BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global climate models are accurate enough to be relied upon

BACKGROUND: This debate is consequence of QT's claim she can prove recent GW is more then 75% accountable to human influence, based on climate's CO2 sensitivity (derived from models) and simple equation. After debate, I gave my opinion on climate models reliability in this case and argued against QT's conclusions that are contradicted by hard data and known natural forcings. http://www.debate.org... ACCEPTANCE: After that it would be impolite to decline QT's challenge despite the fact I'm very busy this month so I ACCPET the debate. I would therefore prefer this debate to be concise and focused on the major issues. I hope won't need 8k words per round to express our point. I shall point out general modelling limitations as well as specific contradictions between models and measurements and quote some resumes from scientific papers dealing with this problem. I assume that climate model's means models that were used or cited by IPCC in last decade as whole (usually more than one is used to get averages) and I do not have to prove every single model wrong in detail in order to fulfill my job as Con. I don't have English as my first language, but voters can feel free to punish me for big mistakes. I am looking forward to a good debate.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Since there seems to be interest in doing this topic in a non-ld fashion, I'll make one to be more inclusive. The debate should be impossible to accept. Comment if you're interested and I'll pick someone in a few days when I'm not as busy with school work. Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.Definitions can be provided within the debate and can be contested throughout the debate.Sources may be posted in the comments section if needed.Round Structure will look like this:Round One: Aff accepts and posts caseRound Two: Neg Case + Rebuttals, Aff rebuttalsRound Three: RebuttalsRound Four: Neg Rebuttals, Aff waives72 hour rounds. 10k characters. Minimum 2k elo to vote.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

I'll be glad to take up this discussion on the side of Con. I do not feel we should have to say Happy Holidays. I don't mind when people say Happy Holidays, but I feel that if everyone started saying it, it would go against the very reason why we say it. We think it's accepting all religions, but over time it becomes more about not accepting any. If we are taught to only say Happy Holidays, saying Merry Christmas would be looked at as insensitive and not the correct term. To truly accept all religions, we must start by letting them say their own holiday greetings, and not make them have to say anyone else's (which you make them do if they have to say Happy Holidays.) To make a Christian say, or imply they are saying, Happy Eid al-Adha would be a great disrespect to him, and a disrespect to his religion.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

For someone who seems very concerned about establishing a precedent that caters to people who are overly sensitive and too easily offended, you seem very sensitive and easy to offend. "Your idea is to make us offend ourselves." Does saying "Happy Holidays" really offend you? Do you get upset when someone has the nerve to say "good morning"? " Do you take offense when someone says "Have a nice day"? On the individual side, its all about common courtesy and attempting to treat each other with civility. If you know for a fact that someone celebrates a particular holiday, then by all means wish them a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Good Kwanza or whatever else you know makes them comfortable and happy. But if you don't know their preference, then don't be presumptuous and assume that their preference is yours. On the public side, it is also about making us all feel inclusive and there is a very simple law that must be taken into consideration. You repeatedly reference the First Amendment and Freedom of Expression, but that is on the individual side. The first part of the First Amendment is is the "Establishment Clause" which makes it clear that there should be no laws or public support of any particular religion. This is not only in the Bill Of Rights itself, but it has been interpreted and expressly ruled on by the Supreme Court In Everson v. Board of Education (1947) when the Court drew on Founding Father Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for a specific "wall of separation between church and State". And so, I wish you well. Have a nice day. Take care of yourself and whatever your individual beliefs, enjoy them to the fullest. In conclusion I wish you "Happy Holidays" whatever they may be.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

I see no reason why you should feel offended if you say happy holidays to people. It's not really about saying thank you to every god, it's more about including people who want to be part of this time, but not be part of Christmas. The holidays aren't just Christmas you know. Saying "Happy Holidays!" does not require that much though process as you make it to be. The average person will just think that it won't offend. However, if it was possible we could have both Chanukah and Christmas parties separately at major town events I would be ok with that. I believe it would cost too much money.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

"It is not just YOU paying taxes for the building. YOU are one of many people with different religions, beliefs and values." I never said just me. If you recall, I used more than just a Christian point of view. Everyone pays for it, therefore everyone is entitled to speak of and celebrate their own religion and holiday, and not have to honor a pagan holiday. A Jewish person should not have to include the Birth of Christ in his greetings when he is helping to pay for the place or event. I understand you are Jewish, but only one of many. While you may prefer Happy Holidays, many don't. Many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc, Prefer to only honor their holiday, and not one they feel is wrong. Even if everyone preferred Happy Holidays, that one guy that does not shouldn't have to say it for the overly-sensitive. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "While there is no reason you should hesitate to say Merry Christmas to those that you know celebrate that holiday." And yet you would make me imply that I'm saying Happy Hanukkah even though I do not celebrate it. It's hypocritical. Your idea is to make us offend ourselves so we don't offend others, and therefore no one gets offended. I hope you see how that concept doesn't work. ----------------------------------------------------------------- "There is no downside to being sensitive to the feelings of others and making every feel a part of a joyous time of year." You say this, but your idea itself is not sensitive to the feelings of the people who have to include pagan holidays that, to many, are highly offensive to their own belief. To include all holidays, you have to include them separately. To make people include them all in an all-in-one package is, for many, blasphemy. It's like making a Muslim say "Thank you Allah, God, Buddha, and Alien overlords," so he doesn't offend people. All you do is reverse who get offended. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Remember the 1st Amendment. It is not the right to never be offended in public... It is the right to speech, inside AND outside your own home. The right to speak freely in public and around people. Basically, the 1st Amendment is the freedom to offend, and be offended. You may not like it, but I can say Merry Christmas in public, because I'm entitled the right to speak my mind, and only my mind if I choose, even if others do not agree with what I have to say. You destroy the Freedom of Speech if you begin to say "You have the right to Freedom of Speech, so long as everyone around you approves." I am offended each time someone makes me honor a pagan holiday, of which is based on honoring something that offends my own beliefs (not to entirely be confused with something that offends me personally.) Freedom of Speech may not be waived for those who are easily offended. It is to protect us from people who are easily offended, be them Politicians or Citizens.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

It is not just YOU paying taxes for the building. YOU are one of many people with different religions, beliefs and values. While there is no reason you should hesitate to say Merry Christmas to those that you know celebrate that holiday, to the extent you don't know what others believe, there is no harm making a general positive and most importantly inclusive statement. Just as important, official public statements to all should always be inclusive and strive to make all feel welcome. There is no downside to being sensitive to the feelings of others and making every feel a part of a joyous time of year.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

"However, I believe at VERY public places such as school parties and town events, especially because Jews are on the rise in population, it would be necessary to say happy holidays to include EVERYBODY." At very public places, we are all entitled to say what we want because we often pay for the place. If my taxes are paying for a school (even if the event is paid privately, I am still paying for the building), I would like to not be told I can't say Merry Christmas there. View below to see how this does not 'include everybody.' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "You can't choose one over the other. If it excludes all, at least it's not favoring one over the other." If I'm Christian, I shouldn't be made to say Happy Hanukkah, or anything that implies I'm saying Happy Hanukkah. A Jewish person should be allowed to say Happy Hanukkah, and not have to say anything that implies he is saying Merry Christmas as well. Making a Jewish person celebrate the birth of Christ is rather offensive to him. He should be allowed to celebrate his own holiday, in action and in words, and not be made to verbally celebrate a 'pagan' holiday. The very concept of saying Happy Holidays isn't really about including all holidays, but excluding them. Leaving the individual holidays out so it's less 'offensive.' The only way to truly accept all holidays is to let people celebrate their own. Saying Happy Holidays only helps to destroy the individuality of Christmas, Hanukkah, and other holidays. If we build a world where only Happy Holidays should be celebrated outside of the house, then we begin to remove individual holidays from the public. You don't begin accepting them, you begin excluding them. Claiming that celebrating an individual holiday in public is offensive. Building a world where only Happy Holidays is allowed to exist outside our home. If you want to 'accept and include' my holiday, you have to let me celebrate it individually, inside and outside my house. And I have the right to fully choose whether or not I want to include (what is to me) a 'pagan' holiday to my list of celebrations. I myself do not want to celebrate a 'pagan' holiday, in action or in words.
We should continue to say Happy Holidays in public events, not Merry Christmas

It's ok if you say Merry Christmas at your house, and to your friends too. However, I believe at VERY public places such as school parties and town events, especially because Jews are on the rise in population, it would be necessary to say happy holidays to include EVERYBODY. If your concerned about people thinking Merry Christmas is not the correct term, it should just be common sense that you could say it at your house and to your friends. I'm just talking about town events. If you say Merry Christmas at town events, that's excluding Jewish people. You can't choose one over the other. If it excludes all, at least it's not favoring one over the other.
There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.

It all comes down to this: should America accept the value of democracy? It's not whether America is a democracy, but how America should be (mind you, democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive). Pro has claimed America has a long proud tradition of being undemocratic, individualist and screwing the people over, and yet he's the one trying to reverse that! So pro and I both agree we should throw out old ways that aren't working, even if being non-democratic was an American tradition (a point that I contest). Indeed, in his summary round, pro has called representative democracy philosophically impossible. I can assert stuff like that too. It's not. Now let me tell you in three sentences why I've won this debate. I dispelled every myth about term limits providing better representation that pro put forward. I showed that term limits create many more problems, even sometimes creating and perpetuating the very problems they claim to solve. This is a debate about democracy and the good it can do for America. I have only one question for you at the end of this debate: do you want your voice to be heard? The resolution is negated.
There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.

There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.This round is for summaries and conclusions. So I'll start with the summary. U.S. Congress members are agents of their own minds. They are more beholden to Party interests and their own financial interests than they are to the people of the places they hail from. When the representatives are first elected from their home towns their values and interests are more aligned with the culture of their home town according to their experiences. As time passes the congressmen become more associated with the empirical culture of the capital. Instating term limits will limit the exposure of representatives to the ruling class culture and keep an even flow of people who's most recent philosophies and concerns are relative to the people who are from the same area they are from. My opponent says that the Representatives should actually represent the people and not their own interests. This is philosophically impossible. Individuals can only represent themselves. America prides itself on individualism. And the people who vote, vote in favor or the person that has the ideals which are closest to their own.My opponent falsely names America as a democracy when it is in fact a republic. The rule of the law trumps the will of the people in all points. When the people want a thing they must rely on the law to be changed or laws added that state their interest. ConclusionTerm limits should be enstated for U.S. Congress member. Because the law governs the nation. Because long term Congress members are removed from thier home town, and thier values change over time. Because new members can be as effective and/or more effective than current members. Because the people vote for the candidates who have personal interests that they agree with the most, not for the candidates that will present the populist interests the best. We can't change the way the people vote. We can change who the people are allowed to vote for. The resolution is affirmed. Thanks, Larz the Admin. This was fun.
There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.

I have some very quick preliminary remarks to make as well. Burden of proof in this debate is on pro, although I also intend to run a constructive case. This is a model debate, dealing with things that should happen. It's not what will or is plausible to happen, but whether or not term limits are a good idea to institute in the US congress. It's also, just so we're clear, not about the US political system as a whole. If the senate were somehow abolished tomorrow, for instance, this motion would still be relevant. Instead, it's more about the idea of term limits in general within a US context (though I would argue the issue is actually the same everywhere).
There should be term limits for U.S. Congress members.

Welcome to round two of the DDOlympics Supercombined event: Government and Politics Round 1 is for Definitions and Acceptance Rounds 2 and 3 are for arguments and rebuttals Round 4 is for conclusions and summaries. U.S. Congress- the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States consisting of two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. Term -the length of time during which a person has an official or political office Term Limit- a legal restriction that limits the number of terms an officeholder may serve in a particular elected office. Length of Congressional terms – House of Representatives- Two year term elected by the people of the congressional district Senate- Six year term selected by the state legislature.
The King James Bible is without contradiction.

Round 1! *DING* As Pro says, our only source will be the King James Version of the Bible. We will be excluding contradictions with reality/science, we will only be focusing on textual inconsistencies between different books in the KJV Bible. If I step out of line on this point, you the voter, should hold this against me (Con) while voting. Likewise should Pro conflate what the text says with his personal interpretation of the text, as opposed to what the text actually says, be wary! Excluding the last round which I will forfeit as Pro wishes, I will present two inconsistent sets of verses in rounds 2,3 and 4 (only one in the first round). There is no need for overkill here, I think the burden of proof is much higher for Pro, so will not be giving an exorbitant amount of arguments to deal with. Also I care about you, the reader/voter, so will try to keep my arguments to a minimum to make it more presentable. Mind you, all I need to provide is one inconsistency in the KJV that cannot be fixed to prove the motion wrong. Let"s start off easy. Genealogy time (I promise it will be brief)! Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, So, who is the father of Joseph? Jacob or Heli? Do these claims seem at odds? Yes, they do. They seem that way because they are. Two different genealogies are given for Jesus between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Now, this is disputed by apologists by inserting their thoughts after the fact. They will invoke the Law of Moses to claim that Joseph was married to Mary, so could claim her father as his in genealogies. This is adding things that the books do not say. You have to take what is said in the book of Number (Chapter's 27 and 36) and conflate inheritance laws with how genealogies are kept. In the old testament genealogies are kept precisely. If it was through Mary's side, based on tradition, that caveat would have been mentioned. As evidence I will provide this link, https://www.biblegateway.com... Here in Genesis 22:20-24, we have children listed to specific parents. They are so precise as to mention which children are born of a concubine, even naming the concubine. Again, I assert that the verses are at odds. These are two different books, so it is no surprising! It should be remembered that the "Bible" is a collection of books, not a book in and of itself. This concludes my Round 1 argument, I look forward to my opponents refutation.
The King James Bible is without contradiction.

We are not going to turn this into a debate about having to prove God. My opponent can win the debate by presenting legitimate contradictory verses (where only 1 can be true) which I cannot give a reasonable answer for. Again, reasonable is not defined by the reader's personal belief in the supernatural. A legitimate claim of a contradiction would be something similar to this: verse 1: Jesus died when He was 33 verse 2: Jesus died when He was 40 or verse 1: the first king of Israel was John verse 2: the first king of Israel was Saul etc. Not going down some rabbit hole about whether or not Noah really made an ark (which I would gladly debate, just not on this particular one) or something like that. Contradictions. Also I will not be required to answer some cheap link to a website devoted to supposed contradictions. My opponent must list and quote the King James verses in question and declare what the contradiction is believed to be. Round 1 my opponent will begin to bring forward the alleged verses so that I have something to respond to. I will stick to rebuttals and explanations on my turns. My opponent must waive their 5th round and write nothing as I have no opportunity to refute any additional supposed contradictions at that point. God bless!
The Game is illogical

If someone knew monopoly existed, but did not know anything about it other than that it is a game, he would still be thinking about monopoly?" I'm trying to get across that it isn't the thought itself but the content. You are killing this argument by saying that the only thing they know about it is that its a game when more than likely, there are other things that monopoly can mean. Such as the expansion of business, or the board game. It could be either but if they don't know that these other two things exist then they cant think about monopoly in those contexts rather than it just being a game. If you started playing "the game" three years ago, and completely forgot that it exists, if someone walked up to you and said "you lost the game", you would have no idea what they were talking about. If you don't know what you lost at, then you don't lose, because the whole point of the game, is to think about it. If you don't know what game you are thinking about, you don't lose. I enjoyed this debate very much, it was difficult for me to explain all of this. I'm really just happy I'm done so now I can go watch psych! Good night :)