BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homework should not be banned!

THIS DEBATE IS ONLY FOR 16KADAMS!Note to 16KADAMS: You may accept or decline this debate.This debate has 5 rounds. You may only post upto 5,000 characters and you have 2 days to post your arguements. After the debate, the voting period will be for 2 weeks and vote comments are allowed.MOTION: Homework should not be banned! (for me)MOTION: Homework should be banned! (for 16KADAMS)Rules of this debate:1) No swearing or cussing.2) No sources allowed (I don't understand why sources are needed?)3) No cheating on using sources and putting them here. I will make sure you won't do that. I know when people cheat.Layout of this Debate:First Round:Pro (me) will make this debate which is already made.Con (16kadams) will ONLY accept this debate. No arguements.Second Round:This is where actual debate starts.Pro will post new arguements.Con will rebut NOT REFUTE Pro's arguements.Third Round:Pro will rebut Con's arguements and add new arguements.Con will rebut AND refute Pro's arguements.Fourth Round:Pro will rebut and refute Con's arguements.Con will NOT ADD NEW ARGUEMENTS but he will summarize his arguements. Rebutting the Pro is fine.Fifth (last) Round:Pro will summarize his arguements NOT ADDING NEW ARGUEMENTS and rebut Con's arguements.Con will rebut FIFTH ROUND of Pro's arguements. (Grammer :p)If any forfeiting will happen for any of these reasons below, that round will be skipped and not count into the debate, voters can't vote for people who didn't forfeit:1) You are busy or can't get on.2) A gang comes into your house and kidnaps you.3) A dog ate you.4) Your computer exploded5) Someone stole your computer6) Your computer died.7) A person shoots you.8) Someone shoots your computer.9) You had to go to school for 2 whole days without computer.I thank my opponent for accepting this debate (or if decline I don't thank).I am looking forward towards this.
American paper money is designed with some anti-counterfeit methods.

You are the smartest, best, most kind person in the world. You are always right... (etc.) Is that what you wnat me to say??? Well than, you are sadly mistaken. I am always right, and you might not like it but I am always. I lost the last debate because peple like your picture more. That's all. Money doesn't have hat stuff because people counterfit by other ways than photocoping. Why do have show everyone fake evidenc?
American paper money is designed with some anti-counterfeit methods.

Again, you have shown how I am the more polite person, but I will pretend I did not hear you and you posted a reasonable debate. I do not wish this to end up the way our other one did (which I encourage others to votee for). This debate is about whether or not US paper money is designed with anti-counterfeit strategies. This debate is NOT whether people counterfeit anyway. That is apparent. It is a fact that money (in paper, bill form) is designed in mind to make it harder for those illegal, immoral people to break the law. I will now present another piece of evidence. 1) There is a very-hard-to-see strip of paper on one side of the dollar that says something like 'United States of America- five dollars'. This is seen easily in the light, so if it where photocopied, it would appear, and people would be able to tell it where fake. You have no evidence that none of this is true, which, by the way, I think you should be doing instead of wasting your time calling me ugly, which I don't, for further references, appreciate. Please don't call me names, or call me dumb, or claim your supremacy, or any other text that might cause me to feel unappreciated. Thanks for your time.
American paper money is designed with some anti-counterfeit methods.

Hello, padfoot36. Our last debate was a bit of a tiff, but I am determined to start out fresh. Good evening... I would like to prove your statement you emailed me incorrect. US paper money (dollar bills of any amount) have special designs that makes it more difficult to reproduce illegally. These are some of the methods: 1) Red and Blue thread is distributed at random across both faces of the dollar. This makes it more recognizable, even if unknowingly, and will help you determine counterfeit from real, legal currency. 2) The is a watermark of a president's face ( sorry, I don't know which one) on a relatively blank part of the bill that can only be seen in bright light. When you attempt to photocopy, as some counterfeiters do, these bills, the watermark shows up clearly or not at all, so that you can tell if it is, again, fake. 3) Many bills are enscripted with minute numbers, such as the five dollar bill with a number '55' in the bush. The would make producing new bills (not photocopying) almost impossible, another way of counterfeiting illegally. I have successfully presented evidence, so I have won this debate.
should the american flag be banned at schools

yes, we do not pray in schools because not everyone is a Christian, we are not required to say the pledge because not everyone agrees with it, but in the US that flag is the flag of the country you live in and go to school in, we should not spit on the flag and we should not dishonor it, like I said it represents the country you live in or at the very least are educated in, frankly if people despise it so much why are they here? yes, America has a dark history, but the flag stands for MORE than the dark history, it stands for ALL of America, all 50 states, all the rights it grants its citizens, the flag stands for the country the good and the bad, after all what's history and life for that matter without the good and the bad? yes, this country has done bad things all countries have, but the flag doesn't stand for slavery, the flag stands for freedom and opportunity.
should the american flag be banned at schools

not everyone is american, not everyone agrees with the flags statements. We do not pray in public schools because not everyone is christian, we should not be forced to have the pledge if not everyone is on board. if you want to stand for the pledge you can do it on your own time, if you don't agree with something you shouldn't be subjected to it. that is why slavery was abolished, nobody wanted to be a slave, not everybody wanted to pray in school, if not everyone wants to salute a pledge that they don't agree with then it should not be subjected on them. as long as they are not disrespecting the flag by spitting on it. i agree with what you are doing by not saluting it
Global Warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax.

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming. Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. -China has its coldest winter in 100 years. -Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. -North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. -Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. ALL SHOW THAT OVER THE PAST YEAR, GLOBAL TEMPERATURES HAVE DROPPED PRECIPITOUSLY. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to WIPE OUT nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 YEARS. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does DEMONSTRATES CLEARLY that more powerful factors are now cooling it. Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70. Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news." Thank you DailyNet. What more do you want? Only 44% of the people believe in Global Warming. It is still very controversial. Did you know that a cow lets out greenhouse gases (propane) when they birp and release gas which is worse for the environment than all the CO2 emissions COMBINED from cars, trains, and planes?? 100% fact. It's not our fault. And that is one ONE EXAMPLE. Maybe we should kill all the cows? But that would be completely silly because PETA, the ultra-extreme liberal animal rights group, will complain and the libs will be stuck in a mess they brought upon themselves.
Global Warming is all hysteria and a liberal hoax.

Global Warming does exist but there is nothing we can do about it. It's natural. All the green technology in the world will only slightly reduce Global Warming because it is inevitable. In fact, there is more proof that the world is cooling, according to a source which I will site. Doesn't everybody remember or know that in 1972 on the front page of Times Magazine was "GLOBAL COOLING." Everyone was worried because there was an apparent ice age. Funny how all of a sudden our world is melting and we have a global crisis. Only liberals fall for this hysteria.
Being vegan

Thank you for your response.The argument I made about me being more selfish was meant to be taken on a very, very broad scale. If I do support the murder of fellow earthlings than yeah, I am selfish. BUT, and I'm not saying it's okay, but why do we draw the line at animals' living condition (current state of life)? Why don't we draw the line at destroying their habitats, using them for testing and using them for experiments? And if the line is drawn there as well, why is the only frontline of this battle? Why is vegan the start of it all? Animals who are not meant to eat meat would probably reject it when ingested, however, humans, whom are animals, do not reject it (actually, on some scale, I do. I have IBS but... another story another time). I know this area of this popular debate was not mentioned, I just wanted to throw that out there. I hope it can be understood that I am running on zero sleep right now and I am not 100% focused, so what may seem off topic or weird is just me typing with one eye closed. but my turn is almost up and I shall fight through. Something I want to cover is this pleasure. We are selfish, and we are eating at another's expense, but if we enjoy it, it boosts our morale and mental health. Mental health is an important part of anyone's overall health. Now, it's wrong to seek this pleasure in the form of murder (I think murder is the incorrect word for this and I will explain why soon) in my opponent's eyes, however, because it was introduced to us, it is hard to go back. Now about that murder: murder seemes to be a word meaning unjustified killing. Meat is justifiable. At this point, having had captured and farmed so many animals for so long, many farm animals have genetically changed over time to depend largly on humans, making life hard for them if they were free. We as humans let them live a pretty good life before meeting it's end. My point is, it would take a lot of years to reverse what we have done, and it would also destroy the first world (and some lesser) economies. So many states in the United States and European States rely on having meat used. By the time we are able to stop and reverse our damage, humans will be on their way out of their turn on Earth.
Being vegan

Meat eaters are not ignorant in my opinion. I am sure there are many biologists, gastroenterologists, vets, and pro animal rights people who eat meat, me falling under the last one. Being at least one of the things on the preceding list should disqualify ignorance as a reason for eating meat. Personally, I enjoy meat because of preference. I understand what happens on farms, factories, butcher shops, restaurants, etc with meat. More selfish? Well, what's selfish? Selfish seems to mean that one cares for one's self without any regards to others. I will agree that selfish is a proper word to use. Meat eaters take advantage of life on earth for personal gain and pleasure. However, we as humans are way past selfish all together. Anyone taking part in the industrial revolution and the results of it are selfish. We take advantage of earth and the things of it for our own personal gain or pleasure. We chop down trees, we dirty up water, we burn oil and coal, we dig and landscape every other acre of earth, we capture animals and genetically change them to be our fluffy pets instead of letting them roam free in the environment, we run over squirrels, and instead of eating food that grows from our surroundings, we destroy land that is already there, plant new plants that aren't natural to the area, and then they take the crops and turn them in to something more desired. Simply put, humans are selfish. We all do things that destroy the environment for our personal gain with little regards for the environment. So, we as humans are selfish and care less about others for our own personal reasons. If this debate is how vegans are better and smarter than meat eaters, than this debate is not a good idea. You and I (I'm assuming you're a vegan) are only different because of our eating choices. We are both, at the end of the day are selfish, less caring beings because we are humans. You have been destructive to the environment for pleasure and personal gain, just as I have. So, I am a more selfish, less caring person than you are because I have different eating choices? I don't think that is a fair, honest analysis of a fellow human being
Instutments

As I will repeat again it just so happens that SpongeBob takes my words out of my mouth. Also I see you are avoiding the original topic about mayonnaise and horseradish being insturments because you realize you have accepted defeat. Your ignorance won't take you far if you continue my friend. However for your research I congraulate you on wasting your time. Mayonnaise can be used as an insturment and a good one too. In addition, if I may say so myself I would take youtube as an unreliable source as there are millions of fake videos such as the one you used. If you can find that same video on a .org or .gov website I will believe it a lot more rather than that unreliable, fake video.
Climate Shift

Pro has accused me of insulting him, I have done no such thing. Quite the opposite has been demonstrated by pro. Twice he has made comments focused on my person and not the argument at hand. "What a surprisingly short response" "What a rude and poorly thought response" Perhaps I should not have accepted this debate, but after seeing how Pro had attempted to set up a "slam dunk" format that included 2 out of 3 points that are impossible to argue against. 1) global warming is real. I reiterate that the FACT we do not currently live on a frozen planet is impossible to argue against. The FACT that ice age specialized species such as the wooly mammoth are now extinct because the ice age has ended can NOT be argued against. Pro's first point does not actually require intellectual debate. 2) Global warming is man made. This is the only point that Pro made that can actually be argued. As I've already argued, Pro's argument here was based on cherry picking statistics. His claim that 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is caused by man was admitted to be a misrepresentation of the statistics by the original author of the article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... Per the original author (UPDATE, Monday, 12:45 p.m.: I"ve added a parenthetical clarification in the first paragraph below noting that the 97 percent figure refers to studies that took a position on whether global warming was man made or not (66 percent of the studies surveyed did not express a position).) I could get a scientific consensus that Jesus Christ is the lord and saviour if I only asked Christian scientists. 3) Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. This is equally irrelevant as Pro's first point. Regardless of the cause of climate change, be it man made or a natural cycle, it is our instinct to survive. This point is stating the obvious. In closing I wish to reiterate that this debate's only arguable point was #2, is climate change man made. I accepted this debate anyway in an attempt to overcome the obvious "slam dunk" framework that Pro had stacked in his/her favor. Furthermore Pro's entire argument about point #2 was based upon a consensus that doesn't exist unless you exclude 66% of published papers on this issue thereby cherry picking your statistics. The huge wall of info graphics and other data provided by Pro amounted to a fear mongering lecture of pseudo scientific prophecy. We don't even have accurate climate change models that predicted the 20 year pause in global warming, until after it was already observed and we adjusted our old models to account for this new information. Because of this, Pro's predictions about the year 2100 can even be taken seriously nor are they relevant to the only arguable question in this debate. Is climate shift man made... I trust the voters will see through Pro's attempt to manipulate their emotions with prophecy of doom.
Climate Shift

What a rude and poorly thought response. Please, do not insult me when I am seeking only an intellectual debate.FrameworkIf con did not like the framework of the debate (which is a fairly standard format) then they should not have accepted the debate.Con does not understand what, in debate, a resolution is. If I may offer some info to con, a resolution is a statement that the Pro side must argue in agreement with, and the Con side must argue in disagreement with. The resolution contends three cases. Climate shift is real; Climate shift is influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. As it is apparent that my opponent has put no real thought forward as to what this means, I'll attempt to shed light into the dark deep abyssal grotto of ignorance that is the argument of my opponent. For the pro to win this debate, Pro must tender a compelling argument that every case presented by the resolution is agreeable with. The first point regards the reality of climate shift or global warming (which is a common point of debate). The second point regards the cause of climate shift, if it is indeed real. The final point regards the impact of climate shift (again, if it is indeed real).If my opponent is confused as to what climate shift is, then I shall provide a definition. This debate regards climate shift or what is more colloquially referred to as Global warming."the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation."(1)The framework is the structure of the debate. The rules. It is always relevent.Pro's CaseMy entire argument is almost totally unrebutted. Con only makes a weak attempt to discredit a single point. Overall, a weak argument made by the Con that consists primarly of aggressive rantlike points that all lack proper substantiation. Cons argument also fails to meet the BOP. Conduct ought to be awarded to pro for cons flagrant disregard for the rules of the debate. As con failed to cite any sources but one, sources ought to be awarded to pro as well. Arguments are up to the judges, but I would remind that judges that almost my entire argument is unrebutted, and, according to the framework of the debate, any new arguments or rebuttals that the con may try to make in the final round are to be disregarded completely. VOTE PRO!1.http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Climate Shift

Pro's framework is not relevant. Pro is debating 3 different issues in such a way as to lead the audience into automatic acceptance of the core issue "is global warming aka climate shift man made" Point A: we have had fossil evidence of an ice age for ages, and the fact that we aren't currently living on a frozen planet is evidence enough for global warming to have existed long before man was capable of producing enough GHG emissions to significantly alter the environment. The "Resolved: climate shift is real" frame is obvious to anyone who has heard of the wooly mammoth. Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by man. This is the only real point to debate and the scientific consensus was misrepresented by Pro from the outset. 97% of scientists can not agree if a majority of 66% of them haven't taken a stance on the issue. Pro is cherry picking his statistics. I sourced this properly whereas Pro provided a list of websites he gleamed information from without actually linking to the relevant articles within those sites to be reviewed. The laundry list of "predicted effects of global warming" that pro provided aren't relevant to the core issue of "is climate change man made". Its fear mongering and shouldn't be considered in a debate. Point C: there is no point C. Obviously climate change should be a concern for humanity regardless of whether or not it was caused by the actions of mankind. This is an appeal to emotions intended to influencing the voters. I hope the voters can see thru this laundry list of predictions presented by Pro. The only relevant paragraph in his whole argument was sub-point 2 concerning GHG emissions. Which is compelling but lacks depth since there are many other factors determining climate shift. GHG emissions only explain warming trends, solar activity and thermal storage in the oceans are presumably responsible for cooling trends. Feel free to fault me for breaking the instigator's framework so long as you fault the instigator for setting up a poor framework.
Climate Shift

A suprisingly short response. FrameworkMy opponent has totally ignored the framework thus far, using round 1 for construction instead of acceptance, and round 2 for rebuttals instead of construction. Conduct should be awarded to pro for this reason. Pro's DefenceOnly the scientists who report opinions have opinions that matter. This is called Voluntary Response Bias. If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor deny the existence of climate shift. This point my opponent makes does not meet the burden of proof, and does not fully discredit the scientific consensus. The source my opponent posted does not even fully discredit my argument. Many of my points are left totally unrebbutted, and I forward those points. "The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now. " This statement is vague and unsourced and isn't a compelling argument. My opponent seeks to rebut my entire argument by a failed discrediting of one source and point. He does not present a compelling case, and his argument does not meet the burden of proof.
Climate Shift

I understand why you're confused about my argument. You seem to be equally confused about the scientific consensus which was claimed by the following article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... If you read the article again and pay special notice to the update the author added at a later time. 97% of scientists "who took a position" support global warming. However the reality is that 67% of published papers on the subject took no position at all. So 33% of scientist are the only ones being considered. That is not a very overwhelming consensus. As a matter of fact that is filtering the results to support a preconceived conclusion. The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now.