BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

1. My opponent seems to think that if a concept was started by a criminal, then, that's O.K. Sorry, opponent. That's NOT O.K. Only an immoral person would create an immoral communist cause like climate change. That's right. Climate change is just communist agenda nonsense disguised as environmental concern. Don't be fooled. 2.Note - Temperature increases precede CO2 increases. This is the opposite of what we are told by the IPCC. http://joannenova.com.au... Thus, we are told a whole bunch of lies by the IPCC. Lesson - Don't believe anything the IPCC says. 3. Global temperature has gone up. Really? How did they come to this conclusion? (a) Cherry picking data from places which have gone up while ignoring places where temperature has gone down. If you have thousands of temperature stations to choose from, then, you can create any distortion in temperature you want. Easy peezy. I think i'll become a climate scientist and earn millions of dollars for sitting on my arse making up nonsense numbers. Every time you get a result which proves climate change right, then, you get another salary bonus. Thus, who wouldn't find a positive result with that kind of incentive. lol Let's all get on the climate change gravy train and make a killing! lol (b) Oceans are rising? Really? I haven't seen any increase in the sea level. Note- Its the land that moves not the ocean dummies. Land is constantly changing and moving which may give the illusion that the ocean is rising or falling. 4. The scientist that are on my list are all respected scientists who are leading in their field of specialization. Thus, this is not just some trivial information. 5. Hockey stick fraud. This is from Dr Christy's damning evidence to Congress: Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. https://www.steynonline.com... 6. NOAA temperature fraud. https://realclimatescience.com...
Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

No, your first two references do not show anything.The first one, about that Maurice guy, does not provide any kind of sourcing, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. It's basically just a bunch of had hominem calling him and his sister marxists and what not, with the whole point being "he created all of global warming in order to make a new world order". Yeah.The second one, in which "1000" (It's actually 24) scientists are quoted as saying that they don't believe in climate science. This, of course, is just a massive appeal to authority fallacy.False InformationWhat?! You know you can't just say "that's not true" and then have something not be true, right?Climate change poses a threat to humanityHere: http://www.greenpeace.org...Here: http://www.greenpeace.org...;Aaaand here: http://www.who.int...;Earth Self RegulatesWhere'd you get that from? The graphs obviously show that the temperature has not stayed level, so this point is just misinformation."Hockey stick is broken" No it isn't, ya silly: https://www.skepticalscience.com..."CO2 increase doesn't affect temperature." *sigh* Graphs.What even is this point. It talks about radiation, then some arbitrary distance, then shortening that arbitrary difference, then talks about how distance =/= temperature (reasonable), and finally throws out some arbitrary percentage to top it all off.
Should Citizens be allowed to own guns

Its not that i think individuals should nver have guns, But they need to show cause, They need to have a specific reason and a good reason, And they need to prove that they have a need for that reason, That they are law abiding stable healthy and well trained, Or wiling to get trained or be checked thourally by doctors and law enforcment, Your conduct effects everyone around you if you want a deadly weapon thse around you have a right to know you will be safe with it, There is no right to won a gun regardless of that silly nonsensical second amendment which probalby made sense way back when but makes no sense now! Due to hcanges in society and technology, Owning a gun is a privelege you earn it is not a right >
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle's are better than the Power Rangers

Power Rangers are better than the mutant ninja turtles. why? Megazords The power rangers have megazords which is basically power rangers plus gigantic a$$ robots. Its like getting transformers as a bonus. Power Rangers always reinvent themselves also, so they really never get stale, they have a new generation every 2 years or so. I have seen every animal possible zords. Appeals to both male and female The simple fact that there are female roles in the power rangers fighting bad guys makes the power rangers more appealing to both the male and female child audiences. Costumes The power rangers costumes with their designe motorcycle helmets have always been classics. Kids just love the costumes, power rangers hide their identities like super heroes. The simple fact that the power rangers changes themselves up every year makes the power rangers a lot better than the never changing teenage mutant ninja turtles.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle's are better than the Power Rangers

In this argument we will argue the age old question who is a better hero the ninja Turtles or the Power Rangers. I will be arguing for the pro side that the ninja turtles are indeed better than the power rangers while my opponent argues against me. I witty but logical comments are excepted and I look forward to a fun and interesting debate. My opponent can start the argument however by doing so I ask that they forfeit round 4 and make round 3 there final argument so they do not have the benefit of beginning and ending the argument. If they however wish to have the last word than I ask them just to accept the challenge and I will begin.
Zayn Malik is the most beautiful person in exsistance

My opponent has offered little substance in their previous round. Most of the statements made by Pro were essentially a summarization of their conviction regarding the notion, and no new substantial arguments were presented. As passionate as my opponent is, It would appear that if he were as diligent in his arguments as passionate as he is, he could present a formidable case, however he has failed to do so. The resolution contains the notion that, "Zayn is the most beautiful person in existence." I would agree entirely, that judging beauty is a concept that is subjective and requires no universal standard to adhere to, however, as it pertains to the notion, it was Pro's responsibility via arguments, to attempt to demonstrate the notions resolve. In their previous round, it contains partially incoherent statements, wherein displays merely conviction induced claims such as, "Role model, beautiful, amazing voice, hair like a swirl of heaven, skin practically flawless, wisdom of a seasoned professional and smart." This does not qualify as sufficient reasoning to validate Zayn Malik as the most beautiful person in existence. "Yes he is a fine man, on of much grace and beauty but can he really compare to the rich features and atributes of Mr.Malik?" Yes, as I demonstrated in my first round. Even if we consider, hypothetically, that Zayn's attributes are superior to that of Justin Timberlake's, this does not validate the notion, but merely negates my example of one individual. The proposition under consideration has not been successfully argued from my opponent, but was rather speculated with redundant adjectives, and non-cogent arguments. My opponent has not demonstrated that Zayn Malik is the most beautiful person in existence. Provided this is the final round and my opponent is faced with no opportunity to rebut any further arguments, I will abstain from any new arguments, and cease the round here. Thank you for the debate.
Zayn Malik is the most beautiful person in exsistance

"I hold this statement to be true, self-evident and worthy of any man, that Zayn Malik of Bradford, UK is and shall be named the most beautiful person to exist. As a man, of this earth, he has not been put above anyone else and holds the same rights and privileges as others but as a fact his face alone has been proven to be scientifically perfect in every way. His face; is perfectly symmetrical. His body, may or may not be of this earth because it for one is of pure heaven in all sense of this word. No, if you are wondering i am not a carrot but a witness of the divine. Before one may continue about how someone could be better may i ask, does their face hold as much wealth and rich of the world, as he? Are they exotic and golden, with grandeur of wisdom stored beneath the breath of an angel? with a voice of silk, never faltering and as perfect as a strand of pure diamonds? Yes, the answer you search for in your mouth is as simple as the concept of freedom; NO." Thank you for accepting this debate with me, but as I begin my argue end again I would like to state that, yes many people are beautiful but zayn is more well rounded with his beauty. Others you have presented have one attribute. perfect face, or perfect voice but none have all four personality and phi all traits that make him; him. For one here is a collage of him so taht you may sink in his face. How can one say that he is not what a true God may be? http://www.tumblr.com... And here is a nice little go around of 31 reasons why he is perfect- http://www.buzzfeed.com... As you may have been able to see; The proof is inevitable. He as one can be and has been compared to your sample of perfect or otherwise known as Justin Timberlake. Yes he is a fine man, on of much grace and beauty but can he really compare to the rich features and atributes of Mr.Malik? Now as I continue my point may I also point out the pure wisdom and elegance of his words. Q$3;"tęs of thoughtout language. Here is some of his wisdom put into words- http://www.goodreads.com... . Now as a whole can any of your people quote such refined and true meaning? Not only in words but in song may he convert English to words of gods, through the magic in his throat. http://www.youtube.com... He is a role model to all and although yes, he has smoked he has reduced that to e very small amount; practically none, from recent and current statements, true to his heart Role model, beautiful, amazing voice, hair like a swirl of heaven, skin practically flawless, wisdom of a seasoned professional and smart. No ladies and gentleman this is no angel,but a vessel of almost human perfection being achieved known otherwise as Zayn Malik.
Zayn Malik is the most beautiful person in exsistance

I hold this statement to be true, self-evident and worthy of any man, that Zayn Malik of Bradford, UK is and shall be named the most beautiful person to exist. As a man, of this earth, he has not been put above anyone else and holds the same rights and privileges as others but as a fact his face alone has been proven to be scientifically perfect in every way. His face; is perfectly symmetrical. His body, may or may not be of this earth because it for one is of pure heaven in all sense of this word. No, if you are wondering i am not a carrot but a witness of the divine. Before one may continue about how someone could be better may i ask, does their face hold as much wealth and rich of the world, as he? Are they exotic and golden, with grandeur of wisdom stored beneath the breath of an angel? with a voice of silk, never faltering and as perfect as a strand of pure diamonds? Yes, the answer you search for in your mouth is as simple as the concept of freedom; NO.
environmental education and not environmental prosecution is the answer to waste management problems

Environmental law has developed in response to emerging awareness and concern over issues impacting the globe. "Beginning in the 1970s, Congress enacted a set of laws to protect the nation's air, water and lands from uncontrolled pollution. These laws responded to the consequences of unregulated industrial development that had fouled those resources to the point where rivers were not fishable, air was unhealthy to breathe, and land contamination put Love Canal at the forefront of national consciousness. Over time, environmental regulation has been very successful at reducing the amount of pollution Americans face every day" [1]. The Clean Air Act is the principle law addressing air pollution including carbon dioxide emissions. "In 2002, a report by the Journal of American Medical Association credited the act's automobile emission regulations with reducing carbon monoxide related deaths, saving 11,700 lives between 1968 and 1998" [2]. Similarly, the Montreal Protocol Act could be preventing 11 billion tons of CO2 from entering Earth's atmosphere [3]. These laws have made it easier for people to breathe and are crucial to our well being. President Nixon signed the Clean Water Act in 1972, the primary federal law addressing water quality standards for the nation's waterways. Most importantly, this act puts the onus on states to develop plans to protect their watersheds from non-point pollution [2]. Still, a 2009 study by Duke University concluded that while water quality has improved, "population growth, limited jurisdiction, and unforeseen water stressors, such as emerging contaminants and climate change" nevertheless plague our waters. This means regulation and enforcement of those regulations is still very relevant to our health and the well-being of our planet. We know that there is a great deal of stress on our environment that puts the livelihood of both animals and humans in danger. Yet people still tend to behave selfishly or in their own (financial) self-interest. "The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource through their collective action" [4]. To prevent people from ruining the environment for their personal gain, prosecuting environmental crimes has become routine to serve as a deterrent. Pro would have to explain how education alone serves as a useful deterrent. [1] https://www.justice.gov... [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3] http://motherboard.vice.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Our much-loved, traditional freak shows should be preserved

Sadly, due to routine ante-natal scanning and the increased availability of abortions, together with recent advances in medical science and plastic surgery techniques, potential exhibits for human curiosity displays are becoming very scarce these days and, as a consequence, good old traditional freak shows are now few and far between. Nevertheless, various interfering busybodies claiming to represent the interests of cripples, spastics, invalids and other people with physical abnormalities have sought to deny the public the pleasure of gawping at deformed people by lobbying to have the last remaining freak shows banned on the basis that they contravene civil and human rights legislation. (1) Of course, these malicious and spiteful calls for the abolition of freak shows ignore the fact that these exhibitions are a rare and welcome diversion from the trials and tribulations of daily life in these dark days of economic austerity. Furthermore, freak shows provide valuable employment opportunities for deviants and mutants who might otherwise find it difficult to find a job and, in addition to this, the physically handicapped people in freak shows are often their keepers' only source of income. That's why I affirm that our much-loved, traditional freak shows should be preserved. Thank you. (1) http://dsq-sds.org...
Creation

Excuse ME But you cited nothing, you copied and pasted the entire thing. You didn't even give a source. How can you even try to defend your blatant plagiarism? Now, I will rebut your so called "arguments". First off, when I say that this argument has been refuted in court I mean that it has been disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you would like to look it up you're welcome to. Its the kitzmiller v dover trial. Imagine if the best minds on both sides, those for IC and those against, each tried to scientifically defend their side. That is what the court case was, and IC lost because it has absolutely no science behind it. Everything that is supposedly irreducibly complex is always found to not be so. Now onto the your percents of knowledge, the fact that you have even attempted to put an amount on knowledge held of a whole shows your idiocy, because the first thing you need for that is a reference amount for the entirety of knowledge. The second thing you need for is knowledge to actually be quantifiable. But the thing is, neither of those are possible because infinity exist's. And because infinity exist's that means that things can be infinite ,like pi. And since pi is infinite that makes knowledge infinite because pi is knowledge. But, I don't need the know everything to be sure that something doesn't exist. All I need is to know something that conflicts with the possibility of that thing. For instance: when it comes to the a tri-omni god like the Judeo Christian one, the problem of evil can be brought up. And after actually reading through most of your argument while writing out responses, upon further thought I should have read all of it first, I come to the conclusion that you are but a sad troll. bBecause who else would ask what the likely-hood is of coca-cola evolving.
Creation

Excuse me, but the fact is, it was not plagiarized. I properly cited it. It does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about, but sometimes other people can put things into words better than I can. So tell me one thing, you said it was disproven in court. How many times has a court been wrong about a murder trial? When it is the people deciding, it is not always the correct decision. Are you saying for sure that there is no God who created the earth? Because if you are, then let me ask you a question. Out of all the knowledge in the world, humans cannot know more than 5%. Now in all that 95% or so, how can you say for sure there is no God? The Bible says that even the demons believe there is a God, and they tremble. The God who exists created the earth, the heavens, and everything in the earth. Besides that, there is so much proof that the earth is NOT millions of years old. Take the Grand Canyon for instance. Evolutionists love to use that wonderful place as a place to prove that the earth is millions of years old. I beg to differ. In Washington State, when Mount Saint Helens blew up, it carved a canyon hundreds of feet deep in one day, now known as "the Little Grand Canyon." If a geologist was to go there without any idea of what happened there and saw the layers in the Little Grand Canyon, he would say that it was formed over millions of years because of the rock layers. The Grand Canyon is the same way. The Grand Canyon is just a larger version of the Little Grand Canyon. Another point. How likely is it that you could dump a box of 50 oranges out and have them land perfectly in 5 rows of 10 each? It is virtually impossible. Another question. What is the likelihood of Coca-Cola evolving? Impossible. I ask you now, why do you insist on random chance when nothing could have come about? Random mutations do not always produce good things. In order for anything to survive on random mutations, the mutations would have to be perfect and in quick succession. And where, may I ask you, are the missing links in between the modern fossils we know today? There aren't any. How can evolution explain all these gaps and missing links? The answer, they can't, they will just try to get around your question. In closing my final argument, I will just say this, there is no way our world could have evolved. Think about it, and I hope you will listen to what I say and at least consider it as a possibility, because the evidence is everywhere.
Creation

My opponent has plagiarised his entire argument from http://www.ucg.org... Regardless of that fact. The argument he is making, irreducible complexity, was disproven in court. And as such it is obviously an inviable refutation of evolution. It, also, is not an argument for creationism. So am I to assume my opponent cannot argue for creationism as he has not even attempted to do so, or does he have a working model of creation that conforms to reality which he can present? Preferably one of his own creation (pun intended) this time, rather then a stolen one.
Creation

Everywhere that people look, there is evidence of a divine Creator. For example, it is like a painting. If paint randomly fell from the sky, and evolution is based on "random chance," would it create a beautiful picture? Of course not! For instance, take DNA. In a college Biology class, I was told that the information held in a single DNA strand equaled over what 10,000 encyclopedias would have! There are many strands of DNA in a chromosome, and 46 chromosomes in the human body. How could something that contains that much information possibly have evolved? Also, in the case of evolving from the prehistoric "cavemen," the "missing links" have been proven hoaxes for the most part. One was built around what turned out to be a tooth from a dead pig. All these arguments for evolution were based not on fact, but assumptions. Even Darwin himself said that he could not fathom how the human eye could have evolved. People have tried to replicate eyes by putting water in between two pieces of glass, trying to simulate the evolutionary process, but they do not realize that THEY are the ones looking through it. The glass lens cannot see by itself. No matter what they do to it, they cannot create it so that it can see for itself and interpret for itself what it is seeing. Even now people are creating robots, but they are not half as complex as humans are. So I ask you, what are the chances of evolution? Reply if you would like to know more FACTS which defy evolution.