BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

"The ancient Greeks, Romans, and the people of the Han dynasty were most successful because of their ability to obtain resources and necessities." [1] "By trading these resources, (silk) the Han dynasty lived in prosperity for many years." [1] In the ancient world, Greece, Rome, and china were very successful due to their resource abundance. They obtained the resources by any means, even if it required damaging the environment. Because of that choice, they were the most successful of the civilizations in the ancient world. Civilization - the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced. [2] How would the developing country be considered advanced if it can not obtain resources, and if it were to be dependable on other countries? Conclusion. Developing countries clearly have a need for resources such as food, water, and building material. The most reasonable way to do that, is by extracting resources from the environment. Although it could slightly damage the environment, it would greatly expand the countries economy by not being dependable on other countries. By having a strong economy, the country would be more successful as a whole. Valuing utilitarianism, resource extraction would definitely be better for the whole country, including the greatest amount of people. Vote Con, and thank you my opponent for this debate. [1] Barron's Global History and Geography [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

"I simply claim there ... may not be a necessity for violence"The shortened form of a quote from my opponent's argument would contradict his first and second contentions. His contentions, one being that resource extraction fosters violence, and the other being that the violence harms countries and the environment. If there may not be a necessity for violence, then there is a good possibility that violence would not originate in the first place. If this were to happen, then my opponent's arguments would not be of any use. Since my opponent did not state any new arguments, I shall do the same. I will post my final arguments in round three.---- [Do not take this into account voters]As a judge, not as a competitor, I would like to tell Pro that you should think of a different first contention, and your Contention 2 should be solely on how resource extraction would affect the environment. If you want to make your debate stronger you should also find a third contention so if someone were to refute one of them you have 2 others to back it up. Your definition so "May" would not increasingly help your argument and you don't have a dictionary during the test so I would stay away from that. I too am practicing for the January LD tournament, and I would appreciate it if you would want to do another debate, but switching roles on who is Pro and who is Con.
Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Again thanking my opponent. In the previous argument I would like to point out my argument did not claim " violence is necessary for extracting resources" I simply claim there may or may not be a necessity for violence. "may feel that they have no choice but to use violence or the threat of violence to protect their resource extraction activities. " "May" 1. (used to express possibility): It may rain. . http://dictionary.reference.com... "Foster" 1. to promote the growth or development of . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Evolution is true and the Big Bang occured.

"Well, all the scientists seem to agree that the evidence points towards the big bang and evolution" No, not all scientists agree. You should not assume that all scientists agree on one subject. "Don't tell me you're just going to sit there, attempt to "refute" everything, then assume the Bible to default." No, I am not going to "sit here and attempt to refute everything." I am GOING to refute. Also, I do not assume the Bible is true, I know it is. "Evolution itself is so well understood" Not really. Also, the same thing for the Big Bang. Here is proof. Okay, so evolution occurs through natural selection which occurs through mutations, am I correct? Well, the bacterial genome is what scientist believe everything evolved from. Correct? Well, the human genome contains much more information than a bacterial genome and through mutations, information is LOST! Not gained. So, how do you explain human genomes containing much much more information? That is just one fact that goes against evolution. Okay, so you have the certain proteins and chemicals that combined to form DNA right? So, who decides if the chemicals and proteins work together? We have a code that shows us how DNA is composed. But, who created the code? It's like somebody having the word BAT as a combination of letters. To people who speak the English languages, it's a word, but to people of other tongues, it is just a combination of letters that is useless. How did this combination work? Did it just decide that Adenine and Thymine pair up while Cytosine and Guanine work together? It is a useless code unless created. "Not my responsibility to restate decades of research and study, especially not to someone who may have difficulty understanding the two subjects." I do understand the two subjects. It seems as though you have not done enough in-depth research to recognize the flaws of the two theories. I hope that others can see from just these two points I have made that evolution and life just arising from pretty much nothing is just not realistic nor logical. Also, not all scientists agree on the two theories and many are unable to answer or explain the two statements I have made. Can you? Evolution may not be so well proved and understood now is it? We were not actually back when dinosaurs became extinct to say we know what happened. We can not make guesses about life from long ago and assume that it is correct.
Evolution is true and the Big Bang occured.

Well, all the scientists seem to agree that the evidence points towards the big bang and evolution. Don't tell me you're just going to sit there, attempt to "refute" everything, then assume the Bible to default. As my opponent has refused to contribute anything to this debate as of yet, I shall simply state this: The theory of evolution being responsible for speciation and the concept of the big bang being responsible for the universe have been extensively studied and verified. Motion in space dictates an overall "spreading out" of matter from a single position. In addition, abnormally energy levels between big gaps of matter in space indicate that there is some residual energy from a very, very intense reaction all throughout the known universe. Evolution itself is so well understood that listing evidence here would take up all 7000 of my remaining characters. Evolution is backed by the fossil record, as well as visible speciation in fast-replicating organisms. Since the scientific community has done so much work in heralding these two theories, it is my opponent's responsibility to offer counterpoints as to why we should oust these two theories. Not my responsibility to restate decades of research and study, especially not to someone who may have difficulty understanding the two subjects.
Evolution is true and the Big Bang occured.

Since this popped up side by side with the challenge I received, I will argue this another way. Since my opponent is an ardent theist and I'm bored, I'll argue this with a twist. I believe that in the beginning, there was God. And God was this "thing". And then, God just exploded and mass came into being. From the remnants of God came the forces that hold the universe together, atoms, and energy. God as we know it, became the universe we know today. So thus, I can believe in God, the Big Bang, and Evolution all at the same time.
The Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

This will be a very short argument due to the fact that I have to write this in between classes on a phone. I did go to the GameSpot site, and nowhere does it say that the Xbox One's backwards compatibility would enable 1000 Xbox 360 games, and, while I couldn't check the player polls, there was statement from any GameSpot staff declaring who won E3. And again, you try to avoid and invalidate the PS4's processing power by saying that "you don't care about what the computers say" (wich is basically you stating your disbelief in documentos evidente) and not providing a rebuttal at all to the fact that yes, the graphical difference between the PS4 and Xbox One at this stage of the consoles is minute, but the disparity will increase greatly over the coming years, when, as I have previously said, game development on current gen consoles will have matured. And you yet again failed to provide any evidence of the $349 offer. Saying that it is all over the Xbox website ( I searched it and was not able to find it.) does not provide any validity at all for your statement. Due to time constraits, I will finish this debate reaffirming all the assertations made by me in the previous rounds, and emphasizing the lack of conclusive and reliable evidence brought up by Deathwish188. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
The Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

You say you don't believe me that the Xbox one will eventually get 1000 games, look at gamespots website on who they thought won E3, and no, again, graphics should not be the reason you get a console over another, some games do look better on Xbox one, assassins creed unity, Destiny, pay day 2: crimewave edition, madden nfl 15, and a few more, you wanted to see that deal on Xbox one, it's all over Xbox news, again, would you prefer PlayStation over Xbox because it has better graphics? Unnoticeable difference unless you zoom in? You don't go over your friends house and see him Playing battlefield 4 on Xbox one and then another friends house that has the PlayStation 4 and the same game and say "oh my goodness, that looks way better than the Xbox one version! I can't believe it" trust me, they look the same, I don't care what the computer says, you really can't tell the difference without it.
The Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Wonderful argument, and yes again the PlayStation 4 is more powerful than the Xbox one, yet again, graphics and resolution should not be the reason you get a console over another, most people cannot see a difference between the graphics of the two systems, it is not visible to the naked eye. Every debate I put about Xbox one and ps4, my opponent always refers to graphics, that and sales. But the reason the developers are more lazy towards the Xbox one is because yes, the ps4 has more raw horse power, but the developers do not want to put the extra effort into the Xbox one version. Developers have already adapted and started to use DirectX 12, saying games will get a major boost in performance and will allow developers to more easily hit 1080p. Take call of duty advanced warfare for example, 900p on Xbox one and 1080p on ps4, the Xbox one version was mostly steady at 60fps while the ps4 version dropped down to 24fps, let's bring it down to this, games, with backwards compatibility for Xbox one, we will eventually get about nearly 1000 games that were on Xbox 360, dlc purchases included, you can insert your discs natively on your Xbox one. Sony says their consumers do not want this even though they did not even ask their consumers. Microsoft is working hard to please the gamers, with monthly updates that have been requested by the feedback site, and more, they have worked hard since day one and are still improving. Let's not talk about power since most games all look the same on both systems, what do you have to say now? Like it or not, Xbox has the most award-winning games, the most secure and advanced network and security, the most features plus more every month, and more games thanks to backwards compatibility. As well as a cheaper price, $349 with either the halo the master chief collection bundle or Assassins creed bundle, with a 14 day Xbox live gold trial, a free game, any game at all, from Batman Arkham Knight to grand theft auto 5, it's yours for free plus a $50 dollar gift card.
The Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Thank you for your acceptance, now, yes, the PlayStation 4 has the slightly Stronger hardware indeed. But both are very capable of 1080p 60fps, it is sometimes the laziness of the developers that leads to games being 720 or 900p for the Xbox one, not every game runs at 1080p for both Xbox one and PlayStation 4, such as assassins creed unity. The Xbox one is not only cheaper, but it has monthly updates to improve the system, it now has backwards compatibility, it has the most reliable network, and it can do much more. The Xbox one is larger in size, but it has many vents making it more reliable. Microsoft is always striving to improve. The Xbox one is getting Windows 10, that will allow you to stream from your Xbox one to pc, tablet, or phone. You will soon be able to play online with pc gamers as well. We are getting DirectX 12, this will allow the developers to work with the system even more, and games will run more smoothly on it. Moving on to games, this year, we will be getting the most anticipated Halo 5 Guardians, gears of war ultimate edition, forza motorsport 6, rise of the tomb raider, fable legends, and more. Though PlayStation does have many good exclusives, they will not be coming out until 2016 and some 2017 and many, such as journey, and no mans sky, have no release dates. Remember, power and sales do not make a system better than another, Wii U is the worst selling console out of the three and the weakest, does that make it inferior to Xbox one and PlayStation 4? Not at all. What matters really is the games, one of the most important as well is the network reliability, and no doubt Xbox live is still the most reliable. No one wants to get hacked, I would never trust a network that was hacked and down for 23 days. Sure, Xbox was hacked before, but the servers were always back up within the day. Microsoft has much more money than Sony, therefore is able to invest more money into important things, Sony now makes you pay for PlayStation plus when it is not much of an improvement in security. Microsoft has been running laps around Sony when it comes to improvements and updates, while Sony has been standing still, they get updates once every few months, it might give you a new feature, but it usually is to stop the system from crashing. No doubt the Xbox one has many more features than PlayStation 4, the PlayStation 4 is mainly a gaming console, the Xbox one is a gaming and entertainment console. Like it or not, it is very sad but true that Sony pays for media coverage, the media is now biased towards the Xbox one, sites such as neogaf, n4g, ign, and gamespot.
The Xbox one is better than the PlayStation 4

Hello, my friend deathwish188. This is my first debate on debate. org and I look forward to it. While I couldn't quite grasp the concept of an acceptance round with what I read about debating on this site, it led me to believe that the acceptance round's purpose is for you to, well, accept the offer from the instigator and to affirm your position with clarity, and as so, that is will I will do.
Atheism is a reasonable position for a person to hold.

I accept and will immediately cede the first point, that it is reasonable to know one's own beliefs so long as it is agreed that there is no absolute correlation between belief and reason. I will also agree that atheists are not ignoring any evidence. However, that means little in the face of the problem that devout believers and atheists alike often point to identical evidence as proof of their own ideas. It is a question of perspective. So my argument is that atheism is no more reasonable than religious belief, which is itself unreasonable.
Top Gear BBC is better than Top Gear America

The first way the British Top Gear is better is the quality of the show. The British Top Gear has much more humor than the American Top Gear. This is reflected in the amount of awards it has received (11) over the past 11 years, according to IMDB. com. The American version however has received only one, also according to IMDB. com. So right away you can see the British Top Gear is superior to the American version. Secondly is the overall rating of the show. The American version is rated a 4.9, while the British Top Gear is rated 8.9. As you can see the viewer preference is obviously the British version, making it superior to its American counter part. My third argument is the cars on each show. Top Gear BBC has had every car somebody could ask for, appear om their show. From a Reliant Robin to a Bugatti Veyron, and everywhere in between. The Americans however have had very few cars compared to the Brits, makin it inferior in that respect. My final argument is, of course, The Stig. Lets face it, the Brits easily have the best Stig, and the classical Stig. The Americans have a Stig of their own, but not THE Stig. Their Stig is nothing compared to the British Stig, who is a better driver, has funnier intros, and is all around more awesome. The American Stig in contrast is bland compared to the British Stig.
The United States should stay out of wars against ideas and concepts and focus on domestic issues.

The last three wars the U.S. has waged are the Cold War (including the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts), the War on Drugs, and the Global War on Terrorism. The United States would be better off not fighting wars on ideas and concepts. The money used for these wars would have been, and could be, better spent on domestic issues. I will be arguing the anti-war on concepts and ideas (pro) side, while the con side will be arguing that the US is, and has been, better off engaging in these wars against ideas and concepts, instead of spending money on domestic issues. This debate will be 4 rounds: Round 1- Explanation of Topic, Defining Sides, and Acceptance of Debate Terms Round 2- All Arguments Given From Both Sides (No rebuttals from con) Round 3- Rebuttals From Both Sides Round 4- Restating Arguments/Defending Rebuttals and Conclusion
how do athiests rationaly know truth from fiction.

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. SO, BY WHAT METHOD DOES ANY ATHEIST CLAIM TO RATIONALLY KNOW TRUTH FROM FICTION?Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. I have even put it in capital letters for those to dense to get it. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate.
God Exists (Contingency Argument)

First let us object to the basic premise: 1. Everything in the universe is contingent and that requires a necessity to "hold the pieces together" There is no sense to ask what the cause of something that has existed eternally. To ask what caused the infinite series of causes assumes that there IS something before the chain. This is senseless unless Pro can show that there was something before the Universe. This is under said argument because pro has not explained how everything is contingent and how that requires a necessity. He used the chandelier analogy but that is flawed. There are many processes in which one or more "links" are contingent upon another. It is a self contained process. Pro seems to have completely ignored this possibility in their assessment. This specifically refutes pro's argument as to why an infinite regress of contingent objects is impossible. They state that there would be nothing to start the chain. But this assumes the "chain" is completely linear. What if the chain twists and turns, loops around on itself and has balls of chain hanging off of it. This is to say that it is both self contained, in some parts, and linear as a whole. This is the most logical assumption. The water cycles' components are all contingent and there is no necessity in it. That is because they are all "leaning" on each other. There is no need for a necessity. Autopoiesis has existed as a concept for thousands of years and is about these self contained processes. 2. Denying the conclusion Let's assume that Pro's argument checks out. Why is it that the necessary being is god? Cleanthes asks ""why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent being?" Does it not seem conceivable that matter could contain the reason for its own existence within itself? It could be a part of the nature of matter itself that it must exist. We simply do not know. If we go with Clarke's interpretation then the existence of the universe can only be explained by a "self-existent" being. This is a being that contains the reason for its own existence within itself, which Clarke called god. But, is this self-existent concept coherent, does it make sense? If it does, why doesn't this concept allow the universe itself to be a self-existent being? Neither Clarke nor any other holder of this belief can explain why god is the only being that can be self-existent. Conclusion: This argument isn't conclusive proof for the existence of god. Too many things are unkown that we may never even be able to know for this argument to be assumed true.
An atheist can also be an agnostic

It is possible for a person to be both an atheist and an agnostic. The reason these terms or stances are not mutually exclusive is because they deal with two very separate concepts; belief and knowledge. It is possible for one to believe that a claim is correct or likely to be correct without knowing for sure that it is correct. It is also possible for one to NOT believe that a claim is correct or likely to be correct while not knowing for sure that it is not correct. Contrary to Con's assertion, not accepting that a claim is correct is not the same as believing that it is necessarily incorrect.
An atheist can also be an agnostic

Regarding your finger claim: Yes, I BELIEVE that you are holding up three fingers behind your back. However, I accept that I cannot KNOW for sure. I am an "agnostic theist" regarding how many fingers you are holding up. Right there, I destroyed your "three position" claim by proposing a fourth logical position. I can both believe your claim AND accept that I don't know for sure. I cannot comment on anything else you said because I'm not sure what points, if any were being made.
An atheist can also be an agnostic

god=informationthere are only 3 positions, yes no or maybe, belief, disbelief or acceptance i dont know, on any imaginary claimknowledge is known, so unknown claims are not about knowledgei am showing 3 fingers behind my back, is that true? you can believe my claim, disbelieve, or accept you dont knowagnostic=maybe you are showing 3 fingers, maybe 4 or 5 i dont knowa stone in my hand is 1