BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
fossil fuel

Unlike what my opponent argues, there are many alternatives to fossil fuel. fossil fuel is just a way to draw energy from the earth. some of these alternatives are Nuclear fusion geothermal energy wind and solar power Going back to my first alternative, nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a very effective way for one to create a mass amount of energy. The united states is a very complex nation so we must find a new and better alternative for our source of energy. an example of this complex method of drawing energy is as I mentioned earlier, Nuclear Fusion. Nuclear Fusion is generated through a Nuclear Reactor which does not contribute to any environmental plaque such as global warming, acid rain and air pollution. With our as knowledge of the composition of atomic structures, it would take us less than five years to create a nuclear fusion. The creation of Nuclear fusion will reduce the depiction rate of the ozone layer which Fossil fuels increase. If we keep on using this much amount of fossil fuel, we will end up like the citizens of Australia who are fused to were covered cloths and a face cap to protect them from the UV light which increase the chances and rate of skin cancer. One Nuclear reactor could power up half the united states meaning that we only need to make about two or three. We could find that not only will an alternative such as Nuclear Fusion be great for the environment but it will also meet our energy needs. Secondly we have geothermal energy which is basically a way to draw energy from the earth core. Surveys taken by utilities have found that homeowners using geothermal heat pumps rate them highly when compared to conventional systems. Figures indicate that more than 95 percent of all geothermal heat pump owners would recommend a similar system to their friends and family. No fuel is used to generate the power, which in return, means the running costs for the plants are very low as there are no costs for purchasing, transporting, or cleaning up of fuels you may consider purchasing to generate the power. this shows that geothermal energy is so much more effective than that of fossil fuel. lastly solar and wind power. In truth, many fossil and renewable energy sources ultimately come from solar energy. For all intents and purposes, this article refers to solar power as energy that is directly collected from the sun. Advantages: •Zero emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases •Easy to install •Virtually no energy costs once installed •The technology for solar power is constantly improving •Sunlight is widely available Wind Power This alternative energy resource makes use of wind turbines for the conversion of wind energy. Advantages: •No emissions, hence no greenhouse gas contributions •Though tall, wind turbines only require a small plot of land •The cost per watt is among the lowest of current energy options •Their ideal locations tend to be on farms and ranches, which is a benefit to rural economies we could find that all these alternative are both efficient and cost effective.
fossil fuel

in Australia the citizens have to wear a cap to protect them from the UV light in the sun due to the hole in the ozone layer layer located near the pacific. my first reason has to do with our environment and our ozone layer. an article from EFDA.org says that "fission fuel is made up of dead particles absorbed into the ground millions of years ago. if we keep on accumulating the amount of fossil we have left. by the year of 2020, we would have completely used all our fuel reserves oil spills, global warming, pollution, and war; these are the harsh effects of fossil fuels being used as an energy source. Not to mention the continuously increasing price of gasoline needed for transportation vehicles due to this limited resource. Everyday when you start your car and head off onto the road, you are little by little, deteriorating the ozone layer. This invisible shield is what protects us from the sun's harmful. fossil Fuels have been an ongoing issue for quite some time. I really hope my peers will open their eyes to what's going on around them and put some effort into protecting our future. All of us can make a huge difference. ultraviolet rays. We need to save our ozone in order to protect our families from health problems such as skin cancer and a climate issue known as global warming.
I should rule the world, and the world should respemble God's Glory.

In this debate, Pro obviously has taken the full burden of proof. Now, in their argument, they make many claims.Pro says, as a leader, he or she would be able to-be able to resolve Hunger be able to stabilize a fair and reasonable economy. be capable of maintaining the environments necessities and resolve the problems men had developed. be able to unify religions be able to unify state be able to unify peopleAlso, they claim that in order to be a good ruler, as Pro claims to be-There can be no conflicts between a Ruler and his people, or he does not rule over their hearts.Now, we can already see a problem here. First of all-A Ruler and a Leader are not the same thing.A ruler is someone who has forcibly placed themselves in charge of their subject. They do not derive legitimacy from the consent of the governed, but from their own force and aggression.On the other hand, a Leader would be someone who people choose to follow. This is important because without the consent of the people a leader is a tyrant.It is impossible for a Ruler to have no conflicts with his or her subjects.All humans think differently. An example of someone who you would be in conflict with if you ruled the world would be me. I already think that you would not be a good leader, and I also do not believe that the world should have one governing body. However, that is not the topic of this debate. It is relevant, however, to show that I am not in agreement with you. We are therefore, in conflict. You provide no plan, no proof, and no qualifications to get any of the things you can do done.You say you can unite religions. Ok, well where is the proof? We deserve at least a plan. How will you get radical Islam, fundamentalist evangelical Christians, and Orthodox Jews to unite into one religion?You say you can can "resolve Hunger". Ok, well how can you do that? How will your policies solve the problem of hunger? And, if you plan on redistributing wealth and resources, how to you plan on making state socialism work where in nearly every previous case it has failed?You say you can both stabilize and help the economy while semitone's protecting the environment, even fixing previous problems.Again, you fail to provide any evidence or plan to back up such claims.Voters, my opponent thinks they are fit to lead not only a nation, but the entire world, and we have no proof of why, or even an abstract plan of what he or she will do if put in such a position.
I should rule the world, and the world should respemble God's Glory.

The Ruler of the world would need to: be able to resolve Hunger be able to stabilize a fair and reasonable economy. be capable of maintaining the environments necessities and resolve the problems men had developed. be able to unify religions be able to unify state be able to unify people be able to develop new technological opportunities resolve social issues with transit, resolved depression A Ruler of a People is a Servant, and a tyrant is by no means a ruler. A ruler must be able to acknowledge the needs of his people; emotionally and physically. There can be no conflicts between a Ruler and his people, or he does not rule over their hearts. The only reason people contend with me is because the current government is seemingly in-displaceable, and the conflicts arise at My inability to displace it. However, I would also like to assert I am capable of usurping the government. That is not relevant. I as Ruler, am capable of fulfilling each of the listed credentials and believe no true credential to being a Ruler is beyond or outside of my primordial ambition to Rule. Can you think of why I would be unfit? Or, what else a Ruler must be competent enough to accomplish, in order to determine whether or not I am qualified.
I should rule the world, and the world should respemble God's Glory.

I am the guy who could happily say hail hitler. Racism, Nazism was aimed at stupid people, drunks, criminals and perverts. His movement as against Capitals Chrichhill and the Rebublucs of of European ancestry kings. I would like to suggest, and present it as a debate, that I should rule the world. because I can lead it, steer it and prepare it straight. Challenge me and you shall be defeated.
Animal have sentience, can feel pain, and can suffer.

well i would prefer to say that all the concepts and facts once were highly unlikely to think before they were posted. Remember even Copernicus concept of earthing revolving around sun was unlikely and the idea of all celestial bodies revolving rounding the sun was well accepted. That is why i said the assumptions may be true but until its proved regarding the brain images here again images obtained are similar not same to human brain images also these images doesn't prove that the response due to sentience they still can be the response to stimuli cause images shows only that how neuron worked in a certain situation not the fact neuron working this way as per the sensory nerves
Animal have sentience, can feel pain, and can suffer.

Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely. First due to the scientific method taking rigorous effort to make sure scientists are objective as possible and second due to brain imagining technology. [1] We literally can see inside an animal's brain. We can see the neural transmitters. [2] 1. http://www.wired.com... 2. http://www.ninds.nih.gov...
Animal have sentience, can feel pain, and can suffer.

According to the link posted above give the evidences animals can surely have sentience, and they can feel pain and can suffer but its not a proven fact that they have sentience. Also its not that they have similar sentience just like humans neither is there response to it there is a possibility of respond to stimuli as well just like plants response to sunlight and gravity in similar way animals response to certain situations which is just a stimuli which is being misinterpreted as there proof of sentience
Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations

Since my opponent has failed to Provide any definitions allow me too: Failed State: A dysfunctional state which also has multiple competing political factions in conflict within its borders or has no functioning governance Stable Nations: The name of the band I was apart of during high school; I was the drummer. We decided to break up only 2 months after we started the band due to hostility between the main singer and the guitarist. Seeing as the band I was apart of is no longer together it cant possibly pose a threat to the United States of America.
Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations

Again, thank you for agreeing to this debate. Judges ready? Opponent ready? To refute my opponent's only contention, "You lose". This is nothing more than a presumptious declaritive statement at best, and more of a lackluster performance at worst, depending on how one defines lose. I would also like to point out that since this is a complete, two word sentence, it did not end with a period. Once again, I have better grammar, which is one of the voting criteria. I will reiterate my strongest contention, a failed state lacks the leadership and the resources to be a significant threat to the United States. A stable nation is just that, stable. A failed nation is just that, failed. Allow me to define the word greater from the resolution. greater in size or importance or degree; "for the greater good of the community"; "the greater Antilles" wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Comparative form of great: more great; Used in referring to a region or place together with the surrounding area; (of a city) metropolitan en.wiktionary.org/wiki/greater Since failed states lack the leadership and resources, they are NOT the greater threat. Stable nations are clearly in a much better posture to pose a more serious, or greater, threat then failed nations. In conclusion, I feel that I have presented the stronger argument and am deserving of your votes. Further, I have presented my case enthusiastically while my opponent has been flippant and apathetic. Since my opponent has not challenged anything I have presented, we can only assume that he/she agrees. My case and positions are valid, and they are undisputed. Vote CON/NEG. Thank you.
Religious theories should not be taught in science class

The universe is a stunning and beautiful place, and immensely complex. And in many ways it looks like it could have been designed. But the simple fact is over the course of millions of years organisms have evolved and adapted through natural selection and genetic mutations to fit their habitat. The complexity exhibited by the world happened at a very slow pace, building in complexity over time. As to respond to the charge of randomness in the universe, the cosmological constants that allow matter to be formed were random. As well as the placement of earth from the sun etc. Its luck that they are conducive to life and consciousness. Furthermore, you cannot explain the complexity of the universe by stating "something more complex designed it". This forces you to explain the designer. Fundamentally, what are they? Were they themselves designed? What are their limits? I still submit that religious beliefs have no scientific backing and should remain in other fields to explain the origins of the universe.
School lunches should be more nutriotinal

(for the other round) 1) http://www.psfk.com... 2) http://kidshealth.org... (this round) According to School Health Policies and Programs study in 2006, 11.7 percent of elementary schools, 19 percent of middle schools, and 23.5 percent of high schools included meals from fast food restaurants. Learning information depletes the brain's supply of glucose, according to Scholastic.com. Therefore, it is important to refuel children's glucose supplies with a healthy lunch. A healthy lunch can give children the energy they need to stay focused, pay attention in class, and learn the information presented to them in their classes after lunchtime. A person's eating habits are typically acquired during his childhood, according to The Dairy Council. Therefore, healthier nutritional choices throughout children's entire lifetimes. By making healthy school lunches the norm as opposed to the exception, children will inadvertently learn about nutrition and healthy eating. The reverse is also true. School lunches that provide more calories than a child needs to maintain his body weight can lead to weight gain and obesity. This not only can compromise the child's health, but also lead to health problems as an adult. According to Colorado State University, children who are overweight have increased risks of developing health problems, including diabetes and hypertension, and becoming obese adults. Healthy lunches with proper portions can help support a healthy life. Teenagers who eat fast food frequently consume more fat and calories and fewer essential nutrients, including calcium, vitamin A, and vitamin C, than their counterparts, according to The Dairy Council. Lunch is supposed to supply a child with about one-third of his total daily calories, according to Scholastic.com. Therefore, it is important to ensure that lunch is a well-balanced meal to ensure that your child receives good nutrition. 1) http://healthyeating.sfgate.com... Thank You.
School lunches should be more nutriotinal

I'll start off with my constructive then address my opponents argument. I negate the resolution "School lunches should be more nutritional" based on overwhelming evidence that making school lunches more nutritional is not effective in terms of feeding the kids, and it is not economically viable.. Making school lunches more nutritional is not effective in feeding children: The National School Lunch Program was implemented in the USA as part of the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010". This program has been a colossal failure. According to newsmax- "kids aren't eating the healthier food and are often left hungry, which has actually become a hindrance to learning." Assistant superintendent Chris Abdoo said "The staff worked hard to implement the new regulations, but there were just too many problems and too many foods that students did not like and would not purchase'...'Students complained of being hungry with these lunches" about the program. The Government Accountability Office also reports that schools were forced to substitute ranch dressing and ice cream in order to meet the minimum amount of calories required by the program without surpassing the maximum amount of grains and meat. The kids simply don't enjoy these healthier options leading to more wasted food, and less kids eating. The program itself also results in the unintended consequence of forcing schools to feed students less healthy food. Making school lunches is not viable economically: The National School Lunch Program cost the Federal Government 11 billion dollars. The program not only costs the Feds money, it loses money for the schools themselves. New York"s Burnt-Hills-Ballston Lake school district opted out of the NSL Program after losing over $100,000 dollars in three months. Schools in Carmel Clay, Indiana, have also dropped the program. They lost $300,000 attempting to implement the program only to find that students were rejecting it. According to a USDA fact sheet, 81.7 percent of meals in 2011 were given as a free or reduced lunch. The program simply cannot support this percentage of children who pay very little back into the system while simultaneously opting for more expensive options required by a more nutritional lunch. [1] http://www.thenewamerican.com... [2] http://www.fns.usda.gov... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... Now on to address my opponents points: "I heard that PRISON lunches are more nutritional than school lunches. Shouldn't children be getting more nutrition than jailers?" My opponent did not provide a source, and is not a reliable source for information. Children should be getting more nutrition than prisoners, but as I have shown, government mandates are not the solution. "If children don't have really good nutrition, they have a higher possibility of getting very sick and maybe even death." My opponent again provides no source, and more importantly, no evidence of children ever getting sick or dying as a direct result of insufficient nutrition in school lunches.
The (overall) policies of President Obama have failed

first, let me give you some info about Obama care. After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, Obama signed the Affordable Care Act (2010) or(Obama care) that as a result, Tens of millions of uninsured will get access to affordable quality health insurance through the marketplace, Over half of uninsured Americans can get free or low cost health insurance using their State's Health Insurance Marketplace, Small businesses can get tax credits for up to 50% of their employees health insurance premium costs. It will also, cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth. Second, your baseless claim that Obama didn't do anything to stop the deficit, totally wrong.1.He Passed the Stimulus 2.Passed Wall Street Reform3.Ended the War in Iraq and afghanistan4.Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry.5 Recapitalized Banks6.Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program s:washimonthly
The (overall) policies of President Obama have failed

Source for previous argument regarding $1.8 Trillion dollars added to govt. expenditures. And no I am not a fortune teller unfortunately: YouTube video: "Obamacare Deconstructed" http://www.youtube.com... First, of course he doesn't deserve full blame. But he did not do anything to alleviate the debt crisis. Furthermore, he consistently recommended that we raise the debt ceiling instead of doing SOMETHING to fix the debt crisis. Second, you are correct to say the economy was doing terribly when Obama was elected, but he had the democratic majority in Congress during his first term to help pass legislation that would have aided the American people. Instead, he passed Obamacare, which as I stated before, will add more to the deficit. Third, now that we are talking about Obamacare, I noticed that you did not address the fact that many people are being dropped by their insurance and premiums have skyrocketed in many states due to Obamacare.
The (overall) policies of President Obama have failed

firstly, Obama doesn"t deserve full "blame" for the debt growth on his watch, since about two-thirds of the annual deficit during his term has been from entitlements and interest. Entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, are less susceptible to a president"s policy preferences than discretionary spending that Congress must approve on an annual basis. Entitlements are also more heavily driven by demographic factors, such as the aging of the population, which is also out of any president"s control. Meanwhile, a sizable share of the interest being paid today is paying off debts accumulated under previous presidents. secondly, when Obama took office, the economy was already on a free-fall , and large amounts of debt was already being accumulated every day because of previous administration missteps. Thirdly, are you a fortune teller? How do you know that Obama care will result 1.8 trillion dollars over the next decade? source: www.politicfact.com. previous post was general fact.
The (overall) policies of President Obama have failed

Hello there, thanks for responding. First, I see no sources. Instead I see baseless praises: Let me start with this: "Obama did not inherit the economy. He campaigned for it, asked for it, and promised to fix it." That does not need a source because it is widely documented and true. So it immediately weakens your argument that he was "fixing Bush's mistakes." If you want to counter this, I will oblige and go into further detail. President Obama: 1. Added around $6 Trillion dollars to the debt during his first term. (In comparison, Bush added $4 Trillion TOTAL for both his terms). 2. By championing the passage of the PPACA (Obamacare), government expenditures will INCREASE by at least $1.8 Trillion dollars over the next decade. Obamacare has actually INCREASED premiums of many people in different states, and has benefited very few people. Sources: 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... 2. http://www.youtube.com...
The (overall) policies of President Obama have failed

Obama has been a great president that's far The United States. However he sacrificed most of his term fixing George's w bush' mistakes. His policy in middle east of ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing troops from Afghanistan saved a lot American lives and budgets he also helped Lybia free itself form its dictator ruler, and eased the rising tension in Egypt. His health care policy, provided low income Americans with affordable Medicare through Obama care. His policy on terrorism has been very productive. He killed Osama bin laden and decimated al-Quads core leadership. He wants to pursue more in his efforts to fight terrorism but is constrained by both the republican and democratic parties and congress. His policy on economic investment has also been very positive. He promoted clean energy investment like never before. He also gave tax relief to middle income Americans and increased wages for the retirees. The current economical downturn is because of missteps of previous ruler.