BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civlization

In paragraph 1 my opponent states that it is irrelevant that civilization will destroy the earth because eventually the sun will die in 5 billion years which is longer than all of human history and the dinosaurs. Though the point is that civilization (if it's not intercepted) will destroy humans and non-humans much faster than any star will. Next in paragraph 2 he tries to argue that there is some sort of community in debate. org. I mean seriously all it is strangers who want to try to debate strangers over the internet and know nothing about each other accept debate. We aren't even seeing and actually talking participating, and working together. This isn't a community. I am sure the Kalahari Bushmen and so many other hunter gatherer societies have much more community. I am talking about the quality of the social interaction, people who you spend time up with and build friendships and strong connections. Sure if I want to go to omegle. com and talk to strangers that's fine but ultimately I think it should be quality of quantity. Also isn't all this socialization being on a dull flickering computer monitor, also because the internet so damn anomous people can act like complete jerks (especially in mmorpgs's! !! !). The last paragraph my opponent claims that not all civilization is based on hierarchy. But this is ignoring how civilization emerged and what is fundamental in all civilization which is domestication, division of labor, private property, the state and private entities, and social stratification. I would highly recommend John Zerzan as a great writer and activist who has theorized alot on how civilization started. "Further more if it was about domination their would only be about 10 countries in the world" Well states have increased over history the amount of territory and control over the populous throughout history. Furthermore it is about domination and power and remember not all acts of maintaining power require the survival of one state over all others. They function as territorial monopolies which cooperate with each other once they are large enough. For example the US, Britain, Russia, etc. cooperate together but plunder over smaller states which have areas which profitable resources in the market such as oil from Iraq. My opponent mindlessly follows the stereotypical dogma of this culture and those in power, and fears to actually question the system civilization which enslaves him, me and the earth.
Civlization

My opponent contends civilization leads to global destruction and depletion of resources. However, look closely at the dinosaurs. I believe my opponent would agree they did not have a society and yet they all managed to die out of natural causes; further more it has been theorized that the sun will eventually expand and swallow up the earth or that another asteroid may come and kill us. Thus it is clear to see with or without civilization the world will eventually be blown up and thus my opponent gains no ground with that argument as it is not a negative associated only with civilization. My opponent claims that civilization is creating a society of strangers and absence of communities. To refute this I will merely ask you, humble voter, go to that "forums" tab at the top of your screen. Do you instantly come to a buzzing chat forum where people are taking? Thus its it safe to assume their are communities? Further more I am capable of referring to all my friends and teachers by name and thus we are not a society of strangers. Hence my opponent's argument is not true in reality and thus do not look to it voter. The "communication technologies" have actually made it possible for us to have this debate. Were it not for them we would not be able to argue this topic at all. Further more you have social interactions such as Myspace, and Facebook, and further more people are even dating online and finding true love. Thus again my opponent's arguments are based on flawed logic. The idea that Civilization is a social construct I agree with; however I merely reference Communism and you see that not ALL civilization is based on hierarchy and my opponent must argue in regards to ALL civilization. Further more if it was about domination their would only be about 10 countries in the world; however look at any map and you clearly see marked borders with countries respecting the sovereignty other nations. Thus ignore my opponent's argument here as you clearly see countries are not solely based on domination. My opponent offers you no other flaws in civilization, and all his current arguments I have proved to be false or irrelevant. Thus you can clearly affirm the idea of Civilization, vote Pro. Thank you.
correcting accordingly=skill

but remember, if you dont reach the understanding you can surely not be conok, i throw a ball against a wall, and this particular wall has a big hole in it that leads to a big pit of lava, and there is a wall besides it without a hole in it, and everytime i get a new ball the first thing i want to do is throw the ball into a wall and have it bounce back into my hand, but i go throw it into the wall with a hole in it... everytime never not hitting the holei wonder, will i be a professional baseball player when i grow up? or perhaps spend my life as a debating failure trying to defeat The vi spex .. heheheheh
correcting accordingly=skill

i can imagine a vision in my mind as a ball in my hand i can see things in, but i can not see through the vision into reality, so to see the real i use my eyes it has to sound good for me to evolve, so doing every single thing right is the key, it all has to sound right togeather, before i put the next thing in or else it will sound wrong and i will not learn until i correct that thing.. like trying to put the roof on a house but there is a lack of support
Why god is coming back

God is coming back, because if you read in the bible about the end times, a lot have came true. End Time Sign - VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL IMMORALITY Luke 17:28-30 ...'Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.' Genesis 6:13 tells us that in Noah's day the "earth was filled with violence." And in Jude 1:7 it says that in Lot's day, Sodom and Gomorrha had given itself over to "fornication and strange flesh". "2014 was a catastrophic year for millions caught up in violence." 2015 - MURDER RATES RISE SHARPLY IN MANY US CITIES not only does violence and fornication rage across the whole world, homosexuality has become a "norm". There are currently 110 MILLION Cases of sexually transmitted diseases with 20 MILLION new cases every year in America alone!
Why god is coming back

Lol at the comments. "the bible isn't a valid source'. Its the truth. But I know these so called "atheist" aren't going to believe this and get offended. I have a question though. You guys say he isn't real but get offended, How do you get offended by something that isn't real to you? ' you're forcing your religion on us', lol no we can literally say one thing and you get butt hurt. anyway back to the original subject. Why god is coming back? Just take a look around. Read the bible about the end time signs and see how many have already happened. Oh wait its not a "valid source". It is and it probably just has something in it, you've done and no its wrong and get butt hurt. Here's a source. I suggest you take a look at it, but that's a suggestion. http://www.signs-of-end-times.com... and my opponent though, can't even make sense.
Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars

Alright, I will being with rebuttals in this round. "Arranging an establishment which reduces the amount of automobiles driving per day can also be a resolution to air pollution. Since 2006, the Republic of South Korea has been using a program in which provides benefits to those who decide to participate. The License Plate Rating System restricts individual vehicle drivers for a day of their chose, from driving. Researchers estimate that if 100 cars apply to this system, 10% of traffic is reduced and 43,336,439.89 dollars of fuel, which lowers the air pollution levels. In addition, dust due to the friction of tires can decrease up to 10% a year and the measure of exhaust gas can be deducted more than 93% which can save up to 30,754,892.82 dollars. If such programs similar to this are used throughout the world, air pollution can be decreased, as well as numerous extents of saved money which can be used to develop technology to make greener vehicles." Since no sources were provided, I'm assuming you made all this information up. Either that, or you plagiarized. Either way, this entire argument is invalid. "One of the main global challenged the world faces today is the question of how to solve air and noise pollution without damaging the economy." I suppose it's possible you are not in America, however I can assure that this is not todays biggest problem. There are a ray of other problems, and this unfortunately does not chart. "Extensive public transportation can bring side effects such as traffic jams and accidents. Rather than completely ban and destroy the invention of individual cars, a better solution for this problem would be to remodel the trains, buses, and cars to become environmentally friendly" I'll start of by saying that if there are no combustion engine vehicles are on the roads, then there will be slim to no traffic. Actually dramatically lowering the amount of traffic, as well as the relevancy of your argument. Like I also stated earlier, I am looking for those remodels, this would be the part about "excessive public transportation". "A resolution of city pollution is a problem that needs a great deal of considering before the determining the best answer, which is not the banning of passenger cars, but should be a new idea that can both benefit the environment and the majority of people." Here, you basically agree with my argument, and then turn against it. I said, to protect the environment, only hybrid/electric cars should be driven. Which you have agreed with. Now that we are using green technology, there is nothing left to debate. Every vehicle that hopes to be street legal better be eco friendly. Otherwise, it ought not to be allowed on city roads. This of course, should only apply to a time which would be far, far in the future, when every problem is worked out, and public transportation would be a preferred method of travel by people anyways. Thank you, I am finished.
Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars

Arranging an establishment which reduces the amount of automobiles driving per day can also be a resolution to air pollution. Since 2006, the Republic of South Korea has been using a program in which provides benefits to those who decide to participate. The License Plate Rating System restricts individual vehicle drivers for a day of their chose, from driving. Researchers estimate that if 100 cars apply to this system, 10% of traffic is reduced and 43,336,439.89 dollars of fuel, which lowers the air pollution levels. In addition, dust due to the friction of tires can decrease up to 10% a year and the measure of exhaust gas can be deducted more than 93% which can save up to 30,754,892.82 dollars. If such programs similar to this are used throughout the world, air pollution can be decreased, as well as numerous extents of saved money which can be used to develop technology to make greener vehicles. One of the main global challenged the world faces today is the question of how to solve air and noise pollution without damaging the economy. Extensive public transportation can bring side effects such as traffic jams and accidents. Rather than completely ban and destroy the invention of individual cars, a better solution for this problem would be to remodel the trains, buses, and cars to become environmentally friendly. Several systems have recently been formed to reduce the amount of cars driving per day. Thus, it is evidentially proved that there are superior solutions to air and noise pollution without the consequences that the banning of individual vehicles would excite. A resolution of city pollution is a problem that needs a great deal of considering before the determining the best answer, which is not the banning of passenger cars, but should be a new idea that can both benefit the environment and the majority of people.
Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars

Thank you for your ideas. As to my opponents argument, the suggestion of public transportation came up, but my opponent thinks that the transportation should be free. But if so, who would want to drive the public transportation vehicles? In addition, my opponent brought up the idea of hybrid cars, and I agree. I think that cities with extensive public transportation systems should not ban passenger cars, and replace them with hybrid cars instead of banishing the whole idea of individual cars; therefore, I think that this idea is a supporting detail in my side of the argument. This is one of my other ideas. It is against justice to force people to move by certain ways. People have the right to decide their ways of transportation. Some simply cannot afford to ride a taxi or bus every single day, depending on how much money they earn from the jobs in which they work in. There are people who have jobs much farther away than where they live. Furthermore, there are disabled people who have trouble walking long distances. More importantly, if a majority of people use public transportation, it would mean extra production of buses and trains in order to prevent from carrying overcrowded people in one station. Forcing people to participate in an act against their will does not bring flawless success. There is bound to be people who suffer from the changes. Banning passenger cars may bring up severe issues of human rights and still leaves the problem of air and noise pollution from abundant transportation vehicles. Thank you so much for this debate!
Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars

Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! I'd like to begin by sharing my ideas. Now, I'm going to shape a mental image in your head, that will ultimately give you an understanding of my argument. Lets being. Under my argument, a city that has extensive public transportation does not yet exist. Extensive public transportation would have to provide an easy way to where ever you want to go, when ever you want to go. it has to be cheaper than the regular price of fuel, or free, and it must be appealing. (Ex. clean, Air conditioning, etc). Next, I had google define car for me, and this is what I will present as the definition of car: "a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people." Under this definition, vehicles with out a combustion engine would be okay. therefore, electric cars would work. Next, as the demand for cars with combustion engines decrease, so would the amount that car companies produce. If they want to make sales, they would have to build cars that are up to code, that are also affordable. Thereby not destroying innovation, but perhaps expanding it's reach to new market. Innovation at it's finest- Capitalism. Now back to transportation. Perhaps not that the government has stopped spending tax dollars on car related crimes, and other car related expenses, they could send in a fraction of the millions saved to fund a hybrid-taxi system. You can call a car whenever you want, and since the price you are paying for the service is not modified by the price of fuel, it will be much lower. Thanks, I am finished.
Cities with extensive public transportation systems should ban passenger cars

Air and noise pollution has become common in many cities. Thus, pollution has become a number one priority needing a solution. It is said that the pollution is due to the endless amounts of cars, and some people have suggested the banning individual cars. Although the idea is tempting, it is not a conclusion that all people are looking forward to. There are people who have jobs much farther away than where they live. Some cannot afford to ride a taxi or train every single day. No individual should or have the right to force anyone to make their daily travels in a certain type of transportation. There are other ways that resolve the pollution without the inconvenience of banning passenger cars. Air and noise pollution can be settled by the advancing technology of automobiles. There is technology to help create greener transportation without completely destroying the invention of individual cars. There are hybrid cars which do not fuel off of so much gas. Also, there is a high chance that inventors will later create a much greener public transportation just like hybrids that will not pollute the air we breathe. Already, cars running on energy have been invented and are slowly becoming popular. Energy charge stations are also becoming a common site. Rather than replacing individual cars with public transportation, providing cars that do not as much pollute the air can be a solution that does not cause difficulties and is authorized to improve the pollution stasis.
People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

The game had a huge impact on history. Number of people killed in World War Two: tens of millions of people. . http://www.secondworldwarhistory.com... Economic Cost of WWII: 288 billion dollars (1940 money) . http://historical.whatitcosts.com... Not to mention the war resulted in the Empire of Japan losing most of its Pacific territory, the United States gained a ton of Pacific Islands, the Soviet Union took over much of Western Europe and caused the Cold War, Germany and Japan were occupied by the Allies, and the Nation of Israel was established as a homeland for the Jews. World War 2 had a monumental impact on human history. It cannot be considered null. Neither can countless other "games" played throughout human history. However, even if it was all null, my opponent has not proven in any manner, shape, form, or fashion that this is a result of people on Debate. org doing debates only to enjoy themselves. Also, I proved that not everyone on this Site is here to enjoy themselves, as there are people on this Site for other purposes, such as finding help for school papers/essays. My opponent has not upheld his Burden of Proof in any way.
People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

Having a harmful impact is not having a harmful value because "I said so". Sorry, but your argument is just horrid and full of "me's". There's a difference between the war, itself, making an impact - and the consequences of the war causing issues, which in themselves are an impact unrelated to the war. Whether you like it or not, they failed because their intentions had no impact on the face of reality - they were mad man who lost the game.
People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

In a feeble attempt to make up for his wasted previous rounds, my opponent made the claim that negative impact is the same thing as null. Definition of Null: http://i.word.com... Having no value Having a harmful value is still having a value. Therefore, it is not null. Oh, and by the way, my opponent said that the impact (of what?) was the equivalent of a mouse farting on the moon. WWII, a war which was certainly considered a game by its instigators (Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Hideki Tojo, etc) had a huge impact on history. And World War II certainly had more of an impact on the universe than a mouse farting on the moon! The last round draws near; the grand finale is at hand.
People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

I said "negatively", which means you saying it had an "impact" means nothing when it's equivalent to a mouse farting on the dark side of the moon - but there's mouse on the moon to begin with. Saying things does not evaluate its existence. You already lost by saying "impact", when I just told you that there is no "impact", because it was negative. Having a negative impact means it's null. Do you not understand this? If someone had a negative impact on my life, I did not learn anything - I did not become anything; what did I go through? A loop. A loop is not progress, therefore you have failed to prove that a game is at all not null. So far, you have provided nothing except your own misunderstanding of what makes an "impact" and what it means when there's a negative impact, because I assure you that if your bank account has a negative impact on your finances, you're not going to be anything but null.
People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

Stop using definitions. Why can't you just understand words and their context. I have zero problems understanding what people are inferring - you waste so much time regurgitating this nonsense. Do you even know how to discuss? No, you don't, or you wouldn't be resorting to such opaque shenanigans. So if I can understand people without using definition, I guess I am a better communicator, thus I will always discuss better than you ever will, am I right? Games had one huge impact - that was on our potential and integrity, negatively. You cannot say they are great, when every country contains a ruler that does nothing and is followed by nobodies. The title is generalizing everyone into whomever fits the description. Just stop debating. You don't understand context, definition or how to communicate. You're colloquially illiterate - you're not even talking like a human. You talk like a rabid monkey that wants to win like they're going to get a female monkey to have sex with or something. Just stop being so inconsiderate towards ideas and the true beauty of being honest with yourself and focusing on the world's image more than your own image. Who cares if people give you a hard time when you say what they don't want to hear - that's life in a nutshell. People live in all that gives them comfort - the truth is harsh, therefore people do not live in truth. Prove me wrong.
People on this site cannot debate, because they think it's a game, therefore all actions are null.

Aerogant's argument relies upon one vital assumption: that playing a game is "doing nothing". But what is a game? http://i.word.com... A game, according to the definition that I have provided, is an activity that is done for amusement, fun. An activity which is done to provide pleasure or satisfaction. Is not a large percentage of actions that humanity has strived torward a game, by the definition of the word? I mean, why do people build large brick houses instead of living in a small mud hut? Well, that's because the brick home is more comfortable, frankly. It provides more pleasure (or filters out unpleasantness). Why do people buy couches? It's because couches are comfortable. That is, they provide pleasure. Why does anyone buy more food than they need to survive? Why does anyone do anything pleasurable? In a sense, it is a game. Why are wars waged? Often, it's because to someone in power that war is the ultimate game. Games are not useless or "null." Games have had a huge impact on human history. In fact, here is something called the Great Game: http://www.answers.com... Now, let's just assume for a moment that games truly are "null." In this case, Aerogant still has to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that all the people on this Site consider Debating to be a fun activity? What if someone needed to use Debate.org to help them write a paper for school, or some other purpose? My opponent must prove that this has never been the case. But just to further drive my nail into Aerogant's coffin... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I await my opponent's response.