BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States Federal Government should decrease subsidies of electric vehicles

First I would like to point out that national debt is at record levels, and we have already seen the government of Greece on the verge of collapse due to debt. It is highly relevant to the debate. If the government collapses, there are NO subsidies of electric vehicles. I propose that not only is highly relevant, but it is the most significant portion of this debate. On the current spending rate debt will increase and eventually lead to the collapse of the government, at which point there will be no subsidies. Therefore reduced spending is a protection of subsidies already in place. How far can the electric vehicle go on a charge? Batteries are a severe limiting factor, making electric vehicles unviable. Also, cold weather strains batteries. In the population centers of the northeast the extreme winters would render an electric vehicle basically useless. Think how hard it is currently to get your vehicle to keep a charge in cold weather. The "pollution" cased by burning gasoline is actually a basic element needed for life. The industrial revolution (burning of fossil fuels) enriched the nutrients available to life, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon, effectively doubling the amount of life the earth can support. Solar energy is not viable. It only lasts for a short part of the day and requires tremendous space for solar panels. The United States cannot produce enough energy from solar and wind energy as it is, much less with increased demand from electric vehicles. For my final point, I would like to bring to your attention every invention prior to the late 20th century. The Wright Brothers were not government subsidized, the original gasoline engine was not government subsidized. Steal was not government subsidized. The steam engine was not government subsidized. It is quite obvious that government subsidies are not required for technological improvements.
The United States Federal Government should decrease subsidies of electric vehicles

I will first focus on my opponent's argument, then continue with my own. The United States has been in National Debt since the Revolutionary War. Specific numbers can be found in numerous locations. I prefer the following: http://www.wisc-online.com... Because of such, I believe that it is fair to say that pointing out the National Debt of the government is unrelated to the topic at hand and I will ignore it as I continue with your argument. The average American drives 15,000 miles a year. One electric car on the market right now is the MINI-E. The amount of energy required to take that vehicle 15,000 miles is minimal. It would be equal to leaving five 100-Watt light bulbs running for a year. With new research and products coming out, that number could, unbelievably, drop even lower. With solar panels and other new ways of capturing and harnessing energy coming into fashion, l believe it is safe to assume that continuing to use oil will harm the environment more than switching to electric vehicles. To resume with my argument; electric vehicles will also prove to be amazingly cost-worthy to their consumers, requiring less maintenance. Because they do not have to deal with the heat and force generated by an unending series of powerful explosions the way combustion engines do, electric engines do not need oil changes and other regular maintenance that conventional engines need to stay running.
The United States Federal Government should decrease subsidies of electric vehicles

First I would like to address a very important point, and then address my opponent's points. The most important point is funding. Where are we going to get the money to continue subsidies of electric vehicles? Right now we're spending $1.5 trillion a year that we do not have. I will come back to this point shortly. How do you propose we power these electric vehicles? Nuclear power? Where are we going to get the funding for that? What are we going to do when we have a disaster similar to Japan? Nuclear pollution effectively lasts forever. Carbon, on the other hand, is cycled out of the environment via the carbon cycle. Right now the #1 form of electricity in the US is coal. I hate to burst your bubble, but the coal powered vehicle is not new technology. We've been using coal to power machines for 250 years. It also burns extremely dirty, and coal pollution is deposited higher into the atmosphere where it has a stronger effect on acid rain. This pollution also remains in the atmosphere longer, as it is not cycled out of the atmosphere as quickly by plants. Gasoline pollution on the other hand is released within a foot of the ground, and is cycled out of the atmosphere much quicker. It s quite obvious that electric vehicles contribute more dangerous pollution to the environment. The federal government, already $15 trillion in debt, should not be wasting money on technology that is so dangerous to the environment.
The United States Federal Government should decrease subsidies of electric vehicles

I will be supporting why the Federal Government should not decrease subsidies of electric vehicles. My first argument will be the most obvious: Typical vehicles that use oil to function work by burning fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels, however, is terrible for the environment and its denizens. One of the many harms burning fossil fuels brings is particulate matter – tiny particles of burnt fossil fuels that float in the air. This kind of pollution is also known as black carbon pollution. In addition to the visible black particulate matter, there is fine material (less than 2.5 microns) that creates large health problems. Another by-product of burning fossil fuels is sulfur dioxide. If you do not recognize the chemical, it is one of the key ingredients of acid rain. Other harms from burning fossil fuels include nitrogen oxide pollution and carbon monoxide pollution. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has found that each year, the average car causes over 600 pounds of air pollution. Transportation sources now account for 77% of national total carbon monoxide emissions. Approximately 3.8 grams of volatile organic compounds are emitted by every car every day, even when they are not driven. Pollution in the air is a serious matter, and by switching to electric vehicles, the amount will decrease significantly. This is more than enough reason for the Federal Government to continue subsidies.
As per the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an obedient angel.

Isaiah 14 talks about the fall of Babylon. Isaiah 14, has nothing to do with Satan or Lucifer. The original Hebrew is "Day Star". This is talking in allegory about Babylon As it says in verse 1 "The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw." As we all know,Satan is not the lord. Yes I agree, satan is not the L-rd. But the L-rd creates evil, not satan. My argument stand, there is no way to see "satan" (the adversary) as rebellious in the Hebrew Bible.
As per the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an obedient angel.

As we all know,Satan is not the lord. You said angel yourself,so you really can't change it to "Satan's and angel" to "Satan is the Lord". When he says he's the Lord,this is just more evidence of my saying Satan is deceitful and lies. This backs up my theory. But since we are using Old Testament,and I used New,here a Old Testament verse:Isaiah 14:12-14 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." This is clearly talking about Satan,and he is saying that Satan tried to ascend above God. And loyal and obedient angels don't do that
As per the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an obedient angel.

My opponent uses the New Testament, but I mentioned that only the Hebrew Scriptures could be used. I don't doubt that the New Testament portray Satan as a evil "Dualistic" god. Nevertheless, the Hebrew Scriptures does not portray Satan as a fallen angel, but as an obedient angel who does the will of G-d. The idea of a fallen angel comes from a mistranslation of Isaiah 14:12-17, where the translator of the Bible mistranslated "morning star" and changed it for "Lucifer" because Jesus is also called "morning star". Nevertheless, the whole passage talks about Babylon. All my arguments stand as Isaiah 45:7 say "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create evil; I, the LORD, do all these things."
As per the Hebrew scriptures, Satan is an obedient angel.

My argument is that as I'm sure you can guess,Satan is NOT a obedient little teachers pet. Let's look as some verse: 2 Corinthians 11:14 "And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. " This means that Satan wishes to deceive us,and make us believe he's something he's not. People who do that are liars,just as this must mean he's lying and is the exact opposite of what he's trying to make us believe he is. To back this up lets look at John 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." This comes form John,one of Jesus's apostles. And John is saying here that Satan lies in everything he does. So when I said earlier about Satan deceiving us about him a being an angel of light,this backs that up. Now let's look at some textual biblical evidence that says that the devil is just "the opposite of God." James 4:7 "Submit yourself therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." It's saying here that the devil is after you,but when God comes inside of you,he will flee. He doesn't like God and he doesn't want God around. That's my point. Please note that my text is condensed since I am typing this on my phone
Runaway laws for youth should be abolished

O my brothers, Little Jimmy was 14 when his mother stuck him undeservingly. Jimmy facing intense pressure and stress at home decided to fly the coup. Where he was going, he could not say. .. Years later he is living in the slums selling drugs to make a buck. Never knowing the life he could have had if he just persevered or found help. Little Jimmy could never understand that the laws and rules in society were there to protect his best interests. The intrinsic truth of adolescents is they cant possibly conceive or understand the importance of the rules and regulations of our system. Although, the circumstances that they are reluctantly forced upon are unfair and harsh, in many cases, it still beats the streets. The reason for most runaways is a dysfunctional family; problems for young adults may include neglect, divorce or abuse, but even so many teens who leave their home end up living in poverty, malnourished and uneducated. Statistics show that runaway teenagers are at a higher risk of being involved with prostitution and alcohol and drug abuse. An equal important matter is that few places in America actually consider the act 'illegal. ' Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming, consider running away from home a status offense. In which the runaways in theses districts that are apprehended are tried before a judge as a delinquent or a child in need of services (CHINS) and for the most part these youths will be held in custody until they are of age or relocated to a foster home. Other punishments include probation and a suspended drivers license-nothing more that a slap on the wrist, in my opinion-. The only punishment being that many foster homes maintain even worse conditions for theses youths then their previous homes. Accordingly, perhaps it would be better if more places considered running away an offense, maybe a universal law would educate individuals and there adolescents the dangers of poverty. According the US department of Justice, an estimated 797,500 youths under 18 went missing last year, not including the parents who don't give a crap that there kid is missing and are to lazy to report it. The truth is whether its illegal or not, the government should be making more of an effort to reach these adolescents, providing programs such as talk lines or abuse prevention groups. My concluding point will be, if the intimidating shadow of the Law can save one youth from going running away and ending up a missing persons case, its worth it. These kids need to learn structure; the importance of rules and regulations. Life isn't fair and even though laws are naturally oppressive of true liberty they work to protect society and its best interests. Finally, If you could I would like if you expanded on your statement "To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, some youth will turn to the crime. " As it is unsupported and vague. Thank you Luvx, I look forward to your retort. XosL3git- "Here's looking at you kid. "
Runaway laws for youth should be abolished

The definition of runaway is "an unmarried child under the age of 18 years who is absent from the home of a parent or other lawful placement without the consent of the parent, guardian, or lawful custodian" so they need their parents permission to leave home. The reason behind runaway laws is teens don't know what they are getting into if they can't move out. If that's the case, why punish them for running away? We don't call an elderly person with Alzheimer's a "runaway" when they wander off. To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, some youth will turn to the crime. If we allowed them to move out, work without restrictions, and to sign a lease, this problem would go away.
Christians shouldn't be against gays

When a person believes in Jesus Christ, all his/her sins are forgiven " all of them! Several passages from the book of Acts make this clear. Like in my previous i evidence i stated that Christians aren't supposed to follow the old testament for Jesus put an end to the old testament law when he sacrificed himself. Christians should only be under the Law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) and that law would be, "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"and to love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:37-39) . Jesus says we love our neighbor as ourselves meaning we shouldn't kill or insult them for being gay. The 10 commandments would come under Christ's Law also. If you loved your neighbor liked jesus told you then you wouldn't steal from him/her, you wouldn't kill him/her, you wouldn't lie to him/her, you wouldn't do all these things. SOURCE http://www.gotquestions.org... https://www.biblegateway.com...
Christians shouldn't be against gays

Round 2 was for opening arguments but ok, Jesus was a social rebel; he cared for the poor; he spoke to non-believers; he condemned only those who hurt people; he spoke volumes about love for all people; and he came to liberate the oppressed, as he said in his first sermon in Luke 4: 18. Matthew 8: 5-13 Jesus met a humbled Roman soldier. The soldier begins to tell Jesus about his sick and dying servant. The soldier keeps explaining to Jesus why this servant, the sick one, is special to him. Servants, like slaves, were like property that could be easily replaced, but this Roman Soldier has a special connection to this servant. He humbled himself before a man that most Romans thought was a loon. out of faith that Jesus could heal him. Jesus, knowing all, decided not only to heal this special servant, but to commend this Soldier on his great faith. While so many people forget this story, it speak volumes about what Jesus thought about men having special "friendships" or "relationships" with other men. Jesus did not tell this guy that he shouldn"t be "getting too close to this male servant, because being gay is wrong;" he commended the man for stepping out of his comfort zone and acting out of faith and love for his fellow man. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. First, Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination. Second, If a man lie with a man, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them, however, a big problem with quoting Leviticus. The problem is that Christians are no longer under the Law. We do not live our Christian life by following the Old Testament Law. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear. It is not something fabricated to win an argument, or made up in the twentieth century, or manufactured to get around something somebody doesn"t like. It is clearly stated in the Greek scriptures. The Apostle Paul wrote it in Galatians: All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Galatians 3:10)
Christians shouldn't be against gays

Although I truly believe that nobody should be against or have hatred towards anyone, the Bible states otherwise. For the few passages that say Christians should love thy neighbor, is contradicted many times. For example Leviticus 20:13 states that, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I think it is pretty obvious that god does not want anything to do with homosexuals. It is once again mentioned in Romans 1:26-27, "Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones; in the same way, men committed shameful acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." And once again in Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." To ignore this is cherry picking. I will once again say that I do not promote hatred, but the religion that so many people claim is about love is actually full of negative passages.
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

In summation, we have hit on a few 'truisms' between airsoft and paintball, the likes of which I think should be obvious to the readers:1) Cost - airsoft won on this regard. The cost was demonstratably lower.2) Action - this point was ignored widely by both debaters, Its a draw, both games involve runnin' and gunnin', so to say one is better than the other here would be bias only.3) Player role- here is where I think airsoft shines, airsoft offers MUCH more to players utility wise than can be found in paintball4) Safety - in this regard, airsoft offers a slight edge, the 'impact' that each of our chosen weapons causes can be felt, but airsoft's .4 gram BBs is nothing when compared to the misuse or accident of a marble sized frozen paintball. Now, as promised. .. some fun. This is a airsoft claymore land mine. .. Traditionally, these are put down by EOD units specializing in heavy weapons such as. .. The airsoft undermount grenade launcher. Such troopers are supported by. .. . The box fed airsoft M60. Sadly, these troopers, due to weapon size fall victim to. .. Airsoft snipers! Which, really, isn't hard to manage. Whats hard to combat is. .. . Airsoft tanks. Anyhoo, that is my run down of what makes airsoft less generic than paintball, and thereby the superior hobby. For those that are interested in airsoft in the central Florida area, please feel free to PM me, or ask about my Team page to hit us up on FB and give us the ole 'thumbs up'. Thanks for read, and please. . tanks. Vote airsoft.
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

So, yes, paintball does cost more, that is pretty obvious, but it is also a more popular sport, no offense to airsofters but paintball has pro leagues and is in much higher demand by the average player. Also the technology is more sophisticated than that of airsoft, once again probably do to the demands of the game. also paintball arenas, inside and out, are everywhere. i live in suburbs of kansas city and there are three within a 2 hours drive. airsoft, there is none, according to google. granted both sports and be played by random groups of people in a non arena or official business place and it be just as fun, players tend to want to play in an arena. so obviously with this data paintball is more convenient than airsoft. other than a wide difference between cost for equipment, both sports are pretty similiar. I love paintball and playing for a proffesional team, id say i know all the tricks and things, and i can say that there are positions, there are different guns needed per position, hell, some people even use different paint per position. in speedball theres many positions and many different preferances and courses and such. Ive enjoyed this argument with you, and i do hope we can entertain each other on a different subject. Youve intrigued me to try Airsoft tho, i may just have to find a spot while on vacation and try it out. Happy holidays my friend
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

When I originally posted this argument I did not anticipate an opponent who knew so much about both games. Kudos to you. Exact Price, I pay 65 dollars for Marbalizer paint, 2000 thousand rounds which lasts me atleast 5 hours. I dont pay an admission fee, but, the normal admission fee is 80 bucks, including a box of paint, a standard tippman rifle, a co2 tank, and a gravity fed hopper. The spread of paint depends on the course and the player and the weapon, someone who advances with a speedball gun on a rec course will use more paint than someone sitting back and sniping on a rec course, its vice versa with speedball and the same with woodsball. It also depends on the game mode, in capture the flag or domination you use less paint than kill the pres or TDM, so the flow of paint has many different ways. My gun (DM15, Spire Rotor, Speed CO2 Tank, quick feed, custom barrel, custom trigger) total cost 2k. Now, that seems like alot, and in turn it is for one purchase, BUT, i go 5 times a week, so by having my own gun and more than half a box of paint left every time i go and not paying admission, i in turn will save money verse renting a gun and paint and mask and gear every time i go. I do not know how Airsoft works on those terms, so in my sake if you could explain that to me in your next argument id be rather grateful. As for the quality of the weapon, you can buy a stock weapon, ill use my own DM as an example (before upgrade). It shoots straight for awhile but after taking it apart and cleaning it, eventually there gets riffs in the barrel causing the ball to curve off course. So unless you dont want to hit your mark, a custom barrel is a must. As for electric hoppers, thats a must for electric guns, and as for tanks, smaller the tank better the hiding. All these things are a MUST for the competitive players, but for the average player they are not. As for roles, in speedball theres a leadman, a quarterback, and a pinner, so there is designated roles and each role is vital for the outcome of the game. also each role has different weapon preferences. Gear in paintball is another luxury and not required tho most players will buy a pod belt for extra shots The gun i was referencing either is a Tippman 98, standard hopper and co2 tank total of 80 dollars. Sorry for not using the specific name of the weapon