BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.

Electric cars can be expensive to own (the price of the batteries). They won"t go far without stopping to re-charge the battery. Except in London, there is almost nowhere you can go to charge them up. Most of the electricity in this country is made by burning coal, gas or oil, so this means that electric cars end up being as pollutants as the fossil burning cars. The batteries used to power electric cars are very heavy. This slows the cars. Battery costs will vary but may be several thousand pounds and they have to be replaced every 5 years. The batteries use lithium and other rare metals. Disposing of batteries causes real environment problems. In an accident it may be difficult to get you out of the car because of the dangers of electrocution. Chemicals spilled from the battery may also be dangerous. The average electric car available in the UK will reach 50-55 mph. this is lower than even a small 1.1L car. A kilogramme of petrol contains enough energy to propel a car about 15 miles. A kilo of fully-charged lithium-ion battery will drive your electric car 500 yards. And you only get about 100 miles to a fully-charged battery at best, compared with 1,000-plus miles from the most economical diesels. This leads to "range anxiety", or the fear you will be stranded miles away from a socket. The energy intensive manufacturing of EVs means that some cars make almost double the impact on global warming as conventional cars. This is mostly because of the raw materials and energy needed to build the lithium-ion batteries. In the UK, during 2012, electricity generation from coal-fired power stations actually increased to almost 40% of total production, as the price of gas soared, and gas-fired electricity generation was reduced. Electricity from coal, which is the most polluting way to generate power, drastically reduces the environmental advantage for EVs. Because China, for example, generates almost all its power from coal, life cycle analysis of EV cars in China shows they are far more polluting than conventional cars. This means that depending on the electricity produced based on coal, the impact of an electric car can vary. If the production of burning coal based electricity is really high, it means that the impact of an electric car can be even higher than a fuel powered car.
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.

Fossil Fuels are a limited resource meaning that they will eventually run out. Because of this, there must be a replacement source of energy. The definition of Alternate is to take place of. This means any thing that provide energy for a source. Given this fact this means that when Fossil Fuels run out there has to be an ALTERNATE source. We are already working with many alternate resources such as Solar energy, Wind power, and others. Therefore when Fossil Fuels run out there will ALWAYS be an alternate for it.
DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools

Thanks, DDD. I only have one contention and a concluding statement left to give... so this round is gonna be pretty short too. It's probably for the best that it worked out this way anyhow-- had I used up all three arguments in round 1, I would have none left by now and run something ridiculous like Zaradi's suffering K. Anyways, given how many arguments Pro has presented, my final round for rebuttals will surely end up being much longer :P C3) There are alternatives the PE This contention builds upon the other two. Simply put, if there are alternatives which are more effective than and cost less than PE classes, then they should be preferred over making PE mandatory, thus negating the resolution. The main alternative I will look into is educational programs to promote practices associated with healthy living such as nutritional diet and regular exercise. The saying "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime," applies to this very well-- it is much more beneficial to teach students the value of actively pursuing good health (teaching them how to fish) than it is to force them to exercise for 16 minutes a day (giving them fish). Not only is the presented alternative more useful in that sense, but it is also less costly, mostly because it can be carried out in a traditional classroom setting (as opposed to the new gymnasium that would have to be built to host PE classes). Such a program is clearly preferable to PE classes, and, as such, PE classes should *not* be made mandatory. CONCLUSION: First and foremost, physical education classes should not be made mandatory because they are not effective, barely even giving students *half* of their absolute *minimum* necessary daily physical activity. Just as importantly, PE classes are immensely expensive to schools, so coupled with their general uselessness and the limited budgets of most schools, implementing mandatory PE classes is neither feasible nor beneficial. Lastly, there *are* more practical alternatives to making PE mandatory, so naturally, those should be preferred. The resolution is negated. I turn the debate back over to Pro for the final round.
DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools

Thanks, DDD. Procrastination has trapped me again, so, like last round I will only be presenting a single contention. Sorry that this had to happen twice in a row... C2) Schools have limited budgets The purpose of a school is to provide its students with an education; thus, a school's academic functions should obviously be prioritized above all its other functions. With that in mind, we can observe that the majority of public schools have very limited budgets, so for *any* of that funding to go towards non-academic functions, the said function must not only be somewhat inexpensive, but it must also provide a significant benefit to students. Extending C1, we see that PE classes do not provide any significant benefit, and if we analyze the costs of the average PE program, we see that it is not inexpensive at all, with all the spatial requirements of a gym and the necessary equipment and staff. Take the example of one Oregon school district which had to deal with the consequences of implementing mandatory physical education classes: "To meet the state mandate, the district would need to hire more than 66 physical education teachers for the elementaries, alone... In addition, there is not enough space at the schools to accommodate the additional physical education classes," (http://www.oregonlive.com...). Simply put, mandatory physical education is not economical-- there are many more important things that schools need to be spending their limited funding on, like textbooks, curriculum development, and building expansion. This contention, like C1, is enough on its own to negate the resolution. Back to Pro.
DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools

Thanks, DDD. Sorry for the delay. Due to really tight time constraints, I will only be posting one contention this round (which is okay, according to the rules). My other ones will come in subsequent rounds. C1) Physical Education classes are ineffective In the average physical education education class period, students are only active for about 16 minutes (http://www.nbcnews.com...). Obviously, that is not enough to give any sort of substantial benefit, as health professionals recommend that at the *very least*, a human should get 30 minutes of physical activity per day in order to stay fit (http://www.cdc.gov...). PE classes barely even provide for half of that, showing that they are not nearly useful enough to warrant making them mandatory. It would be much cheaper and effecient to just develop programs to create health awareness within students. I will go more in depth on the financial aspect and alternatives to PE classes with my later arguments. Anyways, this contention alone negates the resolution, because in order for something to be required, it must be necessary, and I have shown that PE classes are far from that. Back to you, Pro.
DDD's 30th debate: Physical Education SHOULD be a requirement in schools

INTRODUCTIONl can’t believe it has been 30 debates! Anyways, On to the debate! The resolution is “Physical Education should be a requirement in schools” I am pro, or for this resolution. IMPORTANT THINGS***THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT***Comment (Or message me) if you would like to accept. RULES- THE LAYOUT FOR THE DEBATE WILL BE:Round 1: Acceptance ONLY2: Up to 3 arguments, no refutations 3: Up to 3 arguments, no refutations 4: Up to 3 arguments, no refutations 5: Refutations and conclusion only, no new arguments outside of the refutations allowed. -No posting links to google docs. I have made this mistake before. -NO SWEARING. INSULTS OR RACIAL SLURS. -Forfeiting and/or breaking any of these rules means loss of all points.CONCLUSIONGood luck!DDD
All teacher's are at least somewhat selfish because of their craving for pleasure

teacher only cares about themselves, Not the students- They kind of have to look after the students. If the teacher does not then if something happens she/he will also be blamed. The teacher can care about the students but deep down they are selfish but on the outside they must care about the students. Saying a teacher is selfish as an assumption. can see how the teacher would rely on the student's to give them said pleasure- Little pleasure off work can be enough for the said teacher to care about the wellbeing of his/her students. Little pleasure from my point of view would be most of her life is dull and not worth remembering but what she does think deeply about does get her through the job. This can be sexual intercourse, Reading, Movies, Going on holidays or spending time with her kids. them to have pleasure would have to be at school- I think the teachers that do derive pleasure are early in their career. To me as they get older they tend to dislike their job a lot more. So the pleasure would only help for early teachers. Experienced teachers would most likely have something to go home for whether it be a cat, Child or significant other. It is someone and they can derive little pleasure from them and the rest of their time be be bored or have bad moments.
All teacher's are at least somewhat selfish because of their craving for pleasure

Well, Technically if teacher's only care about students and want students to do well because of rules or the opportunity of promotion and not because they really care about the students wellbeing, Then I consider that being selfish. This is because the teacher only cares about themselves, Not the students. If teacher's gain little pleasure at home because their duties take up all their free time, Then I can see how the teacher would rely on the student's to give them said pleasure(fun). This is because they rarely have time for pleasure at home, And their only chance for them to have pleasure would have to be at school when they're presenting their lesson plan and working with students.
All teacher's are at least somewhat selfish because of their craving for pleasure

Intresting theory. Happy to take on this debate. teaching is fun for some reason- It is self explanatory. Why wouldn't you do it if it wasn't fun? I don't think that teachers really care for a students wellbeing academically- I think you forget to realise the higher the students score on test the better she/he looks as a teacher. The more reasons she/he has to ask for a promotion or money. if that student doesn't care about their own wellbeing. - There are rules in place to state the teacher is responsbile for the child. If the child is hurt then the teacher will also get the blame. Student W struggles in the class, And he always asks for help when he needs it. Student P finds everything in the class to be easy, - Why can't a teacher derive happiness by helping others? By explaining it she/he feels like she/he has been useful. Student P gives the teacher more pleasure and less work. - Both of them getting A's is the pleasure. More likely for promotion. That is all I can answer. My point of view is that everyone in some way is selfish not just teachers. By teaching she/he gains pleasure. By helping others they gain pleasure. Whether or not the teacher gains pleasure it is what she/he is doing to gain said pleasure. If she/he is unhappy that students are slowing him/her down then yes she/he will gain less pleasure but I can argue they gain little to no pleasure in the first place. The lesson plan they must have spent their free time trying to make it work and then on top of that mark everyone books and tests before next lesson. Teaching is not a fun job at all even if you like teaching students new things. You do not have free time because in that free time you would need to prepare for your future lessons. Yes there will be a point where you can copy lesson plans but every year the specifications changes and the teachers teaching will have to adjust to said teaching. The little pleasure they derive is nothing to how much mundane tasks they have to even derive that and the pleasure is not always going to be there. What if her/him best student doesn't show up? What if her/him are ill? What if everyone in the class scored poorly in the test? Pleasure is not assured and I would say teachers are unhappy. Hopefull this is what you expected me to say for my side.
All teacher's are at least somewhat selfish because of their craving for pleasure

I believe that the reason teachers teach is that they believe that teaching is fun for some reason. I don't think that teachers really care for a students wellbeing academically if that student doesn't care about their own wellbeing. Usually the people that teacher's like are the ones that are easy to teach and easy to work with. For example, 2 students are both good students. Both of them have an A in the class. Student W struggles in the class, And he always asks for help when he needs it. Student P finds everything in the class to be easy, Including the concepts. Which student is the teacher going to like? Probably student P because he's less work for the teacher, And because he is more likely to participate in the class and answer questions since he knows what's going on. Basically, Student P gives the teacher more pleasure and less work. Teachers would eventually get annoyed with you if you struggle enough. Now teacher's don't care whether or not you learn; but in order for them to like you, You have to keep up with the whole class. Why? Because their lesson plans are based on where the whole class is at and if you don't keep up you're probably going to blow off their lesson plan if you don't know what they expect the class to know. This is because teacher's gain pleasure(fun) by students interacting fully with their lesson plan. Also if you're struggling to keep up because subjects hard for you, They'll not like you since you're basically giving them more work and wasting their "fun time" with the class. So, In general, The main reason why they would want you to keep up and get frustrated if you don't is because they gain pleasure by teaching and by kids learning and interacting fully with them. If you're hard to teach in any way, They dislike you. This is because kids that are easy to teach give them pleasure since they're able to work with them and teach them things. They also only like kids that participate fully in their lesson plans.
Education is for the Development of the Person

You bring up some very interesting points but communication is used every day in the lives of people. In fact, communication is being used right now between us both and if neither of us were literate then we would not be able to have this debate. In the words of Hirsch, he asks "Why is literacy so important in the modern world? Some of the reasons, like the need to fill out forms or get a good job, are so obvious that they needn't be discussed. But the chief reason is broader. The complex undertakings of modern life depend on the cooperation of many people with different specialties in different places. Where communications fail, so do the undertakings." Hirsch brings up a valid point that will help my argument because he talks about how by educating people they become developed enough to occupy jobs. I agree that by educating people, they can understand life so much more in a broader perspective. Without education society would not be able to function as well.
Education is for the Development of the Person

You stated in your arguement " As mentioned by Freire, he believes that communication is key into developing the person"s mind. I can agree with Freire because language and communication is what brings people together in the world today. If it was not for communication, people would never be able to make agreements or learn new things from people all around the world." I this specific case though wouldn't this be more for the development of society as a whole rather than a persons individual development. Hirsch states " As mentioned by Freire, he believes that communication is key into developing the person"s mind. I can agree with Freire because language and communication is what brings people together in the world today. If it was not for communication, people would never be able to make agreements or learn new things from people all around the world.' This meant that everyone needs to develop from education together rather than just personally so the world becomes a better place
Education is for the Development of the Person

It is in my opinion that the purpose of education is for the development if the person. Education teaches people how to understand life through many perspectives. The educators can broaden the understanding of another person by teaching them how be literate. When a person is literate, they can also speak better thus their communication is strengthened. Communication is vital in the world today because one cannot interact if he or she is not literate. "Yet only through communication can human life hold meaning. The teacher's thinking is authenticated only by the authenticity of the students' thinking. The teacher cannot think for his students, nor can he impose his thought on them" As mentioned by Freire, he believes that communication is key into developing the person"s mind. I can agree with Freire because language and communication is what brings people together in the world today. If it was not for communication, people would never be able to make agreements or learn new things from people all around the world.
Education is for the Development of the Person

I will say that you did make very valid points in the stance of education being there to give us better chances in life and to better the world which is good, but this is more leaning towards what i was saying before in the sense that even though we all seem to think that education has become an individual task just to better our own personal self. We eventually realize we were working towards something other a job or a family; it never really focused on personal development but it focuses on society moving up as a whole bettering in self by teaching its citizens how to live there life. Hence is why Hirsch's quote fits perfectly here "Why is literacy so important in the modern world? Some of the reasons, like the need to fill out forms or get a good job, are so obvious that they needn't be discussed. But the chief reason is broader. The complex undertakings of modern life depend on the cooperation of many people with different specialties in different places. Where communications fail, so do the undertakings.". To educate is to teach the whole what happened before life and how to live it now.
Education is for the Development of the Person

Education should be viewed as a privilege in the world today because it is not given everywhere around the world. People in third world countries don"t necessarily have too many opportunities to obtain an education and that is why there is such poverty. If all those people were educated and literate, then they could fight back against the corrupt people who run their country. If people are full of knowledge, they will be able to identify what is wrong and what is right. It is my belief that the purpose of education is to develop the person because if all these people in third world countries were educated, then they would prosper. Education is what would set these people free. I would like to use the comparison of the United States against Africa. Many more people are educated in the United States and that is why economically the United States is far more superior to Africa. People discover many more things about themselves when they can understand things around them. Freire states, "Education as the practice of freedom - as opposed to education as the practice of domination - denies that man is abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a reality apart from men" In my interpretation, Freire believes that education should be practiced by the means of freedom instead of for domination. As mentioned before in my argument, education liberates not only people but their minds as well. Education makes people more independent and gives them free thought. I believe that in the United States the freedom of speech was created in order for people to express themselves through what they know and understand. Education brings attachment to the world and it brings people closer. It is also stated by Hirsch that "In modern life we need general knowledge that enables us to deal with new ideas, events, and challenges." General knowledge does engage people to have new ideas and take on challenges. There are too many examples that can be used to support my argument but time is limited. It is in my belief that the purpose for education is for the development of the person.
We Already Have Marriage Equality Without Legal Same-Sex Marriage

Argument #1: One major flaw in Con's argument comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to racial segregation is that racial segregation laws were not applied equally. Typically white people would not be arrested for using black spaces, but black people would if they used white spaces. That is clearly unequal. In addition black-only schools received less funding and teachers would usually be white, prejudicing them against the students. Gay people do not face that problem. If a gay man gets married to a woman he gets the same exact financial and tax benefits a straight man gets marrying a woman. Contrast that with segregation where black facilities were always sub-par compared to white facilities. Argument 2: It is not true that gay people can not be sexually and romantically satisfied in a heterosexual marriage. They just have to make special arrangements. For example, 2 gay men and 2 lesbians get together and each man marries each woman and live in open relationships with an understanding that sex will take place between the 2 men and 2 women. This would actually be a benefit to gay people, encouraging duos of gay men and duos of lesbians to form strong social bonds in order to make this arrangement work. Argument 3: If the law is held to be unequal just because 2 men or 2 women can't get married on the grounds that some men only want to marry men and some women only want to marry women then the same argument can be applied to marriage between close relatives. What if a brother is only in love with his sister, and only wants to marry his sister. By the same logic it is unequal and unfair to stop them from getting married.