BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no way to even ballpark what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2 gases.

My opponent claims that we can not determine to any accuracy the effect of CO2 on our current period of global warming. However, this is blatantly false. First, we can at least make a good estimate based on tests in a lab. We know from such tests that CO2 absorbs a certain amount of energy from the infrared spectrum. We know that the radiation coming down on earth from the sun is mostly in the form of UV and Visible light. We also know that the radiation that comes off the earth towards space is mostly in the form of infrared. Here is a visual aid: http://en.wikipedia.org... On the top graph there, we see that the upgoing thermal radiation, that is to say, heat that would otherwise escape, is largely absorbed. We can also see from this graph that CO2 absorbs radiation with wavelengths ~10-20 micrometers very well, and that this wavelength range is indeed included in the upgoing thermal radiation. It's also true that the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 are absorbed by water vapor as well, but as we can see from that same graph, water vapor only absorbs roughly half of the radiation on this wavelength [reperesented by the halfish-height in that area for the water vapor graph]. So that should at least establish that it can be figured out at least ROUGHLY how much warming CO2 is causing [which is all I'm charged with doing]. However, I will bring more points. Here is another graph. http://en.wikipedia.org... The blue and green lines are the most important ones here. Green is CO2 levels, Blue is temperature. This is for the last 400,000 years [the data is from ice cores]. Notice anything strange? How about the VERY close correlation between the two? Just another information source from which we can at least make a good estimate of the effect of CO2 on global temperature change. Hopefully that is enough for you. We can make good estimates on how much gloabl warming is caused by CO2 based on what wavelengths of radiation it absorbs, what other substances absorb those same wavelengths, and the amount of energy at those wavelengths present in upgoing thermal radiation.
There is no way to even ballpark what percentage of global warming is caused by CO2 gases.

Most global warming fans will admit that CO2 (both natural and man-made) is just one of the many factors that contribute to global warming, both present and past. Most will also admit that long before cars and factories came about, wild temperature swings in both directions occurred under relatively stable CO2 levels. Additionally, most will admit there is no reason to believe these natural (non-CO2) factors are not contributing to the current warming trend. If this is the case, the percentage of warming caused by CO2 gases (in comparison to other natural factors in play) is entirely unknowable. We are only sure that CO2 (man-made or otherwise) is responsible for somewhere between 0 and 100 percent of the current warming trend.
Field Trips Should Not be Allowed

First I think a definition for field trip should be provided; it is "a trip, usually in a group and especially by students, to a place of special interest for education, research or exploration; a trip into the field." [1] I also think it's necessary to distinguish between the three main cores of modern educational curriculum (of the United States): 1) Lectures This isn't just limited to a teachers speaking and students listening. It can be anything from powerpoints to guided readings. Essentially, it boils down to information provided to the students, no matter the method. 2) Worksheets 3) Group Activity All three of these are exclusive of a classroom setting, and may not effectively attain the interests of students. Whereas, with field trips, unlike the theoretic of the three cores, it has the ability to show any individual students (or a class as a whole) that there are real world applications to many of the things taught in classrooms, depending on the subject in question. There's almost always an equivalent; for most subjects there's generally some sort of museum that holds relevance to it (art, art museums; history, historical museums/monuments that hold historical bearing). However, there's also a few more specialized areas of interest. For example, a Government & Economics course could hold a field trip at a local government office or a bank. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org...
Catholicism is a positive force in the world.

my opponent has placed 2 points:1] catholics started education that tries to establish religion with rationality. but there other religion which have their own education system. examples: for islam there are madrassas, for hindus there are pathsalas, for buddhists there are sangharam etc.2] worldwide charitable work is done by catholics. but charitable works are done by hindus, muslims and even humanists. example: bharat sevasram sangha is a premiere hindu charitable institution, muslims do charitable works also ( al mizan charitable trust, sultan charity.org etc.)etc. my opponent did not visit india or china or south east asia. if he did, he will find many charitable institution run by other religions too.https://www.google.co.in...so these 2 points don't make catholics any greter than non catholics.here are some catholic charitable work:1] catholics did the biggest witch hunt in human history in middle age. 2] catholics did crusades that take millions of lives.3] vatican used to molest child and women in modern age.4] there are vatican bank 3 million euro fraud.5] there are numerous scams done by catholic church.(https://www.google.co.in...)therefore catholicism is not a positive force.
Catholicism is a positive force in the world.

In this round, I will explain why Catholicism has benefited the world. Education is at a high standard in the world partly due to Catholicism, who were one of the first main religions to place a large emphasis on reason and science over superstition and blind faith. The works of St. Thomas Aquinas exemplify this paradigm shift and led to the creation of schools simply because Natural Law (the ethical framework of the Catholic Church) values education as intrinsically valuable and not simply the prerogative of the rich. Catholic schools generally provide a very high standard of education, balancing science with spirituality to develop balanced, thoughtful and virtuous young people. Some of the most distinguished universities, such as Cambridge and Oxford and Paris, were created by Catholics (1). Moreover, the majority of hospitals in Europe were set up by Catholics or other Christians (2), largely because of the healer aspect of Jesus and their consequent desire to emulate him. The catholic faith has also inspired people to do world-changing good acts. Mother Teresa, St John Bosco, St Francis of Assisi and Oscar Romero are all examples of people who have revolutionised society or become archetypes of altruism using their religion. The Church also encourages people to care for the poor and marginalised in society, and created a place of refuge for the needy and repressed. It is no surprise that churches worldwide run food banks and homeless shelters. The Catholic Church and other Catholic organisations combined make up the largest charitable organisation in the world (3). I went to Africa last Summer and the vast majority of charitable endeavours I saw were by Catholic Organisations. In short, this immeasurably good work is because of the Catholic Church. As a side point, I know it's not that valid as an argument but I think that it is relevant that I mention that the kindest people I know are Catholics. I truly believe the Catholic Church and its teaching cultivates compassion, love and humility in people who choose to follow her. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.buildinghistory.org... (3) http://www.creativeminorityreport.com...
the purpose of LIFE

What is the Purpose of Life? A 9spaceking perspectiveBy 9spacekingExperience KingWeek4/22/2014Debate Dot OrgTopic: weird speechDear debaters of DDO, I greet you with the greeting words of paradise, everything is awesome! ! May the Peace and Mercy and Blessings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you! Now, what the hay is my opponent doing? I'm not 100 percent sure. After he asks a gazillion random questions, he randomly talks about Allah for ten hours then talks about time and space to confuse us. Everyone, this is just a noob trolling. He posts a complex question concerning life, and while we know the answer is 42, my opponent has posted irrelevant and confusing information. But do not worry, everyone! I will tell you all what he means. My opponent hopes that the 25 instigator point advantage and the 25 point contender disadvantage will discourage any amazing debaters from debating this topic, and upon the added dazzling and craziness of his speech, no one dared. .. .. until one challenger stepped up known as 9spaceking! Do not worry, my elo is low enough so that I won't loose too much. The formula is D=100*(W+9L)/10W. If I win, D=100*(2,065+18000)/20650 D=97.16707021791767554479418886198597-25=72. As you can see, the instigator's plan has failed! And because his speech was irrelevant to his topic, he has lost!
why we should not have zoos

I believe that we should ban zoos because they do a lot of harm. First of all it is a lot of money to care for all the animals. The zoo has to pay for its new habitat, the food and water and they need medical care sometimes as well. It is hard to pay for that so then the animals wont be getting what they need because the zoo cant afford it. Second of all the animals Cant learn to hunt, the food is just set in front of them. If animals are born into the zoo they have know experience with the outdoor world. Finally they cant protect themselves. Again because they have never had to deal with problems like that. THat is why I believe we should not have zoos!
Children should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.

Pro says “I would argue that…, knowing that they are able to get away with it means that they are in fact capable of reasoned thinking. ” I did not argue that children are not capable of any reasoned thinking… if that were the case I would not have agreed with the idea of stricter punishments. Rather, they have in comparison diminished and undeveloped ability to think rational as adults. This is why adults should be tried more strictly, as they have greater control of their actions and greater knowledge of the consequences of their actions. Pro says “Children are capable of reasoned thinking due to the fact that they know they will not get the max punishment so they commit the crime anyway. Trying children as adults would deter them from committing the crime in the first place. ” Not to be redundant but trying children as adults would not deter them from committing the crime. Tougher punishments might. Tougher punishments can be implemented while still acknowledging that children are children and not adults. Conclusion: Children are not mentally as capable as adults. This is due to the PFC not being fully developed. Thus children are less capable of reasoned thinking, making choices between right and wrong, predicting outcomes, good judgment, regulating behavior, or inhibiting inappropriate behavior. Due to this difference between children and adults, Children should NOT be tried as adults for heinous crimes. The resolution is negated.
Children should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.

Con says, "Knowing that you can get away with something does not change the fact that children are less capable of reasoned thinking, making choices between right and wrong, predicting outcomes, good judgment, regulating behavior, or inhibiting inappropriate behavior." I would argue that this mean the exact opposite, knowing that they are able to get away with it means that they are in fact capable of reasoned thinking. Children are capable of reasoned thinking due to the fact that they know they will not get the max punishment so they commit the crime anyway. Trying children as adults would deter them from committing the crime in the first place. If they know they will be tried as an adult then they will reconsider their thinking because they don't want to face an adult crime.
Children should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.

Rebuttals: Pro says “Some youths are even known to commit crimes without thought because they know they cannot be tried as adults." Concluding that… “Clearly these kids know exactly what they are doing and they know they know that they can basically get away with it.” Knowing that you can get away with something does not change the fact that children are less capable of reasoned thinking, making choices between right and wrong, predicting outcomes, good judgment, regulating behavior, or inhibiting inappropriate behavior. In response to my argument Pro says “By this logic then anybody under the age of 25 should not be tried as an adult which let’s face is silly. If you are old enough to make the decision to commit the crime then you are old enough to be tried as an adult and pay the consequences for what you did.” Clearly there is scientific proof that children are less capable then adults. Our society has deemed 18 year olds as adults. Perhaps the age at which people should be referred to as adults would be a good topic for a separate debate. In spite of the PFC not being fully developed until 25, it is developing continuously. This means that we can conclude that the PFC of 18 year olds is more developed than that of a 14 year old. Ergo we can conclude that 18 year olds are more capable of capable of reasoned thinking, making choices between right and wrong, predicting outcomes, good judgment, regulating behavior, or inhibiting inappropriate behavior then those younger than them. Pro says "Furthermore the argument holds that if minors know they won’t be judged as harshly as adults they may actually be more willing to commit crime." Concluding that “This is the main reason why I believe they should be tried as adults. If they know they will be treated equally as an adult this might deter them from committing the crime in the first place.” Again, I would not be against increased consequences for heinous crimes. However, that is not the same as trying a child as an adult. Conclusion: Pro's arguments are focused on a need for stricter punishment for minors who commit heinous crimes. I am inclined to agree. However, this is not the same as being tried as an adult. The resolve is not “Minors who commit heinous crimes deserve stricter sentences.” Rather the resolve is “Children should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.” As pro has not provided any arguments as to why children should be tried as adults, there is no support for the resolution. Children are not mentally as capable as adults. This is due to the PFC not being fully developed. Thus children are less capable of reasoned thinking, making choices between right and wrong, predicting outcomes, good judgment, regulating behavior, or inhibiting inappropriate behavior. Due to this difference between children and adults, Children should NOT be tried as adults for heinous crimes. The resolution is negated.
Children should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.

"Some youths are even known to commit crimes without thought because they know they cannot be tried as adults." (1) My opponent says that "Children don't have the intellectual or moral capacity to understand the consequences of their actions; similarly, they lack the same capacity to be trial defendants." I would reference the statement I have posted above. Clearly these kids know exactly what they are doing and they know they know that they can basically get away with it. Con states: "Medical studies have shown that the PFC is the last section of the brain to mature. In other words, while all other brain regions are fully developed early in life, its development is not complete until around age 25." By this logic then anybody under the age of 25 should not be tried as an adult which let"s face is silly. If you are old enough to make the decision to commit the crime then you are old enough to be tried as an adult and pay the consequences for what you did. "If you do an adult crime, you do adult time. Minors that commit certain serious crimes should be tried as adults." (1) I could not agree more with the statement. "Furthermore the argument holds that if minors know they won"t be judged as harshly as adults they may actually be more willing to commit crime." (2) This is the main reason why I believe they should be tried as adults. If they know they will be treated equally as an adult this might deter them from committing the crime in the first place. (1)http://www.gale.cengage.com... (2)http://www.romeobserver.com...
Children should be tried as adults for heinous crimes.

"Should we punish all juveniles as adults? Probably not with lesser crimes, but some crimes are certainly more heinous than others, and those crimes like murder and rape are adult crimes." (1) Not every crime that a child commits should be tried as an adult crime. There is no reason to punish them if they take something from a store. Now if that child killed someone while robbing the store then they need to be tried as an adult because that is an adult crime and they need to be punished for that more than just getting a slap on the wrist. "To allow these violent criminals to be released after spending a few years in juvenile correctional facilities would be a crime in itself, to the victims and to society." (4) If tried in a juvenile court the longest time they will spend there is until they are 21, this is no justice to families of the people's lives they had to have ruined to get there in the first place. "The Justice Department estimates that about 10 percent of all homicides are committed by juveniles under the age of 18. Nearly every year, the FBI arrests more than 33,000 young adults under the age of 18 for offenses. The number of violent crimes committed by young people declined substantially from the 1990s to 2003, but then surged again that year, with the estimated number of juvenile murder offenders increasing 30 percent, according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention." (2) With the numbers increasing since 2003 this just means that we need harsher punishments for children who commit these kinds of crimes. If we don"t then once they get out of a juvenile center they could very well do it again. "Should the U.S. justice system treat juvenile violent offenders as adults?" YES "The end result of a heinous crime remains the same, no matter who commits it. Our justice system depends upon holding perpetrators responsible for their actions." (3) "Light sentences don't teach kids the lesson they need to learn: If you commit a terrible crime, you will spend a considerable part of your life in jail."(3) This statement could not be more true. Kids need to learn that if you commit a crime like this that you will be held accountable to the full extent possible. If you let them go easy then how are they going to learn that you are not supposed to do what you just did? "Allowing juveniles who commit violent crimes to serve short, lenient sentences in juvenile correctional facilities simply does not do justice to society and to the victims involved. For a young man who repeatedly stabs a fellow classmate, for two minors who premeditate a violent sex assault and robbery, for a 17-year-old serial sniper who shoots innocent people and for other juveniles who commit heinous crimes, a few years at a juvenile correctional facility is an unjust punishment that fails to serve the victims and safeguard society from danger." (4) I could not have said it better myself. (1)http://www.teenink.com... (2)http://abcnews.go.com... (3)http://content.time.com... (4) http://silverchips.mbhs.edu...
Time never changes

On the contrary, thanks to Einstein's theory of relativity. If you do someone travel at the speed of light hypothetically, time stops completely outside your vassal (spaceship). The closer to the speed of light, the faster you travel in time, or the slower speed goes outside. https://upload.wikimedia.org... (Speed is measured as c, 1c is the speed of light, 0.5 is half the speed of light and so on) So if you traveled for 10 years (on your ship's time) and returned 10 years later to your twin brother, he would be aged considerably depending on how long you actually do travel at c, the speed of light.
obama is an awful president.

1. I mean that you can't say that just cause someone can that means they defiantly can do it so they aren't doing a good job. 2. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can claim that he is a communist even though real communist don't get recognized 3. No I pointed out that even if someone is born in Canada a near by country they still can't run for president. 4. it may not be the baby's fault but what if she cracks and kill the baby and it still feel pain i'd prefer that the baby fell no pain 1. Even if they are legal you know people will discriminate against them 2. --- 3. I don't but I do know experiments 4. Ok do you know what a dictator is? I'll tell a dictator rises through MILITARY FORCE last I checked Obama was elected so he can't be considered a dictator and I never said that you couldn't state your opinion
obama is an awful president.

1.)I don"t get what you"re saying. 2.)Other people? I"m sure there are plenty of people who act like a communist, but he is the president and that is the most powerful position of all. 3.)You just agreed with me then you came up with a situation that is against both of our beliefs. 4.)I think she will always remember what happened to her whether she kills the kid or not, that it"s not the baby"s fault it is completely innocent, and you can also put it up for adoption. 1.)Not be judged? I just think illegal immigrants should come here legally. I don"t know too much about immigration problems, I just don"t think they should be allowed to sneak in and get as many, if not more, benefits then us citizens. 2.)--- 3.)I didn"t know you knew the future. 4.)A person who can"t have an opinion about the president means that the president is a dictator. That is why we have freedom of speech. Only dictators we cannot speak badly about. Your only proving I"m right.
obama is an awful president.

1. You clam that you can there is a huge difference between can and is defiantly possible no one is the same 2. Explain how him being a Muslim even if he is a problem two you have no right to clam someone is a communist when you have other people who act like it and NO ONE CARES 3. I do believe its in the Constitution that you have to be an AMERICAN CITIZEN TO BE PRESIDENT what if someone was born in Canada grew up in America but couldn't run for president. 4. One this is for ALL OF THE THICK SCULLED PEOPLE CONGRESS MAKES LAW NOT THE PRESIDENT GOSH I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE LEARN WHAT BRANCH DOES WHAT. What does it matter I may not approve that just cause you have a baby you should kill it but WHAT IF A WOMEN IS RAPED HUH is she just supposed to deal with the daily reminder what happened to her? 1. Yes, let me ask you this what if America was just a god awful country war,poverty wouldn't you want to go somewhere better and NOT BE JUDGED 2. Agreed (another debate) 3. O really? during his first election they tested his opponents saying and it proved we would be in MORE DEBT AND HAVE 3 MORE WARS 4. WHO ARE YOU TO SAY WHAT HE CARES ABOUT AND THAT HES DESTROYING IT are you president? are you making important decisions? ARE YOU TRYING TO BALANCING AN ECONOMY? than don't say what he is doing and that it's wrong!