BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Immortality

I did forget to run the spellchecker in the last round. Voters, please give s/g points to Con for my round of spelling errors and typos.Universal TimelineMy argument was that black holes provide a source of entertainment, not that you should immediately proceed to enter one simply because they are all that is left. Take a look at the comments on the debate; clearly thinking about what would happen inside a black hole is at least somewhat interesting. Human ExtinctionThe time is negligible, yes. My argument was that the worth of that time to the individual as not negligible."Finally, she says that if an immortal isn't motivated to maintain energy sources (like electricity) by themselves. then they just don't want it enough. This is absurd. An immortal is going to want electricity. They'll want the internet. They'll want sources of entertainment."And I want a lot of things that I could have if I was willing to work hard enough for them. I'm not. These things are simply not that important, compared to other things I could spend my time doing. An immortal person would have all the time in the world and quite a bit more, so that's not an issue.Planetary DestructionI'm not going to post anything regarding this because Con is correct that I dropped it. If I post an argument now, that isn't fair because he can't respond to it.Thank you for the debate!
Immortality

Resolution: Choosing to become immortal would be a logical decisionThis debate is for Wierdman's tournament. Thanks to Andro for accepting. I've wanted to do this debate for a while, and look forward to it.What this debate is about: We're going to discuss whether becoming immortal (living forever) would be a logical decision for an individual to make. The only thing happening in this debate is one person being able to live forever. Otherwise, the world stays the same. The definition of immortality is important, so I will try to define it to where we both have equal ground. But if Andro has any issues, feel free to mention it in comments.Immortality - Someone who is immortal lives forever (or, to the heat-death of the universe) and cannot die. They cannot suffer any fatal illness. They cannot suffer any major injury. They cannot age. Basically, anything that would cause severe permanent damage won't happen. But, they cannot give their immortality up. They are unable to die until the heat-death of the universe, even if they wanted to.Standard debating rules. Shared BoP. 1st round is acceptance.Good luck to both of us.
Cogito Ergo Sum is Bunk

Resolution:The argument "I think, therefore I am" fails to prove its conclusion. Definitions:I don't think either of us intend to play the semantics game in this debate, so I'll keep these general.I: The self, one's conciousnessThinking: The process of using rationality and/or logic to come to conclusionsAll other terms requiring clarification once the debate has started will be defined using the merriam-webster online dictionary definition that best fits the context of this debate [1]. If there is a dispute on which definition best fits the context of this debate, the final arbitration is reserved for myself.Any specific stipulations Con wishes to make should be request in the comment section prior to accepting. Rules:1. First round is for acceptance2. No new arguments in the last round3. Any questions on this debate should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptance4. No semantics/ trolling1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
That Male Prime Ministers are better than Women Prime Ministers

In my opinion i think some males are better suited for being Prime Minister than most females. However, this isn't my view in life, but i have to debate on this side. First off, males are better suited for the job as Prime Minister because they are less squeamish about making hard tough decisions that a female wouldn't be able to make. don't get me wrong, some females are able to do the tough thing, but in a majority case males make a better Prime Minister. Take this pool for example, (http://pewresearch.org...,) in some areas women are better to lead, but in other ares, men are better to lead. so it also depends on the person and their personality.
There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws

Amituofo. I see that you are a man of religion as well. But unfortunately, we live in a world of reality, and in this world of reality we must understand that we cannot allow religion to impact our ideas. I will only say two thing that Buddhists and Taoists like me believe: 1) It is a person's natural and unalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and when a person comes to take that away with an illegal firearm, you can either try to quell that person's mind using soothing words and get killed by a terrorist, or threaten him with a licensed firearm and you can get a win-win in which you preserve your life and his, or you end the life of a person who has been corrupted and a person who has taken the life of many others. Only Buddha or another god could have saved him. 2) Guns are tools, like knives, hammers and axes. The people who use them are the ones who truly are the threats to society. Amituofo. I thank you for your time, and may the debate begin. I wish you good luck. Amituofo.
There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws

As a disciple of Guru Gonads (prosperous bliss be upon him) I must reject anything that threatens to limit access to weapons. My teacher (pbbuh) has taught me the meaning of the entire 17 volume Harmonious Numinous. The inward\outward oddities of humanity must not be restrained, Volume 9:1993. We, who seek to be illuminated by the face of the Glorious Enigma, depend upon humanity's access to weapons to spread Dakma. The weapons must be capable of firing projectiles at a high rate if speed, Volume 17:598. Guns are the best tool for this task. We the disciples of Gonads are peaceful, but we need the rest of you to kill each other with projectiles. I look forward to debating you. Ghalsha marthalb, marthalb Kalahari yeplan dabooboo!
There Should be no Gun Control Reform Laws

The U.S government is taking gun control reform too seriously and the best idea is to stop gun control laws. I would like to thank my opponent, whomever it is for his argument and his time. Now I shall begin my argument: 1) Contrary to popular belief, the places with more gun control reform actually have more deaths per year than places where there are less gun control reform such as London. Why? That is because in those countries with more gun control reform, the criminals know that the citizens do not have weapons on them, making thm an easier target for burglary usually using knives. However, when criminals are in an area with less gun control reform- and lets say they own a gun too- they know the risks of breaking into a house where the owner owns a liscensed firearm and they will not risk being injured or killed. 2) The Second Amendment is one of America's oldest laws and it states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 3) Though some people say that it is the government's right to protect the people, it is also the citizen's right to overthrow he government when they find i not fit to lead. How can civilians fight off a trained military? With firearms. 4)Though some say less gun control reform makes for more terrorists attacks, that is also false due to the thorough background checks. The background checks involve seeing if a person has been to countries of dispute for suspiciously prolonged periods of time and whether or not if that person is mentally ill or if they have a criminal record.
The US should encourage more nuclear energy use over current widely used energy forms.

OK, I know someone just did something like this, but I like the idea and I like to argue about nuclear power, so yeah. Please no stealing arguments from that debate, or at least as little as possible and in your own words. Thank you! OK, the United States currently uses mainly (51%) coal power [1] and this causes, among other things, acid rain, smog, lung damage, contamination of lakes and rivers, birth defects, and radiation releases. (Now, you'll say nuclear energy releases more, but I'll cover that later, so hold on.) This all comes from the tens of thousands of TONS of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, ash, sludge, mercury and other chemicals. These are harmful to our environment and the people of the United States. Nuclear energy can reduce this harm if it is used to gradually reduce or eliminate the use of coal and other fossil-fuels. This is because nuclear energy produces virtually no air pollution [3] and nuclear energy actually produces 100 times less radiation than does coal [4]. But all that is just from producing energy, what about getting the fuel? Well, we would mine less if we used uranium for power, as you'd need less uranium to produce the same amount of energy, 20,000 times less to be exact [5]. All these advantages of nuclear power mentioned are good, but they only cover health and the environment. Let's expand the view of this debate to look at other advantages of nuclear energy, specifically economics. Nuclear plants can create up to 1,800 temporary jobs and 1,400 permanent jobs. They can also generate $430 million for local economies [6] and this is only looking at the plants themselves, not at manufacturing parts, research, or other industries that would be stimulated. Now let's look at the costs of building and maintaining. Nuclear plants cost less overall than does the advanced type of coal with sequestration that is now being researched and is the future of coal [7]. And, while coal is increasing cost [8], nuclear will lower in cost because of advancing technology [9]. So basically, coal has a lot of problems, while nuclear power is safe, economical, and good for our country. Thank you and I look forward to a response. [1]: http://leahy.senate.gov... [2]: http://www.ucsusa.org... [3]: http://environment.ncpa.org... [4]: http://www.scientificamerican.com... [5]: http://www.world-nuclear.org... [6]: http://nei.org... [7]: http://www.eia.doe.gov... [8]: http://www.synapse-eneragy.com... [9]: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The US should encourage more nuclear energy use over current widely used energy forms.

Man, you don't even know me. I just had to drive 500 miles to a funeral for one of my closest friends. Sorry I can't always be on the computer 24/7. I surely wanted to debate this topic, as I took it up in the first place. Sure, my opponent won this debate. Vote for him. Unavoidable circumstances sometimes make you lose in life. Sorry that happened to me.
The US should encourage more nuclear energy use over current widely used energy forms.

OK, my opponent forfeited. I deserve to win the following categories: Conduct - My opponent left with no warning, no apology, no anything. This obviously goes to me. Arguments - My opponent has given up. He decided he didn't want to argue about this topic anymore. No one else is actually making arguments other than me, so I get this one too. Sources - I had more and better sources than my opponent, therefore, I win this issue. I should get six out of the seven points from your votes for sure, as I did have a few grammar mistakes.
It is a preferable environment for a mermaid to be under the sea rather than a human on land

REBUTTALS1. Dangerous sea creatures?The Box Jellyfish is recognized as the most dangerous sea creature in the world. [1] However, in the past hundred years, it has not even caused 100 deaths. [2] 100 deaths is nothing compared to the 60 million people killed in merely World War two, and the 3 billion casualities caused by fire over just 10 years, 1/10 of the time mentioned in my source [2]. Thus, your point is absolutely null.2. Pressure DifficultiesNot all seafloors are badly lit. Since the human pollution is gone, much more waters would be fresh and not contaminated, thus more sea are availible for the mermaids. Even if we suppose that the mermaid's population are the same as humans, if humans can fit on land, only about 30% of the Earth [3], mermaids can definitely fit into the other 70% of the earth comfortably and with lots of space. They could probably even live near the surface and still have lots of space ot move around. They would have not much pressure difficulties since they live close up to the surface.3. MetalurgyWe humans lived pretty fine without metal--In fact, we managed to live 3.4 million years without metal, mermaids can probably do it too. [4]4. Mass production of foodMermaids can still plant near the shores in addition to planting in the water.I have refuted all my opponent's points. On the other hand my opponent is struggling to rebut my points about war, no fire, and no global warming.[1] http://www.themost10.com...[2] http://www.health.nt.gov.au...[3] http://www.universetoday.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is a preferable environment for a mermaid to be under the sea rather than a human on land

1. Animal Toxins are more deadly Underwater[1]Due to anmals existing longer underwater they have generally adapted more deadly defense systems than land animals have and also sea creatures more commonly have venemous defense systems. This leads to a much more deadly environment to live in and a much harder to protect environment to live in.2. Pressure DifficultiesIn order to live in different zones of the Ocean mermaids would need to develop technology. Due the vastly varied and badly lit floor of the oceanmermaids would have to sustain pressures only developmenal by expensive and hard to develop technology due to diffiulties in metaalurgy under the sea.3. Difficulties in MetalurgyThe nature of living under water, and especially salt water, provides difficulties in the production and the upkeep of metal implements. Rarer products such as copper, tin, gold, etc. would have to be utilized instead of much more common products like iron due to corrosive properties underwater. This ignores the fact of how you would manage to obtain the proper conditions whilst underwater to develop metal implements.4. Mass Prodution of Food[2]In order to produce food in large quantities it would most likely require farming or animal husbandry. This would be much more resource consuming in the production of such resources than producinn food on land. This is one of the reasons why only 4% of our food is produced in salt water.[3]Without sustainable means of food or infrastructure mermaid life would find it very difficult to develop as land life has done, either follwing it to extinction or leaving mermaid lives as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."[1]http://www.who.int...;[2]http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu...;[3]http://ieeexplore.ieee.org...;
It is a preferable environment for a mermaid to be under the sea rather than a human on land

1. THERE IS NO WAR UNDERWATERThe resistance of water is far to strong. Bullets can't go far without stopping. (See video)http://www.youtube.com...In addition, clubs and hammers would be much too hard to swing. Even a tiny knife cannot offer much impact. Thus, even if there was some kind of small "War" underwater, the mermaids would be forced to used their hands and feet, allowing very few deaths, if any, and mostly just minor injuries.In contrast, war on land has killed many, many people. Just in World War 2, over 60 million people were killed! [1] Not to mention there's all the other major wars: World War 1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and much, much more. Thus, this shows that it is better to live underwater as a mermaid than on land as a human, because it is impossible for war to occur underwater.2. No FireFires have caused many deaths on land. In fact, although the numbers have decreased over the years, it still remains at a high 11.1%, over 300 million casualities. [2] In addition, over the ten years, when we add up all these numbers, the total death is at a high shocking 2,970,830,811!! [3] That's almost 3 billion!! In contrast, within water, it is impossible for any kind of fire to occur, thus, mermaids can live happily in the water for ten years without these 3 billion extra deaths. It is concludable that because of water's property that banishes fire, it is better to live underwater as a mermaid than on land as a human.Also, no fire means no cigarettes. No cigarettes mean no massive deaths. Source [6] tells us that an estimated 6 million people die from smoking each year, 600,000 of those people dying from second hand smoke. Not only that, the environment is further contaminated with thirdhand smoke. [7] These incidents are easily prevented under the sea, and these deaths don't exist. This is yet another reason why it is better under the sea than on land.3. Global Warming has Absolutely No Effect WhatsoeverLet us assume that the environment in Mermaid Planet is similar to our Earth, except that our planet has no mermaids and their planet has no humans. However, even without humans, global warming can still happen due to water vapor, volcanic eruption, and production of methane through decomposition. [4] Even if we assume this global warming on Mermaid Planet has as big an effect as on our planet, the Mermaids will still feel super cool regardless of the hotness on land, due to the heat-absorption properties of water. Source [5] only helps explain this special heat-absorbing property further, if you can't see the picture clearly.Thus, since Mermaids remain ultra-cool in summer and we are super sweaty, it is obvious that it is preferable to be a mermaid under the sea rather than a human on land.In conclusion I have upheld my BoP, and shown Sebastian correct--it is better under the sea as a mermaid rather than on the land as a human.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.usfa.fema.gov...[3] http://v.gd...[4] http://climate.nasa.gov...[5] http://www.abc.net.au...[6] http://www.who.int...[7] http://no-smoke.org...
It is a preferable environment for a mermaid to be under the sea rather than a human on land

PREFACEI have spend much time of my day getting Under the Sea from The Little Mermaid stuck in my head. After a long long thought, I realized that in fact, Sebastian has a lot of good points about how it would be preferable under the sea compared to on land, and I heartily agree with him. Of course, I will use none of his arguments, since they are too assumptional and have loads of logical fallicies within them.The full resolution: It is a preferable environment for a mermaid/merman to be under the sea rather than a human on land. (If mermaids existed)Mermaid: http://en.wikipedia.org...Human: http://en.wikipedia.org...We will assume for the point of this debate that mermaids really do exist, and they live on a planet too far for us to detect, thus, any argument concerning war between the mermaids and the humans is completely null.RULES-no forfeiting-no trolling-no semantic arguments-6,000 characters per round-3 days for each round-4 rounds-Round one is for acceptance only-Last round is for rebuttals and conclusion Good luck and have fun!
The KCA is False

Ave.Modern day theists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to establish the existence of god, who is defined as the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, probably omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe. The argument has three premises.P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C: The universe had a cause.By deductive reasoning, that cause is established to be god. I want a theist to accept this debate and demonstrate the truth of the premises and the logical validity of the argument. The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that the KCA is false with a preponderance of the evidence.The next round is for acceptance.Vale.
Colorado (Pro) Vs. Texas (Con)

I agree with my opponent on the opinion that Colorado is an amazing state. I live there myself and I'm very happy there. However, my opponent seems to be making some criticisms about my home state of Texas using just numbers. Now, when we debate whether or not one state is better than another, numbers cannot be our only tool. We have to dig a little deeper. I'll start off with some problems I have with Colorado. In Texas and in the south in general, people don't really care where you're from and don't criticize you if you're from a state which has ideals opposite from theirs. For example, people often ask me about Texas, but they do it in a baiting and critical way. I have an impulse to shake it off and just complement Texas, but the problem is, if I were to criticize Colorado in the same way that they do Texas, they would be much more defensive and it would result in a nasty argument. What am I getting at? People in Texas are genuinely more accepting of different state cultures than people are in Colorado. I base this off personal experience. Now I'll talk about how great Texas is. Texas is a state which the rest of the country depends on and while it is constantly criticized by the rest of the country and the left, is the nation's most underrated state. Texas provides more energy than any other state. Texas is well known for oil and other fossil fuels, but also thrives in the wind industry, so environmentalists can love the Lone Star too. Unlike many states, Texas has figured out how to make their people free from the useless burden of the income tax. As far as the media, Texas is home to Chuck Norris, Willie Nelson, Beyonc", and the state has four major cities that are popular destinations for music artists. One of the best things about Texas is the history. Everything from brave patriots like Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin, and Davy Crockett to the six countries that have occupied Texas is truly fascinating. Of course, the absolute best thing about Texas is the people you meet in every corner of the state that want nothing from you and will do anything they can to help you. Colorado's a great state, and I love living there, but it just is missing so much of the greatness that Texas has to offer.
Colorado (Pro) Vs. Texas (Con)

First, Colorado ranks 2nd best in emotional and physical well being, 10th best in Community, Envroment, and recreational activities, Colorado is the 3rd best state in avoiding inadequate sleep, has the third highest sports participation rate, and it is the second healthiest state.Texas ranks 30th in emotional and well being, 22nd in community, Enviroment, and recreational activities, and is the 5th most dangerous state (Colorado is the 25th). [http://wallethub.com...]and despite Texas being 7th in employment (vs Colorado being 9th) Texas has the most amount of workers at or below minimum wage (400,000) vs colorado's 39,000 [http://www.governing.com...]2nd, Denver is an a great city. It's a Beta World City with a population of only 650,000, (Houston is too, however Houston has a population of 2.19 million). So it feels like really big city like New York or LA. But without all the traffic or congestion. Denver, not mention ther rest of Colorado, has a rapidly growing economy. Denver also has plenty of great resturants, great people, a booming comedy scene, and all of the amenities a big city can offer. And if the big city life isn't for you, not too far away lies a mountain paradise. It's absolutley beautiful and there's plenty of history to discover, charming towns to visit, and plenty of beauty to be found in all seasons. Not to mention skiing and snowboarding, but everyone knows about that.Check out this website too: [http://www.mymovingreviews.com...] And my opponent has to admit that Fort Collins is actually a pretty cool place.