BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming: A dentriment to Botswana's efforts of being self sufficient

Thank you mate for accepting the challenge; Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time. " A factor which has directly sabotaged Botswana's efforts of being self sufficient. In Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised and this has lend to a change in the visions that Botswana aimed to achieve by that time and with thus destroying their sfforts of being self sufficient Effects that scientists had predicted in the past are now occuring:E.G more intense heat waves.This gives us high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities and as Batswana we are compelled to review and re-review our efforts of being an independent, self sufficient country and time is not waiting a thing which puts us not only as a country but as a nation in the darker side and kills our dreams of being self sufficient No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth and hence directly affect Botswana as a country,Botswana is a semi-arid environment,experiencing low rainfall which varies from place to place and global warming has come to back this unpleasant weather patterns a thing which leaves Batswana with no other choice but to watch all they have worked for as an effort to become self sufficient go down the drain. Diamond output has been a major countributor to Botswana's economy and we all know that diamonds are non-renewable and this led Batswana to put in place alternative measures that would diversify their economy e.g Agricultural funds,Youth funds e.t.c but now concerns of global warming wipped away those measures which means Botswana will continue to import goods and services from neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Namibia and as for them being self sufficient is now nothing better than a wish as they will be heavily dependant on those neighbouring countries.
Global warming: A dentriment to Botswana's efforts of being self sufficient

"Botswana faces harsh climatic conditions in 50 years due to the effects of global warming. Climate change will decimate the country's wildlife and water resources and displace many Batswana who will be forced to flee drying up areas in search of places with better water resources" Anthropologist Richard Leakey If you think you know Botswana more than I, accept this challenge
Global warming: A dentriment to Botswana's efforts of being self sufficient

The effect of global warming would or could take our temperature back to pre-industrial level and to make matters worse predictions measuring the effects of global warming on Botswana assert that climate change will negatively impact the continent's environment, economy, and communities so the same measures they have put in place and funded are to be droped, a factor which leaves Botswana in debt and so automatically their efforts of being self sufficient are destroyed. Botswana has been designated as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, according to the WhiteTime report and others, due partially to the importance of its mining sector,the report continues to state that Botswana is vulnerable to the effects of global warming projected for the next 50 to 100 years because of its extensive arid and semi-arid areas, low annual rainfall variability, and existing pressures on water supply. Today, 500 of the world's top scientists are meeting behind closed doors to finish a landmark report on global warming, and the picture they paint is not pretty. They say significant changes in the climate could start happening within the next 10 years. CBC News has obtained a preliminary draft of the upcoming report on climate change, which shows a grim outlook on the effects of global warming and emphasizes that scientists are more convinced than ever that humans are causing it And this gives a more convicing emphasis that concerning what Botswana and Batswana have as plans to be self sufficient need nothing more than a re-think..
There is no god

In negating the resolution "there is no god", Con must provide evidence that there is a god. So far, he/she has provided arguments that there isn't a god, and they are most welcomed, yet are only of help to Pro's side of the debate.As for the affirmation case, I cannot debate Con's argument for god's existence if he/she is yet to make one. However, I will quickly provide rebuttals to popular arguments that suggest there is a god:1. The popular Kalam Cosmological Argument for god's existence, has been heavily criticised by the works of Lawrence Krauss, who has explained how quantum mechanics can account for how space-time and matter can emerge from 'nothing' [1]. 2. The Intelligent Design argument can be shown inherently defunct, as god cannot demonstrate omnipotence and omniscience at the same time [2].I await Con's case.References[1] http://www.atheismandthecity.com...;[2] https://www.youtube.com...;
There is no god

There is no conclusive evidence for anyone to base their lives around the idea of god. You only live once, don't try and waste it devoting your life to some magical man in the sky who probably doesn't exist. We run this world on a basis of evidence, for example when in court, evidence is used to declare which is guilty, not "faith" or superstitious nonsense. A lawyer would not say i have faith in my client not being guilty and get taken seriously by the jury. It should be the same case in religious debating
Resolved: Abortion ought to be illegal under normal circumstances.

A foetus is not a child, and a child is not an adult. It has no say in its future because it is biologically incapable and its mother's rights are relevant. A mother does not have an obligation to any pregnancy until it can be deemed a viable entity outside of the womb. i.e. the stage in development at which its existence can be maintained outside of the womb. At that point the mother has the contractual obligation (birth) to the child. To say that a person MUST carry a birth to term is a great violation of personal rights (one that would have to be enforced governmentally) something the government has no business doing. Two cells do not make a human. By such a definition my hair is a human. Clearly this is wrong. It is human hair, not human itself. Equally two sex cells are not human. The possibility of their development cannot be included in their definition as a human because such development is not assured. You will need to explain what is inherent in two cells that give it any rights at all, let alone ones that are greater than the mother. Two cells have no ability necessary for sustaining its life outside of the womb; by what judgement then can they be given rights? Rights are not given they are inherent in an object. Two cells are not warranted rights because clearly they have no properties that garner that ability. It has no ability to reason; it has no existence outside of what its mother provides it. It is in its entirety the property of the bearing mother and from that whatever choice she makes in its regards is her right (she has the rational faculties). As for the legal cases you roughly bring up. The man is charged because his act was in violation of another's rights i.e. the females right to life. The baby is her property and her choice to its life. That is the second violation of law in regards to two charges of murder. An abortion doctor acts on the behalf of the mother i.e. her permission and this is what separates those cases. Otherwise there could equally be charges of negligence/manslaughter for miscarriage.
Resolved: Abortion ought to be illegal under normal circumstances.

1. Abortion ought to be illegal The abortion of a fetus is not the innocent action some make it out to be, it is a terrible crime against a child that is not able to defend itself or have a say in its future. When a women becomes pregnet, she has an obligation to care for her baby until it is born and then either give it up for adoption or care for it like she should(in some cases adoption is nessecary, but we won't go into that). 2. A human is made at the moment of conception The second the sperm touchs the egg a human life is made, so why is aborting a fetus any different from slaughtering a baby? In the state of California, if u kill a woman that is even 1 day pregnet u are charged with 2 counts of murder, so what makes doctors special? They can kill a fetus in an office and get away with murder? Califormia proves that a gamete is infact a human life.
religion forcing society into believing in a god

First answer this question is it ethical and or reasonable for a government to promote religion. If a government is influenced by religion there will be no more continuous study's in science (for that government) This is due to the god of the gaps if you ask most Religious people explain to me why the stars are moving away They will say " It is because god made it that way" and will use that as a excuse to not look for a provable fact.If this is a commonly used phrase we will not progress.
religion forcing society into believing in a god

Con is essentially trying to prove that it is bad for religion to be imposed unto society through the government. Let's look at the evidence he shows for this: "First answer this question is it ethical and or reasonable for a government to promote religion" It's reasonable. Uniform religious beliefs in society unite us and encourage the members of that society to attend activities (Church, charity drives, etc) which further unites us. Because of this, it decreases conflicts and essentially increases community production. "If a government is influenced by religion there will be no more continuous study's in science (for that government)" Not true. Many religious people are scientists. There is no proof given to indicate that your claim is true. "This is due to the god of the gaps if you ask most Religious people explain to me why the stars are moving away They will say " It is because god made it that way"" Yes, there are deeper concepts to consider other than "god made it that way", but God made those functions up so it is essentially valid. "and will use that as a excuse to not look for a provable fact.If this is a commonly used phrase we will not progress" This is completely false. No proof given. Con needs to meet his bop and prove his claims. I've negated his and provided arguments. Vote Pro! Thank you!
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned

You will be voting neg for the following reasons:1) Apple is not the original and thus there are no copycat smartphones.Again as shown, apple is not the original thus there are no copycats, this shows the resolution holds no actual weight, this is uncontested and thus sides with neg.2)Free MarketThe Free Market is harmed if we remove products that came after apples iphone, and it doesnt matter if android draws from apple's business.3)BOPUltimately you vote for con because pro has not proven the resolution. He has not shown why we should be condemning these phones, he has not shown impacts, or warrant for resolution, and since it was his responsibility to do so you will vote neg, Thankyou.
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned

I find it ridiculous to debate this. (first statement about Apple didn't release the first smartphone) Here are my simplified arguments: I have never argued iPhone is the first smartphone in the world. I only argue that the existence of Apple influence the future smartphones, that are designed exactly like the ideas/concepts of original iOS/iPhone. I refer to low quality of smartphones before iPhone is released. The so-call smartphones were much far worse than Apple, or professionally they were very different before the first iPhone was released. Thus, identical smartphones/operating systems are clearly copied from iPhone/iOS respectively. As for condemnation, I only encourage free market, but condemn the obligation of free market, which explained clearly few sentences afterwards. Lastly, my sources (esp. Wikipedia) are corrected by the public, thus, more reliable than those editors/official. Note that the sources are outdated too.
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned

"However, I would like to rebuke that the argument is an accusation against me, saying that I have claimed Apple to be the first smartphone in the world.Hence, I am not obliged to respond to him on that matter."My opponent is required to address this matter, If he/she Concedes this then they recognise that no one is copying apple at all but instead an alternative companies phone, i push this matter."As for the free market, I also agree with @Preston. I do not condemn but also encourage."My opponent concedes this argument, meaning condemning an alternative company should not happen. This means he cannot fulfil the resolution and thus you vote neg.My opponent still has not fulfilled the BOP or provided any sources to refute my argumentation, my sources are from professional organizations while his sources are majorly based on editable wikipedia entries, thus mine are superior and you vote neg
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned

I strongly agree with @Preston, he is right, Apple is not the first smartphone. Just to add-on that IBM Simon is also one of the earlier smartphones before Apple. However, I would like to rebuke that the argument is an accusation against me, saying that I have claimed Apple to be the first smartphone in the world. Hence, I am not obliged to respond to him on that matter. --- As for the free market, I also agree with @Preston. I do not condemn but also encourage. Nonetheless, I do not accept force as it will discourage the creative entrepreneurs from starting their own business, and soon economy collapses for insufficient capitalists. This is a huge blow against the nations that support capitalism, especially Western countries like United States, United Kingdom, etc,. I would like to ask all seating judges: Do you think of free trade if your ideas are copied and distributed, worse for free and open-source? Will you rest in peace?
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned

1) Apple Didn't Release the First SmartphoneMy opponent is incorrect in asserting that apple is the original that is being copied, when in fact they are not the first or original smart phone. In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT DoCoMo released the first smartphones.[1] My opponent argues however that before the iphone all other smartphones were lower quality and thus do not count, however quality does not negate the fact that they existed.2) Androids Free and Open Source Model Promotes a Free MarketOverall we see that androids free market allows for the growth of intellectual property. This promotes a free market and eliminates apple's ability to act as a monopolistic power. This benefits Democracy and allows for the development of society in a positive manner.[2]BOP:Remember my opponent must prove that other smartphones copy and should be condemned.[1][http://archive.wired.com...][2]http://siteresources.worldbank.org...
All copycat OS or phones of iOS and Apple respectively should be condemned

Based on the facts, the existence of smartphones after Apple are mostly a copycat concept of iOS/iPhone 1 that was released in 2007. [1] Before that, the smartphone is terrible, IBM Simon. [3] In fact, I do not know until I have searched although I know that button based phones will be used in the era without the concept of iOS/iPhone. In 2008, Android 1.0 was released, with the same concept: touch-screen. Features in the phone are also changed to icons, exactly like the iOS. As for phone layout, as a (noob) consumer, there are no difference. [2] Worse, Android was declared to be free and open-source by Google. This affects Apple's sales a lot. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...(1st_generation) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.bloomberg.com...
Is athiesm protected under the fisrt amendment

Here is the quote from the bill of rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" t: . http://constitution.findlaw.com... So, from this statement we can conclude that congress can make no law against religious practices, or religion. This is protection. However no where in the constitution does it say that congress can make no law prohibiting the exercise of atheism- which is non-religion. Religion is a right and just as you have the freedom to believe you have the freedom not to believe. But congress could make laws prohibiting the exercise of atheism because the constitution only prohibits congress from making laws against a religion. And atheism, not being a religion, would not be protected by this first amendment. Just allowed. Let me give an example. The law allows people to drink alcohol. But the constitution does not prohibit congress from making laws against alcohol (which they did for a time). So the constitution does not prohibit laws against the consumption of alcohol. It is allowed currently, but is not protected (the law can be changed) But In the constitution It prohibits congress from making a law against religion. So congress cannot outlaw religion. But the constitution does not prohibit laws against non-religion(Atheism) So atheism really isn't protected by the 1st amendment.
Parents who allow their offspring to become obese should be prosecuted

Mothers and fathers who put their children's health at risk by allowing them to become malnourished can expect a knock on the door from a paediatric social worker accompanied by a police officer who will remove the child from the family home and charge the parents with child neglect. So are the parents who put their children's health at risk by allowing them to become obese held to account for their crimes? No, although in some countries these insidious child abusers do have their children taken off them (1,2), but this is too little too late. Just today, CNN published an article entitled "Fast food marketing up, food still unhealthy" which reads: "A report released by Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, looked at 12 popular restaurant chains, and out of more than 3,000 kids meal combinations, found only 12 that met the nutritional guidelines for preschool-aged kids. ‘The worst meal was at Dairy Queen,' said Jennifer Harris, director of marketing initiatives at the Yale center, and the lead study author. ‘It was a cheeseburger, french fries, a sugar sweetened soft drink and a chocolate Dilly Bar, which totaled 973 calories.' The No. 2 culprit: KFC's popcorn chicken kids meal, served with a biscuit, soda and a side of string cheese – totaling 840 calories." It's no secret that giving children too much fatty food is bad for their health, yet some parents ignore the warnings and carry on overfeeding their offspring regardless. Children cannot defend themselves from child abuse, that's why the law is there to protect them, and I believe that it is time that it was properly enforced and the parents of grossly overweight children were brought to justice and be made to account for their vile crimes. Thank you. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk... (3) http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com...
once saved v 'never saved to begin with' shows that a person can never know another's heart

Nice try, but my opponent used the word "never" in making the debate title. Therefore, if I show that mind reading technology which allows a person to know someone's mind down to their subconscious thoughts (therefore their "heart") will exist or will probably exist in the future, then I will have won this debate. Let us examine such technology in its current state. Here's some technological breakthroughs that have come to pass in recent years. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...It is likely that this technology, currently in its primitive state, will eventually grow more advanced, as technology habitually does, until eventually we can read a person's thoughts. That is all from me, as I have casted sufficient doubt on the claims of my opponent, who clearly has the burden of proof in this debate. May I suggest to him/her that one should not use terms like "always" or "all" or "never" in creating a debate title, as it only increases your Burden of Proof? Anyway, I enjoyed raising my ELO. .. er, that is, debating my opponent, but in the end, he/she made a claim that he/she simply could not defend.
once saved v 'never saved to begin with' shows that a person can never know another's heart

what a person says is in their heart may not be. and technology that can read people's minds doesn't exist, so we can rule that out. judging fruits alone isn't enough. we have to know the heart, or we know nothing. we can have good guesses but that's it i could gave an example of someone falling away who was never christian to begin with. but theyre's also people who fall away cause they were good but then became bad. ... a chrisitan can lose his standing. 1 John 5:11-17 "If you see a Christian brother or sister sinning in a way that does not lead to death, you should pray, and God will give that person life. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it. All wicked actions are sin, but not every sin leads to death." i also gave the example of the word taking root in someone but then they fell away cause they were in bad soil. "18 "Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown."" i could go on and on with versesthat show losing yoru standing. with hitler, or that man who seemed zeolous for God but then turned into an atheist, we don't know their heart. we can see that they are probably nt in favor with God. but to sin means to intentionally, do, what you know, is wrong. these guys may be following their conscious and we can't judge, or even characterize. only God can. plus forr a lot of average joes christian what can we conclude? sme might have a better heart than a lot of christians but they might not. how do we know if they were never saved to begin with o whether they saved all alrong? conside that evenchristians struggle with say masturabation, sex before marriage, anger problems, hatred, drunkenness, marital infidelity..... christians make mistakes, but so do people who pose as christians but were never christian to begin with. it's not our plance to know a person's heart.