BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama should declair a state of emergency because of climate change

Even though 98% of scientists agree that climate change is happening and is due to human activity, there are many that put their heads in the sand and pretend it's not true.Since it will take too much time to convince enough politicians to take this matter seriously enough, and time is not on our side, I think the president should declare a state of emergency because of climate change.Here why this is a good idea: 1. At the beginning of World War Two, A state of emergency was declared and all the car factories in the country were converted into making tanks overnight. President Obama could do something similar if he declared a state of emergency, by ordering all car factories to manufacture electric cars. Within a year, we can have almost all passenger cars run off electric power. 2. The president can sign an executive order to require all roofs have solar panels installed on them. He can also use federal funds to help home owners borrow money at low interests rates to get the panels installed.Those two things alone can bring down the carbon footprint significantly. Electric power would be abundant and clean and transportation would also be cheap and clean. Electric cars have many benefits over gas cars.http://www.teslamotors.com...Once America takes the lead and shows the world this technology works and is advantageous, other countries will sure follow. This is probably the only hope for saving the planet from global warming. We don't have time for politics and oil companies will fight electric cars with all their might. Declaring a state of emergency is the quickest and most efficient way to use existing technology to avoid irreversible damage to our atmosphere that causes climate change.
Obama should declair a state of emergency because of climate change

1. Do not bring any mention of religion into this debate. This debate is about Climate change. 2. The United States Consitution does not allow the President to force homeowners to purchase Solar panels. It should be left up to the individual states. As I told you before, read the Constitution. 3. Who has the money to purchase a Tesla? A Tesla Model S according to its website would cost up to 69,000 dollars. Even with incentives and Tax Credits, 60,000 dollars. So are you going to force a family in poverty to buy one ? A Nissan Leaf would be more cheaper. If it does not stop in the middle of the road. 4 .My opponent asserts that if we spend all this money on solar panels and such, global warming will eventually stop and the economy will prosper. Solyndra was a company that created solar panels. According to Bloomberg Magazine, Solyndra received 535 million dollars in Government loans. Our Taxpayer dollars. Then, Solyndra went bankrupt. All our Taxpayer dollars went down the drain. Those dollars could have been used to improve the economy. 5. How many jobs will be created ? The Keystone Pipeline will bring thousands of Jobs. Solar Panels, not sure.
Obama should declair a state of emergency because of climate change

1. The president has the power in a state of emergency. If it has to be a war, OK let's declare war on god.2. I guess you missed the part about having a solar panel on every roof.3. I never mentioned wind. The cost of solar will go down, once it's in mainstream use. Who cares about a "tab", when the whole world is at stake? When we go to war, does anybody ask "who will pick up the tab"? 4. Leaf is a toy. I'm talking about technology used my Tesla Motors (I guess you didn't click on my link).0-60 in 4 seconds, 300 miles per charge, swappable batteries in case of emergency, etc. We have the technology to stop global warming. It's crazy not to do it because of a "tab" or denial of the technology.That's like saying it costs too much to join a gym. I'd rather risk getting a heart attack. What you pay now to prevent a catastrophe, will be worth 1 million times its weight when it comes to paying for the catastrophe after it happens!
school's should not make you wear uniforms

Thank you for debating against me, bgruber93. That was an interesting video. You said,"if we have school uniforms some of the bad kids wouldn't go to school and there would more learning to the good kids." well...not necessarily. If a kid wants to shoot someone bad enough, he will shoot them if he is at school or not. If he is even crazy enough to even think about that, he will do it anywhere. You can also still hide guns and knives in your school uniform. You can hide guns and knives in any kind of clothing. And that won't stop the "bad kids" from going to school. Another reason why kids shouldn't have a uniform is because it doesn't let them express their individual style. Kids don't like it when they are told what to wear, especially if everyone else in the entire school has to wear it. The punks, preps, and other cliques will all look the same, and no one will like dressing the same way as another group. According to http://www.geocities.com... uniforms have a negative effect on student academic achievement. Uniforms were thought to be able to bring up grades and attendance record, but they actually have the opposite effect.
school's should not make you wear uniforms

First, let me start off by explaining myself( although it is mostly self explanatory): school: an institution where instruction is given to persons under college age. uniforms: an outfit or style worn by members of a group, or in this case, students in a school. First of all, Uniforms are worn at schools so there won't be any gang colors being worn, and also so no one can make fun of you if you wear clothes from Wal-Mart, or a place that isn't "popular" like Hollister, or Aeropostale. But if someone is going to make fun of you because your not rich, they can still make fun of you. Uniforms don't hide how much money you have. And if someone is going to make fun of your clothes, and you have a uniform on, they will find something else to make fun of you for. And gangs can't be stopped just because they have to wear a uniform to school. They can "throw up" gang signs and stuff like that while they are at school, uniforms or not. It is also not fair to the people who followed the dress code before the school got uniforms. If they had always worn what they were supposed to they shouldn't have to wear a uniform just because alot of other kids at their school didn't follow the dress code. They will feel like if they follow the rules, they still might get punished. It will also make the kids, and some parents angry at the school. The school will get alot of calls from angry parents, and some of the kids might rebel, and stop doing their schoolwork.
Materialism is the bet way to pursue happiness

First of all, Thank you for challenging me in this debate. Before I put forth my arguments I want to ask everyone a question. "Can money or physical comfort buy anything you want in life?" Happiness is like a vast ocean that sometimes creates high tides and storms and sometimes a pleasant sound of breeze based on what their surrounding has to offer. Happiness is not bound by materialism and has so many factors that determine your happiness, Some common factors are: 1.Good physical and mental health. 2.Good personal and intimate relationships, such as those of marriage, the family, and friendships. 3.The faculty for perceiving beauty in art and nature. 4.Reasonable standards of living and satisfactory work. 5.A philosophic or religious point of view capable of coping successfully with the vicissitudes of life. Since, we have different kinds of people and all of them are unique in their own way. Their definition of happiness is different. For example: My definition to pursue happiness is to have a good house (MATERIALISTIC), good and healthy family, a good job with a good environment in a reputable company (EMOTIONS), and finally INNER PEACE. At the end of the day all I want is food, shelter, family and PEACE of MIND. Without these I won't be happy. No one can pursue happiness without peace of mind which only comes through YOGA which is a part of spiritualism as well. Not completely but a part of it. Spiritualism may bring happiness to some but may not be for some. Depends from person to person. Now let's say you have a good house, good car, good money but NO FRIENDS to hangout with, TOO MUCH WORK PRESSURE, YOU ARE DIVORCED, EVENTUALLY U WILL LOSE PEACE OF MIND, THEN LOSE THE JOB. Would you still be happy?
If Men have sex robots women will become obselete and humanity will go extinct

Definitions:Extinct: "(of a species, family, or other larger group) having no living members."Extinction: "the state or process of a species, family, or larger group being or becoming extinct."Female: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes."Humanity: "the human race; human beings collectively"Humankind: "human beings considered collectively (used as a neutral alternative to “mankind”)."Males: "of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."Obselete: "no longer in general use; fallen into disuse"Sex Robot: "A robot designed to have sexual intercourse with humans."Sexual Reproduction: "the production of new living organisms by combining genetic information from two individuals of different types (sexes). In most higher organisms, one sex (male) produces a small motile gamete that travels to fuse with a larger stationary gamete produced by the other (female)."I Con/Against will argue that if Men have sex robots (in mass quantities) Women will not fall into obselence, male and female sexual reproduction won't go extinct and humanity won't either.For will argue that if Men have sex robots (in mass quantities) Women will fall into obselence, male and sexual sexual reproduction will go extinct and humanity will follow.Citations:https://www.google.com...http://www.yourdictionary.com...http://www.dictionary.com...Round one is ACCEPTANCE ONLY!Round two is opening statementRound three is argumentsRound four is counter argumentsRound five is conclusionsCitations needed
If Men have sex robots women will become obselete and humanity will go extinct

Let me start by saying that the views presented in this post are not my personal views. I am simply debating the topic. 1) We are becoming more isolatedAs technology advances people become more anti-social. They are forming superficial online connections to people they have never met, rather than dedicating the time to cultivate deep real-life relationships. Humanity is already on the path of isolation.https://www.wsj.com...2) We are having a harder time interacting in the real worldAs technology continues to isolate us, the issues we have with social anxiety disorder will continue to grow. We are already seeing more children who have difficulty with this. And remember we are just talking about smartphones and computers at this point, and academics believe teens are using social media as a replacement for in person interaction.https://www.theatlantic.com...3) Choosing virtual over humansInternet addiction disorder (IAD) is increasing around the globe. We are even evolving as a race forming new pathways in our brains because of this. Increasing humans are choosing the virtual over human interaction.http://journals.plos.org...4) Men already choose the easier path to sexWhen men have a chose between dealing with a wife or girlfriend and a prostitute many choose the prostitute rather than having to jump through the mental hoops require to get their wife or girlfriend to have sex with them.http://www.telegraph.co.uk...5) Real women require more work75 percent of women do not achieve orgasms with intercourse alone. To climax they need hands or toys or something MORE than men. Not only is this more work physically but creates more mental work for the man as well. Questions arise of who’s fault is, who did something wrong, how can we make it better, and many more. Very few males want to psychoanalysis much less have these types of emotion sessions with someone. For men sex is easy, by adding women it becomes more work.http://abcnews.go.com...6) Men already choose porn over humansWith the advent of free porn men are already choosing porn over women. This problem can do nothing but get worse with the advent of sex robots. Right now, it’s just pictures.http://fightthenewdrug.org...In conclusion there are numerous trends leading away from human interaction, and increasing trends working against human interaction. I have also shown how men in general choose the easy path and women will not be the easy path when an AI sex robot can pass the turning test. There will come a point where sex becomes obsolete. I believe the movie demolition man already predicted this.
The Golden Compass is not an Atheist movie

Your latest argument is full of contradictions. I'm not even sure to begin, since there is no clear direction in your beliefs or thoughts. "I am arguing that the existence of god is in itself not atheist. Because these books/films acknowledged that God at one point existed in them, they can't be an atheist book or movie." The whole point of this series (books & movies) is to promote the atheist agenda. Pullman is taking his target to the innocence of children. The point of these books has nothing to do with the existence of God, as you state. The purpose behind this series is to make God a mythical being. Something that is fictional and able to be killed off. Thus, atheism is present because it has created an illusion of the realism of God. "Then Pullman is more anti Christianity than he is Atheist." This is highly false. In fact, there are Christian themes throughout Pullman's series: Self-sacrifice, love, compassion towards others. The main point of the argument is that the Golden Compass is not an Atheist movie, when it is clearly setup to promote the atheist way of thinking. If a child, who does not know the love of God, watches this movie...their train of thought can be impacted by the idea of killing God, making the all-living mythical for the fact that he/she could be killed. I'm not really sure you understand the themes of the series or the ideaology behind atheism.
The Golden Compass is not an Atheist movie

The only relevant part of your argument is: "In his final book of the trilogy, God (or the idea of God) is killed. Without God, we are all then atheist in the nature of our beliefs." I do not argue that Pullman is an atheist or that he has an atheistic agenda. I am arguing that the existence of god is in itself not atheist. Because these books/films acknowledged that God at one point existed in them, they can't be an atheist book or movie. "Without God, we are all then atheist in the nature of our beliefs" - No, because if God was killed that means there was evidence he did exist. "aï¿½theï¿½ist : [ey-thee-ist] –noun; a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." (dictionary.com) Atheism is not living in a world where God at one time existed but no longer does, because there would be factual evidence to support he was once there. Atheism would be living in a world where god never existed and there was no evidence he ever did. "When the author of the story is an atheist and uses his books to express his point of view, the material being made (book/movie) reflects the creator." Then Pullman is more anti Christianity than he is Atheist.
The Golden Compass is not an Atheist movie

OKAY SO God is part of Golden Compass, which is a movie that has widely been criticized as "atheist". And God gets killed. God having been there makes it not Atheist. Were the movie to find that God never existed, then you could say it is Atheistic. However, movies where there is no mention of God, such as Bring it On or The Nutty Professor or Moulin Rouge, etc, those are more correctly atheist or at least nonspecific to any religion.
The Golden Compass is not an Atheist movie

"Atheists almost always rely on scientific evidence, and creating a fictional story where you kill god is not at all any kind of realistic way to promote atheism because you're doing exactly what you believe the Bible did. If a child never knows the "love of God" as you call it, they probably will not be affected that much, either." I'm not sure if you attended public school, private school, or home schooling, but there is a basic freshman literary term known as symbolism and/or analogies that help drive a point through characterization and plot. Do you not understand that the story, plot, characters, theme, setting, and theatrical appeal to the senses is nothing more than a costume to the central point of this series. "I know exactly what Atheism is. Its the lack of belief in god. Exactly that. By being a Christian you're an atheist to Hindu gods. The Golden Compass clearly sets up a story where there is at one point a god." Ummm...no. By being a Christian, I am NOT an atheist to Hindu gods (one of the worst statements I have seen around these debates). An atheist denies ALL gods of spiritual belief, not just ones that a person may pick and choose. You may want to refer to the term humanist if you want the real meaning of atheism. Again, I believe you are confused. "It is fictional. Atheists, like the thousands I talk to on atheistforums.com, would probably agree that a fictional story to promote and idea or refute what we believe is fiction would be failing." Yes, because that is where I too gather all my pertinent information???? "So Pullman may have wanted to write a book that promotes Atheism but he didn't." You keep getting caught up (for some reason) in the fact that this movie could not be of atheist intention because it has God in it at some point. What you are obviously continuing to miss, is the fact that God is killed. It does not matter that he was there, it matters that he was killed. God being killed (remember He is, theist speaking, all-knowing, ever-present, undestructable), shows that he (again) is nothing more than a fictional character. WHICH MEANS, he never existed as God in the first place. How is this still not seen?
The Golden Compass is not an Atheist movie

My argument is not full of contradictions. You don't understand what I'm saying. Pullman may be attempting to promote atheism but he failed miserably. What he did was NOT promote atheism as he may have wanted. "This is highly false. In fact, there are Christian themes throughout Pullman's series: Self-sacrifice, love, compassion towards others." Those aren't Christian themes. Those belong to any religion or non Religion. Are you seriously arguing that Christians are the ones who created the ideas of self-sacrifice, love, or compassions towards others? GOOD PEOPLE follow that behavior and it is not exclusive to Christianity. But that isn't the atheist way of thinking. Atheists almost always rely on scientific evidence, and creating a fictional story where you kill god is not at all any kind of realistic way to promote atheism because you're doing exactly what you believe the Bible did. If a child never knows the "love of God" as you call it, they probably will not be affected that much, either. "I'm not really sure you understand the...the ideology[sic] behind atheism." Excuse me? Are you kidding? I know exactly what Atheism is. Its the lack of belief in god. Exactly that. By being a Christian you're an atheist to Hindu gods. The Golden Compass clearly sets up a story where there is at one point a god. Pullman may have wanted to make it an atheist series but he failed. It would have been atheist had god never been there. As for my original argument, again, this movie is much more AntiChristian than it is atheist merely for the existence of god (angel or not) being there and the attempt to kill him. It is fictional. Atheists, like the thousands I talk to on atheistforums.com, would probably agree that a fictional story to promote and idea or refute what we believe is fiction would be failing. So Pullman may have wanted to write a book that promotes Atheism but he didn't.
The question of God's existence is a scientific question.

As one who is of religious faith, I say that no, the question of whether or not God exists is not a scientific question. In order to know if it is a scientific question, first you must know what classifies as a scientific question. This is what classifies as a scientific question: 1: Does it have a real answer (meaning the question is not some paradox) 2: Can it be tested? (Through the scientific method) 3: Can it be proven wrong? 4: What kind of data can you collect I will ask the question "Does God exist? " In order to see if it can fit into these questions 1: Does have a real answer Yes, it does, you can come to a real conclusion if you are able to test this question. 2: Can it be tested No, the existence of God cannot be tested, as classified in Abrahamic Theism is a being that is "Not-physical" (Spiritual), therefore, cannot be studded with physical tools and measurements. There is no way to test measure or see God. 3: Can it be proven wrong? No, saying "God does not exists" is an irrational conclusion, because there is no way to test it, therefore, no way to prove wrong, just as the statement "God does exist" is an irrational statement because there is no way for humans of the physical plane to study a claimed to be Spiritual being. It is an unfalisifiable statement. What kind of data can you collect? Again, since you cannot test a being that is claimed to be Spiritual, there is no way to measure, or test the existence of God, therefore, there is no data to collect. "Does God exist" is a question that should not be asked with an objective answer, since no one, even believers like myself, are entirely sure that God exists, they simply believe him to exist, which is why the question "Does God exist" is not the right question to ask, because the answer to that question must be absolute, and there is no way to apply an absolute to what is unknown by its very nature. The right question to ask is "Is the belief in God rational", because the question has a tone of individualism, which is what Abrahamic Theism is focused on.
The question of God's existence is a scientific question.

The claims I make are based on what the nature of what something "Spiritual" actually is; and is the reason why there is no evidence of Ghosts, Unicorns, or God, and cannot be tested is because things that are spiritual are intangible, meaning there is no way to detect these things, under any circumstances, by any physical means; even by tools that enhance physical senses such as telescopes or "special ghost cameras" to be more extreme. The reason why spottings of ghosts, unicorns and God have been debunked is because they are too ambiguous to pinpoint, and to actually prove as real, as I said before. The question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to science because science would continue to study the universe as it does now. There would be no changes to how science approaches and answer's it's questions. The proven/unproven existence of God makes no change to how the universe functions as it does now, so the scientific method would not change. Science teachers should not waste their time trying to answer a dead-end question of something that cannot be pinpointed, instead of focusing on learning what can be and has been proven with solid evidence. The existence (or rationalism of the existence) of God is a question that is, and should be left as, a question for Philosophy, and has no place in the Physical Sciences. It was very fun debating with you, thank you.