BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
thbt it will find a cure for cancer

No one can deny that indeed, survival rates are on a rise, however; a slow one. The statistics are not at all impressive or striking or in any way indicating of a progress towards a cure. Given the amount of resources spent annually on cancer research, it is disappointing but true that most of the success in raising survival rates comes from simple indicative tests that detect cancer earlier, when it's easier to manage. Additionally, while some cancer patients do survive after surgeries, the rates of recurrences are way higher than those of survival. So, what are we doing? Definitely not finding a cure, but rather delaying the inevitable. It is important to remember that the fact that death rates are falling (again, very slowly) does not in any way indicate that people are suffering less or that the disease is getting closer to an end. On one side we have death rates falling, and infection rates sky-rocketing. Where is the progress if all we do is delay the death by a number of limited years? The only progress that could be considered effective is when cancer patients live long enough after their cancer has been "cured" to die of other causes. What use do we have of awareness campaigns if the problem is still there? If I tell people in an awareness campaign that you could get cancer through exposure to toxins or radiations, will that solve the problem of the existence of these things? Our environment is becoming way too hazardous to human life and it's all of our doing. The war on cancer is now more than 40 years old. I believe it's about time we start paying attention to those hazardous factors we're adding to our environment instead of trying in tiring futility to cure what they have produced. Evidently, in a less polluted Earth, cancer would not be as huge of a threat as it is now.
thbt it will find a cure for cancer

thank you for defining the word cancer but your definition does not add or takeaway of whether a cure for cancer which is equivalent to 100 diseases exists or not. Not to mention that the population in the early 1900s was around 1 Billion and now 2014 it is over 7 Billion so of course the prevalence of any still existing disease would have increased that was a biased piece of information. Another point raised by the opposition was something to do with the plague, which we had to wait for it to die out along with the people that were infected with it, we did not find a cure then; however, i can tell you for a fact that people nowadays get cancer, they go through treatment, and they survive so they can live and lead a normal life. I would like to shed light that a report by the National Cancer Institute negates what you said, and i quote "the disease grows more and more brutal, claiming more lives because we're too busy chasing after the dream of a cure" ; it states that rates of death in the United States from all cancers for men and women continued to fall between 2001 and 2010. and to press on what you have failed to realize that the prevention of a disease is part of the cure of said disease. In addition to my previous points which proves that we are on our way of curing all cancers progress is being made, awareness campaigns are being conducted to prevent the occurrence of the disease which is part of curing it. thank you
The American Government does not have any ones intrestin their heart but their own.

Someone had to take this. .. The US government also cares about the welfare of the American people. Some people may think that Obamacare was a misguided attempt to help people, but it certainly did nothing good for Barack Obama's career, so the motivation clearly wasn't self-interest. That's just one of many potential examples. The fact that industrial hemp cannot be grown without a special DEA permit (like a driver's license) doesn't mean the government doesn't care about anyone. My opponent claims hemp seed oil is required to get essential fatty acids (EFA's). Hemp seed oil contains 80% EFA by volume, flax seed oil is a perfect replacement with 72% EFA by volume. . http://www.ratical.org... Also, you CAN buy hemp seed oil in the US, you just can't GROW hemp without a permit. You could buy hemp oil here: . http://www.amazon.com... My opponent claims if we stop using petroleum we will need hemp. I ask him to substantiate HOW hemp could solve our energy needs. Last time I checked, cellulosic ethanol was not commercially viable because the enzymes that break down the cellulose are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. In addition, petroleum isn't used in paper. I don't know why we'd need hemp to replace current paper production methods. There's no way "hemp could replace 30% of the world's medicine. " Try taking hemp instead of penicillin or interferon. The world has plenty of cotton and synthetic fibers so I don't know why we'd need hemp in clothing; hemp clothing is REALLY scratchy. I'd rather wear polyester. Regardless, if we ever needed hemp THAT badly, we could change the law or buy it from Canada, where it can be legally grown. . http://www.hempfood.ca...
The American Government does not have any ones intrestin their heart but their own.

The government confirms we need essential fatty acids to produce brains cells and the like while also producing a healthy balance of hormones as well as the chemicals to allow us to think and feel.. EFA are whats in a mothers milk that allows survival and healthy growth. Yet prescribed to us to several servings of COW milk intended by nature to provide a baby CALF with momma cow essential fatty acids to produce brains cells and the like while also producing a healthy balance of hormones as well as the chemicals.. There is no better balance of EFA for humans found in plants, or a plant more intimately connected to the human brain and body than the Hemp seed. .. yet our government has made laws against growing this plant which also prevent the industrial uses of Hemp.. but what about before this ban? i could be here for a long time telling you about history but DO NOT TAKE MY WORD ON ANYTHING; RESEARCH IT YOURSELF=) *If all fossil fuel and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable, natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper, plastics and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs; provide about 30% of the world's medicines, while reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere, all at the same time…and that substance is the same one that has done it before, for the last five to 10 thousand years, until about 125 years ago… No one has taken the $100,000 challenge to prove me wrong. Why? Because I am right. The U.S. government has been lying to us since the early 1900s. Do economic interests and the police have more to say than the people about the future of our planet? How angry are you for being lied to by the U.S. government about Cannabis Hemp? Are you willing to make a stand right now? No one can dispute this information and knowledge. You have to join me in this fight. Either you are on the U.S. government's side or you are on the Earth's side with me! Jack Herer http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...
Atheists are not logically and reasonably justified in their disbelief of a Christian God

Hi, I've always wanted to debate this, but I've never had much time until now.So, the contention is, "Atheists are not logically and reasonably justified in their disbelief of a Christian God".Lets get a few definitions out of the way.Atheism: The disbelief or non-belief in a God or Gods.(1)Christian God: Specifically the God as presented in the KJV bible.Pro must show how the belief in God is reasonable and logically justifiable enough for Atheists to believe that God exists. Con must show how these justifications are either unreasonable or illogical.Rules:1. No swearing, ad hominem attacks or name calling.2. Pro can post his argument in the first round, but cannot post an argument in the last round and can only respond to arguments already presented.3. If Pro has any problems with the above, he or she must resolve it in the comments section with Con before accepting the debate.Source:1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is a Sound Argument for God's Existance

I am going to make this max characters (8000 characters). I will have time. But only 4 rounds. Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can not be changed in the middle of the debate. 5. In the case of the breaking of any of these rules, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Definitions: Kalam Cosmological Argument: "1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; 3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. "[1] This cause is of course, God Sound: "Competent, sensible, or valid""Having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason. "[2] God: "The one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe. "[3] Existance: "The state or fact of existing, being. ""Something that exists. "[4] Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: All arguments made (no rebuttals by con). Round 3: Rebuttals against opponent's arguments (no new arguments). Round 4: Defense of your original arguments (again, no new arguments). Thank you Microsuck. Sources: [1]:. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]:. http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]:. http://dictionary.reference.com... [4]:. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Favorite unknown youtuber

Pick a youtuber whom is not known well and explain why you like him/her. Pretty simply, just provide any arguments as to why they are your favorite. My adversary shall post no argument in the last round. If he posts anything in the last round other than "no round", he drops the debate and all 7 points due to an extra round. He will also start the debate off next round. We are not going to argue about what is considered known. Just someone people have not heart of alot.
Dungeons and Dragons is beneficial to society

Rebuttals"DnD can cause kids to become antisocial only playing with a few specific friends and that through excessive play can develop mental and physical health problems. due to lack of sleep from playing,not getting enough exercise etc. and it can be really hard on self esteem due to the game and it's players being looked down on by society,religion etc. etc. "This point is mostly speculation by my opponent, as he cites no source to substantiate his points. These problems are also not necissarily caused by DnD the game. One coulde easily balance good exercise and sleep alongside semi-frequent playing of DnD. Also, DnD is a social game. Many players meet up with new and interesting people at LFG parties. As far as being looked down upon by society, this only happens in certain areas, and does not make the game any less beneficial. In my area, however, this is not a problem. Players are seen as geeky and weird, but not inferior. "storytelling skills are only based on what someone already know or has thought of. A good way to build story telling skills would be to read books that were meant to be told in story form such as the Iliad,Inferno"But as the DM you always are the storyteller, and you are therefore exercising your ability as a storyteller. A good DM is a good storyteller. "Creative problem solving skills are gained from just living life to the fullest when a problem arises you must find a way around it whether it's difficult or easy. "Problems aren't always tangible. DnD provides problems that players must think themselves through. "The art of acting well you have me there unless someone takes improve classes"There's more than one way to skin a cat. My opponent cedes this point. "As I said before you socialize by building a good group of friends but go out and meet new people to build on that"Like I said, players commonly meet others and socialize. In LFG meetups, and at conventions like comicon. "entertainment is not really the best point to be making since anything you like is entertainment reading is a personal favorite of mine especially reading groups"If it provides entertainment, it makes you happier and raises the standard of living, therefore benefitting society.
Dungeons and Dragons is beneficial to society

first I would like to say you had very valid arguments and had never though of most of that 1.DnD can cause kids to become antisocial only playing with a few specific friends and that through excessive play can develop mental and physical health problems. due to lack of sleep from playing,not getting enough exercise etc. and it can be really hard on self esteem due to the game and it's players being looked down on by society,religion etc. etc. 2.storytelling skills are only based on what someone already know or has thought of. A good way to build story telling skills would be to read books that were meant to be told in story form such as the Iliad,Inferno 3.Creative problem solving skills are gained from just living life to the fullest when a problem arises you must find a way around it whether it's difficult or easy. 4.The art of acting well you have me there unless someone takes improve classes 5.As I said before you socialize by building a good group of friends but go out and meet new people to build on that 6.entertainment is not really the best point to be making since anything you like is entertainment reading is a personal favorite of mine especially reading groups This may undermine my argument but I don't care. You have many valid points and I could really go either way on this one
Wolves are overrated

Well excuse me for not understanding. I guess I'm sorry for not understanding, but you have no reason to get so snarky about it. I guess wolves aren't overrated. (even though my previous argument was not half as bad, even though I didn't agree with what I was saying) First and second entry: Wolves aren't overrated. They are majestic creatures that deserve to be recognized. As creepy as furries are, wolves are the masters of hunting. They live in packs, and they have their own way of communicating, which is a reason why they howl. People admire the species of wolf so much that they write stories about them- books, comics, even some fanfictions, just like Erin Hunter's Warriors series but merely wolves. I'm sorry I didn't understand the previous question, but I can clearly live up to this topic. Third entry: Wolves are the masters of marathon running. They can run so far as to take down a full grown moose- and can possibly fight a cougar and win, if there is more of them. They communicate through dog tricks to show submission to the Alpha- and they have a better government than we humans do. Wolves don't need to be discarded like the common puppy, in fact, they are one of the most interesting species of them all. I really am sorry for not understanding- I'm new, so I just, I don't know, typed up what I believed that I signed up for. I won't back down, though.
Wolves are overrated

I believe that wolves are overrated, due to the fact that so many people are now talking about 'furries' and creepy things like that. Wolves don't do very many things, and somehow, they are one of the world's best known and well researched animals, with probably more books written about it than any other wildlife species. Wolves are just an overrated species of dogs. There are somehow comics written about the wolves, furries, and something called 'animal jam'. Everything they do completely overrates the wolf, who really don't deserve the special attention they get just because they 'howl at the moon' or 'stay in packs' or 'can run marathons'. Honestly, I don't get what the fuss is all about. Clearly, the humans can dominate the entire wolf species in just a few days, and there would be no point causing wolves to be overrated because the wolves would all be extinct, like the dinosaurs. This is why I believe that wolves are overrated.
Wolves are overrated

Well, even if wolves are majestic creatures, I doubt that they deserve the love they get. Take a look at tigers. They are loved, but not NEARLY as much as wolves. But the thing is they have beautiful patterns and hunting techniques that remind you of stealth and grace. They are the paintings of the jungles, and also the killers. Foxes are beautiful and extremely intelligent. And, as I stated before, wolves are just wild dogs. Oh, they howl. So what? The call of the Kakapo is interesting, and it makes you wonder HOW they do it. Sure, it doesn't sound majestic, but there are other sounds animals make. The roar of the lion is magnificent, and also is threatening to nearby animals. And they aren`t the only animals that communicate or live in packs. Wolves are fast, but many animals are faster. A full grown wolf wouldn`t be able to take down a lion, tiger or cheetah, even with its pack. The lion and tiger would overpower them and the cheetah would outrun them. Anyway, if you think wolves have a better government than us, then I guess we should go around attacking the weak and start worshiping our presidents. Or we should start ranking people depending on how strong they are. Wolves aren`t special. They are like any other animal, a wild creature. And they are definitely not unique, compared to other animal species.
Liberals in the United States are also the enemies of the proletariat/working class.

My opponent claims that liberals support social progress, but at a faster rate than conservatives. This seems to imply that liberals want to go as far as communism, when I have never heard of a liberal state that they ultimately want to go to communism or socialism. They tend to want to stop at minor social and economic change. This is not enough to help the working class and only does so very little. I've never heard of a liberal who eventually wants to get to a society where workers control the means of production. Perhaps my opponent can offer a study on the views of liberals that indicate majority want to eventually move to socialism or communism. My opponent also seemed to imply that conservatives would also support moving towards socialism, but at a much slower rate. Again, this needs validation. In addition, even if the groups' intentions are good, that doesn't matter in terms of whether they are enemies of the workers. If they support items that hurt the workers, even if it's with good intentions, that makes them enemies of the workers because they are causing things to be worse off for them. Liberals should easily be able to see that their policies hurt the workers, yet they continue to live in blissful ignorance thinking it helps them. Just how does supporting regressive taxes and not wanting to completely get rid of capitalism truly help the workers? It should be obvious it doesn't.
Liberals in the United States are also the enemies of the proletariat/working class.

Round 2: Main argumentLiberals are allies of the working class, AKA proletariat. This is because liberals support social evolution as opposed to revolution.If you ever heard about Karl Marx dogma, you will know that Karl Marx encourages violent revolution from capitalism to socialism, and then another violent revolution from socialism to communism. I don't need to go into gory detail why a civil can be detrimental to the working class. Just for starters you risk dictators like Stalin who end up mass murdering them. Liberals like most conservatives support social progress, but at a faster rate than conservatives. This is the push/pull relations ship between the majority of conservatives and liberals. Both want social change for the better, just the two disagree about the tempo or speed of change, conservatives say slow and the liberals say moderate. Neither wants a break neck speed like a revolutionary would want.The exception being the alternate right who want to go in reverse in my opinion. There we have the four political parties that compete for the workers votes. The revolutionary who wants fast progression, the liberal who wants moderate progression, the neo-conservative who wants slow progress, and the alt right who wants to go backwards.Honestly, I believe all four groups have the workers best interest at their hearts. Yet, despite having their hearts in the right place, their actions are different. All are allies of the working class, but offer different ways of dealing with contemporary problems. There is no reason to believe any of the above political parties are enemies of the workers. Liberals tend to support climate change, vaccine treatment, affirmative action, gender equality, GLBT equality, an increase in minimum wage, and health care. "Jill Stein on the Minimum WageStein supports having a $15.00 minimum wage."[0]Thanks for debating. Source.0. http://2016.presidential-candidates.org...
Liberals in the United States are also the enemies of the proletariat/working class.

Debate rules:Time to argue: 72 hoursRounds: 4Voting period: 10 daysCharacter limit: 10,000 If con wishes to use google docs, that is permitted but it can't go over 10,000 characters. Vote Comments: noVoting Style: Judges. Con should offer up to 5 judges(name them in the comments) they wish to nominate and I will nominate them to be fair. If you accept the debate before mentioning any judges, then you will have to live with the judges I chose, and potentially handing me the debate since they may not be impartial. The judges I nominated are Blade-of-truth, Hayd, ca2005, Cat47, and n7. Each of their profiles can be accessed by going to my profile and looking through my friends list. Point system: 7 point systemRound Structure: If con uses round 1 for debate, this is what their round structure will look like:Round 1: Main argumentRound 2: Rebuttal to pro's round 2 main argumentsRound 3: Defense against Pro's round 3 rebuttal, no new arguments allowed in this round. Round 4: Waive this round by saying something like "I waive this round as agreed upon". This is to make sure that we each have the same amount of rounds used for argument. If con does not use round 1 for debate, this is the structure both pro and con will follow, otherwise only pro follows it:Round 1: Acceptance, definitions of terms, state your positionRound 2: Main argumentRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Defense against rebuttal, no new arguments. If any of the above rules are violated by either me or my opponent, the judges should award the other person the point for "conduct". The exception to this is if the person they are going to award it to, had poor conduct in other ways, such as perhaps they cursed at the opponent or something else. Then judges should choose it to be a "tie", but I guess there is no holding the judges to what they can do since there is no RFD required. Note: I am willing to change the voting style to open voting if my opponent doesn't like judge voting, however I require that we have vote comments turned on(they are turned off right now) since anyone, including trolls, could vote on the debate and I don't want a troll to vote on the debate and be able to get away with it. I may be willing to negotiate on some other things too, but if you want to change any of the rules I outlined, say so in the comments and do not accept the debate first, since if you do, I will not be able to change certain rules. Definition: For the purpose of this debate, liberal will be synonymous with democrats, members of the democratic party who support the party platform. It will also be synonymous with Green party members. Anyone else in between Green or Democrat in terms of positions will also be defined as a liberal