BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

You are far too easy on polluters. Liberalism is. Libertarianism is not. You want to continue to allow Big Business to pollute my property; you just want to reduce the amount by which they can pollute. I want absolute property rights. I do not even believe in the Global Warming theory, but it doesn't matter if its real or not if you subscribe to a libertarian environmental philosophy which forbids pollution as an act of aggression. Google is investing in alternative energy, as are other companies. However, more companies would if we took away the subsidies for oil and other dirty energy sources. These subsidies make dirty energy artificially profitable, and thus, erect competitive barriers to potential competitive substitutes. Furthermore, the greatest thing we can do is to remove the artificial liability protection from polluters, thereby making them absorb the entire cost of the damage they cause. Example: My wife's grandfather died from a form a cancer caused from lifelong exposure to MTBE, a fuel additive that was finally replaced in 2004. He was a minister who had simply lived long enough that the air pollution had gotten to him. His family was forbidden by U.S. law to sue the oil companies. This is what I mean by "artificial liability protection" serving as an unseen subsidy to the dirty-energy providers. And this is why it matters not whether Global Warming is real -- pollution is an act of aggression that results in sickness and death. There can be no doubt that Clinton-Gore did a better job "managing" the economy than Bush-Cheney has, or indeed, than perhaps any presidential administration in U.S. history. So what? The competition is not very formidable, as every administration that has attempted to "manage the economy" (which is NOT the job of the executive branch or government at all) has done a great deal to damage it. What was Grover Cleveland's role in "managing" the economy? Where in the Constitution does it give the executive branch the authority to "manage the economy"? And what does the success Clinton-Gore had in one area ("managing the economy") have to do with a completely different area ("protecting the environment")? By your logic, since Clinton-Gore helped create a surplus, this means that they should be in charge of directing the next James Bond film because they are "all-knowing." Regulations are merely tools of control. They enshrine dominant interests and are often agitated for by Big Business. It is not the government's role to prescribe certain limits on aggression -- it is to defend the people's rights to life, liberty, and property. The most sustainable economy and environment can be achieved by adoption of laissez-faire, classical liberal policies of "hands off" the economy and absolute property rights.
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

First of all, it is hard to judge sarcasm over the internet. It is clear that the economy is not capitalistic, and my previous arguments adressed that point. "Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. Common examples of regulation include attempts to control market entries, prices, wages, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods and services." These regulations will combat Global Warming by changing the outcome and reducing air pollution. Some companies, such as Google, are investing in alternative energies, and many others are going green. Businesses must reduce carbon emissions, reduce pollution and preserve natural resources or we will end up like countries in Africa that burned trees for fuel for so long that the trees are disappearing. A report by the world's top climate scientists states that it is "very likey" that Global Warming is caused by human beings, and that we can see a rise in ocean levels and a great amount of climate fluctuation. (http://www.usatoday.com...) Without regulations, companies like ExxonMobil will continue to ignore the effects of Global Warming. Oil companies are already funding an anti-Climate Change conference and George W. Bush is still ignoring warning signs. Islands in the arctic and the southern Pacific are already sinking due to rising sea levels, and for the first time ever ice is melting at the north poll. In times of previous warming ice levels increased. This is different than something we have ever seen. Global population has grown so much in the past hundred years that it has to have an impact on world resources. http://geography.about.com.... As you can see in this table, the world's pipulation is growing at an alarming rate, and countries like China and the U.S. are abusing the world's resources. Though America has 25% of the world's population in uses 80% of the world's resources. This is not regulation, this is an all out resource grab. Also, you consider the people I mentioned, such as Al Gore or Bill Clinton, too liberal. They ran the country for eight years, created a surplus from a defecit and saw the importance of signing the Kyoto protocol. They all want to combat Global Warming and encourage industry to go green, and yet you disagree with them all. Do you know something they don't? Were you in charge of the U.S. economy for eight years? Did you create the largest surplus in American history?
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

Really? You live in a capitalist society? Where do you live? Because I'm not aware of any that exist. You do NOT live in a "capitalist society" BECAUSE you "do not have a choice what is put into your air, your water or your soil." You live in an over-regulated "mixed economy" where the government gives PERMISSION to polluters to initiate aggression against your person and property. These PERMISSIONS are called "regulations" -- and they should be scrapped entirely. The maximum allowable level of non-consensual pollution should be ZERO. Property owners would be able to pollute their own land, air, and water, but only if the pollution did not affect other property owners. If it did, they would be liable for suit. The lobbyists you speak of are the ones who lobby for regulations (permissions to pollute). They sometimes argue for looser regulations to allow more pollution, and other times they argue for stricter regulations to crowd out competition. Why should the government have the right to give permission to polluters to pollute YOUR land? I don't think they legitimately possess this right, because I believe you have the right to life, liberty, and property. You bring up subsidies to oil companies and ask "Is this how the free market works?" OF COURSE NOT. Subsidies to ANY business are anathema to free-market capitalism. Free-market libertarians such as myself despise government subsidies of all stripes, and those to oil companies in particular. But your solution goes the wrong way: Instead of subsidizing alternative energy, all the government should do is STOP subsidizing unclean energy, STOP giving polluters liability protection, and STOP allowing pollution through regulation. I do not believe the global-warming hysteria. However, it matters not whether global warming is real from the laissez-faire capitalist perspective. Under a regime of absolute property rights, the cost of polluting would be too high for the polluters. Under our current corporatist regime, the cost is high -- BUT IT IS NOT PAID BY THE POLLUTERS, but instead, by the rest of society. This must end, and I agree with you! I encourage you to investigate laissez-faire capitalism as it pertains to the environment. Here is an excellent environmental interview with the leading Apostle of free-market environmentalism, Dr. Ron Paul: http://www.grist.org...
Environmental Sustainability & The Economy.

Right now I live a capitalist society and I do not have a choice what is put into my air, my water or my soil. Your idea is correct, that people should have a say as to what affects their individual property. However, what is put into the ocean or into the atmosphere affects more than what is our own individual property. An apple my not be picked on my property but that does not mean that it is not covered in pesticides. If the system worked the way in which you say it does, I would support it. However, lobbyists run the show and corporations like Monsanto, Peabody and ExxonMobil don't have to cut back on carbon emissions. The people who are most affected by the decisions made by these corporations have no say in Washington. If the government cannot determine what chemicals are safe and unsafe, then not only the consumer but the citizens of this planet will face the consequences. Corporations should take actions to reduce or even eliminate pollution, and it should be up to the government to control what can or can't be put in the air, water or soils. The current administration (and past governments) could have provided subsidies to promote sustainable actions, but instead often subsidize businesses that do not look out for the environment, such as oil companies and the corn lobby. Is this how the free market works? Where certain groups get huge susidies and companies that offer change cannot compete? This planet is a gift to us and we should not abuse its resources nor damage it. I warn you, if we continue on our present course and do nothing to combat Global Warming, there will be epic floods, famine, and warfare, at least according to the CIA. Now is not the time to let the market work itself out, we need to promote the idea of creating sustainable businesses. The hour is getting late.
Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy

I will makes my comments on your argument by corresponding them with the same template. 1a) I have already made my point on the use of solar and wind. They are more of a small scale energy. One wind turbine cost 1,000,000 dollars. A farm of 100 would cost 130,000,000 dollars. That lot of 100 would not even produce the amount of one nuclear reactor. Industrial solar panels cost 40-80 thousand dollars. Just imagine a farm of them. And again both these energies do not work 24/7 as nuclear plants do. 1b) You need to put things into perspective. What exactly is a serious nuclear accident? Do you mean an accident like Chernobyl or an accident like 3 Mile-Island. If Chernobyl, that accident happened in 1986. The U.S has much more advanced nuclear technology then that of Chernobyl of 1986. Also Chernobyl did not have a containment building, as all modern nuclear plants do. An accident like Chernobyl happening in the U.S today is next to impossible. If you meant a 3 Mile-Island accident, the worst accident in U.S history ,then you are looking at more of a 900 million dollar clean up. Not a 600 billion dollar clean up. Also that accident was in 1979. So, again our technology is much more advanced. The damage done to the surrounding areas of 3 Mile-Island are minimal. Residents that live next to the plant receive more radiation form the sun then the melted reactor. 3) Nuclear is a declared green energy by the government. Steam produced from nuclear plants create green landscapes as it is keeping plants well watered 24/7. The steam has almost no effect on the acceleration of global warming. Recycling of nuclear waste is not practiced by the U.S only. Every other nuclear country recycles nuclear waste and they prove that recycling waste is practical. Yes, mining of uranium is not very friendly to the environment but you must also ask where all the metal to make wind turbines come from. The answer is mines as well. 4) Previously answered Your case 1) What could the cost of letting a canister full of waste sit in a designated area be? The maintenance is not expensive. Also if Jimmy Carter did not make recycling of nuclear waste illegal the amount of waste would be significantly lower, which would ultimately lower the maintenance cost. 2) Nuclear plants last up to 50-65 years. And almost all plants are not dismantled. They are stripped of nuclear substances and are left to crumble. 3) Obviously you have not seen security at a nuclear plant. I can guarantee that there are no terrorists stealing nuclear waste from secured canisters or diving into the fuel pool to steal waste from fuel rods. Let me know when terrorists in the middle east can send a rocket 5000 miles across the earth and hit a containment building precisely. 4) One, those numbers are wrong. We are looking at a 240 year supply. Two, like a said recycling nuclear waste would increase those years significantly. I have one last thing to say. The U.S Navy has been using nuclear power for decades and have not encountered one problem.
Nuclear Energy should be the primary alternative energy

Nuclear energy should be used as a primary source of energy for many reasons. Costs being one of them. Nuclear energy costs 2 cents per Kilowatt-hour. This is a fraction compared to the other sources of energy. Oil being 18 cents Per KWh and gas being around 8 cents Per kWh. Over time nuclear energy proves to be much less expensive and more practical. Safety might be more of the controversial subjects when it comes to nuclear power. The problem is when fission occurs it is very difficult to stop. With today's technology the chance of a melt down is around .00026% for the average reactor life. If that meltdown is to occur it would be contained. All modern reactors have a containment building. A large dome completely surrounding the reactor. The containment consist of many feet of concrete and are able to withstand a collision with a fully loaded passenger airliner. Nuclear energy is a declared green energy, the nuclear fission produces two byproducts. One being steam and the other nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is safely contained in canisters that do not allow any radiation or leakage of the waste to reach the outside. In other words nuclear waste does not harm the environment in anyway. Also nuclear waste is can be recycled through a reactor as plutonium, this reduces the amount of nuclear waste as a byproduct. Other energies like fossil-fuel energies produce tons of Co2. Coal-fire energy is extremely dangerous to the environment and is harming it now. The strip mining that is needed for coal causes devastation to landscapes. Coal fire plants use tons and tons of coal per day. While nuclear reactors use fuel rods which consume only a few uranium pellets every 30 years. The numbers between the two energies just do not compare. Other alternative energies don't contend with nuclear power when it comes to being used on a large scale. Nuclear power plants take a few hundred acres to produce its typical 1,000 megawatts per hour. To equal one reactor you would need around 2400 turbines and 60,000 acres and of coarse wind is not always blowing. On average, wind turbines are working at full potential 25% of the time. And a nuclear reactor is always producing energy. To be realistic you would have to quadruple the acres and turbines to equal a reactor. So the numbers would be 9,800 turbines and 240,000 acres. To put it another way 240,000 acres is 375 square miles. And the square miles needed for a nuclear reactor is 2 . This is 1/187.5 fraction. For solar panels to match one reactor, the land needed would be around 5,000 acres. And again solar panels only reach peak energy levels 25% of the time. And again you would have to quadruple 5,000 acres. This would be 20,000 acres of land needed to reach 1000 megawatts per hour. This is a 1/15 fraction. Hydro electric power is just plain unfriendly to the environment. On one side of a dam a river is made much more shallow. The other side of the dam a reservoir is created and thousands of acres of land is flooded, forcing the natural habitat out. Clearly, by the evidence that I have given there is no reason not to use nuclear energy as a primary energy.
Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration

With President Obama's passage of his new executive order it raises a strong question. Is he right? Many people feel that everything that this president does is strictly wrong, but before rushing to judgment on his new executive order lets first take a hard look at it and see what is right and wrong with it. President Obama has been known as the deported in chief by the Latin American community. President Obama has previously separated family's of people who are trying to make a better life for themselves. With the passage of the new executive action President Obama won't separate family's. How can a republican party who claims to be based on "Christian Values" stand for separating family's? This executive action will also deport any illegal immigrants who have criminal records. It is virtually impossible to deport all illegal immigrants, so instead of having them live here for years illegally why not give them a path to citizenship and let them be a productive member of society?
Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration

"I completely respect your opinion, but I must tell you that your first argument is completely wrong." Funny thing about opinions, their always going to be wrong to some one. You brought up a lot information, however your not arguing for the debate. The debate is clearly, "Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration". Were debating whether or not he should have done it. Did he have the right to do it? Also, next time, please space your argument out. It helps organize your thoughts. The constitution clearly states that if the president wants to make a bill of this proportion, he must go through congress. Whether or not congress would have approved of his bill is irrelevant. Popular sovereignty prevails, and it always will. When 17 states sue you because they do not agree with your action, something went wrong. While it is important to note that congress has been debating immigration, it is only because neither side is willing to compromise. I will tell you right now, if you can find a passage in the constitution that reads along the lines of, "If congress cannot pass a bill, then the president has the power to do what ever he wants." Were not talking about justification, were talking about Obama's right to executive action. Please, read to me the constitution. Thanks http://www.chicagotribune.com...
Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration

I completely respect your opinion, but I must tell you that your first argument is completely wrong. There was a bipartisan immigration reform bill which was passed in the U.S. Senate. This bill was voted 68 to 32 and was passed. Mr. Boehner has had over 500 days to bring this bill to the house floor and has not. This bill would have passed in the House of Representatives, but was never even brought to the floor. President Obama's executive action has in it almost everything that was in this bill. For a Republican 2016 Presidential candidate to oppose this executive action he will be committing political suicide. The Republicans won the midterm election by appealing to minority's. The Republicans have not made up any immigration reform that opposes President Obama's action, other than sealing down our borders, which I believe in and President Obama has promised to do. For those who argue that this action invites more illegals to come across are strictly wrong. President Obama has warned anyone who wants to come over that they will be sent back and our boarder will be secured. The thought that we live in a country in which so many people want to come and live in should make everyone proud. For those who argue that the illegals need to come here legally do not understand that it is almost impossible. These people live in the three worst country's in the world Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, there is no way that these people can go through the proper way of coming to America. How easy do you think it is to track down 11.5 million illegal immigrants? I'm assuming that you think it is not very easy. IT WON'T HAPPEN! In stead of saying that we will deport all illegals currently living in America, why not make them become citizens and become a constructive part of society? These people have avoided paying much of their taxes for years and will be fined. Even though a Republican may take over in 2017 the illegal immigrants still have time to become a citizen. You must complete three semesters of the citizenship class in order to become a citizen. If they started their pathway to citizenship next semester, then they will have three and a half semesters to complete their citizenship before a new president takes over. President Obama has tried to go through the Congress and has been successful in the Senate, but because of a Speaker of the House who refuses to bring a bipartisan bill to the floor President Obama is forced to make this executive order. This is a very important issue that has been set aside for years and can not be overlooked. Another second in which the congress does not take action is a second too long. President Obama's action is an immediate call for action, but he knows this action will not become a law unless congress passes a similar law. President Obama has invited Congress to "pass a bill" countless number of times and it just has not happened in the Republican controlled house, Why?
Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration

Hello and thanks for starting this debate! I am independent, therefor I do not affiliate with any political party, so it is ignorant to use arguments pertaining to political affiliation. Also, this debate is clearly about Obama's right to this action, so we will be debating whether or not he should have used his power of executive action. I don't necessarily stand with or against what he passed, however that is not what we are debating. We are debating "Is President Obama right in taking exectuive action on immigration". I believe he should not have used executive action in this particular instance because in future presidencies, it can be easily repealed. Had President Obama gone through congress, his bill would be more permanent. You might be saying something along the lines of, "well, it wouldn't have passed had it gone though the legislative brach". I agree completely. However, this is simple democracy/republicanism. The founding fathers designed the government so one man would not speak on the behalf of the entire country. I believe that presidents have the power of executive action, but only to an extent. Past presidencies have used it, just not to this extent. Thanks
Abortion

I am going to keep it short because pro just conceded most of my round. Since we are talking about making abortion illegal it would not be limited to a specific situation but all types of abortion. Even those I mentioned in the prior round. Con claims abortion is murder , but again I refer you to my prior round. If the mother is danger, the act of murder is justifiable in that situation. She would be acting in self defense to preserve her life and safety, thus meaning abortion should remain legal There is no much left to argue, because Con dropped almost all of my contentions and just said that abortion should be illegal because it is being misused and is considered murder. I have shown how and why abortion can be considered moral, ethically permissible, and be justified by the law.