world recognizes them as geniuses. Therefore, even moderately intelligent people can see genius.