BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Warming is killing us

Greetings. The arguments you are presenting are common among the left side of the political spectrum over the issue of Global Warming/Climate Change. The negation of this debate will now provide eight points as to why the public has been mislead over the complexities of this issue: 1. The 20th century warming of 1-1.4"F is within the +/- 5"F range of the past 3,000 years. A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990. 2. Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it. As temperatures increase, CO2 is released from "carbon sinks" such as the oceans or the Arctic tundra. Measurements of ice core samples show that over the last four climactic cycles (past 240,000 years) periods of global warming preceded global increases in CO2. 3. Human releases of CO2 cannot cause climate change as any increases in CO2 are eventually balanced by nature. CO2 gets absorbed by oceans, forests, and other "carbon sinks" that increase their biological activity to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. 50% of the CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities, has already been absorbed. 4. Global warming and cooling are caused by fluctuations in the sun's heat (solar forcing), not by the minor greenhouse effect of human-produced gases such as CO2 and methane. Between 1900 and 2000 solar irradiance increased .19%. This increase correlates with the rise in surface temperatures in the US. 5. Due to the inherent unpredictability of climate systems it is impossible to accurately use models to determine future weather. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes. 6. Rising temperatures are caused primarily by water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not by CO2. Water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere are driven by natural storm systems and ocean currents. According to a Mar. 5, 2010 study by researchers at NOAA, water vapor in the stratosphere was responsible for increasing the rate of warming during the 1990s by 30%. 7. The increased hurricane activity over the past decade (1995-2005), including hurricane Katrina, is not the result of human-induced climate change; it is the result of cyclical tropical cyclone patterns, driven primarily by natural ocean currents, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) testimony in the US Senate on Sep. 20, 2005. 8. Deep ocean currents cause climate warming and cooling in long term cycles. The minor greenhouse effect of human produced CO2 pales in comparison. Global cooling from 1940 to the 1970s, and warming from the 1970s to 2008, coincided with fluctuations in ocean currents and cloud cover driven by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) - a naturally occurring rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns.
Global Warming is killing us

Global Warming is Happening and we will die if something is not done, NOW! More CO2 will lead to hotter climate that causes sea/water level to rise and ice melts, which leads to worldwide sea levels increased 4-10 inches in the last century. Climate changes which cause extreme storms, tsunami, typhoons, flooding, land covered with water steer towards the damaging of plants and human population. In the end the earth is hotter and bluer where it is not capable of any life. The study of ice cores from Greenland from 1000 years back show that there was less CO2 production than today. Extreme heat and drought causing people to die or have heat strokes and lead to rise in sea level which caused flooding. This also concludes that last 20 years have been the warmest years. In Europe at the year 2003, 30,000 people died from heat waves.
Creation v. Evolution Debate Followup

This debate is to followup on the debate seen here: http://www.debate.org...I am following up this debate as I found it extremely lacking. The con of the last debate made poor arguments and provided little to no explanation of his position. I will be doing my best to make this a proper debate. For the sake of simplicity and lack of time on my part as a college student, I will ask that Pro try to accept this debate by Wednesday or Thursday and reply within at least a day for each round. This is so that we may do this debate over the weekend where I have more time and don't have to use my free time at school, and don't end up with a debate that ends because I am unable to reply. I will be accepting the original rules of the debate, as well as giving some more precise definitions and new stipulations.'Micro-evolution': "Changes in the traits of a group of organisms within a species that do not result in a new species." [1]'Macro-evolution': "Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups." [1]Speciation: When a population of a species that has become sufficiently distinct from the species it branched from, forming a new species.New stipulations:My only rule when it comes to this is that when you're making arguments against Evolution, that you strictly stick to Evolution. I'm not here to debate Cosmology, Astronomy/Astrophysics, or Abiogenesis. I'd rather not go into Geology either but I know we'll have to cover it as some part of this debate will probably touch on the Age of the Earth and Stratigraphy (as well as the various dating methods).The next stipulation is that you back up your claims using citations that are peer-reviewed or come from relevant, well respected journals. I also don't care about quotes from scientist X about Evolution or Science (their support or opposition to it). Again, your arguments should be relevant and not rely on arguments from authority. I have no problems if you consult or quote an expert in a relevant field (as I definitely will), but quoting or misquoting Sagan, Tyson, and/or Hawkings means as much to me as if you quoted Benedict Cumberbatch as a relevant expert on the life of Alan Turing.The first round of the debate will simply be an acceptance of the debate, and the pro restating their arguing points and adding any other relevant* arguments. *In regards to the new stipulationNotesI'd recommend that you not post that first article from thetruthwins.com. I understand that you may have posted it out of jest to mock Con's attempt, but the arguments made and the sources cited are poor (e.g. some of the quotes are hugely taken out of context and their citations seem to be misquotes from the ICR that aren't properly sourced/cited).Citations1. http://www.nas.edu...;
The unwanted lick!

If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. If she licks a grown up man, It is only polite for the man to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Seeking her as a precious jewel, For to give up I would be a fool. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, Give her politely the unwanted lick.
Jericho Scott should be allowed to pitch in his league

if you are the right age and know what you are doing you should be allowed to pitch. The issue at question is the 9 year old in New Haven Conneticut who got banned from pitching and his team disbanding, because he threw 40 miles an hour in a 8-10 league. As the Local attorney John Attorney said, "You don't have to be learned in the law to know in your heart that it's wrong," he said. "Now you have to be punished because you excel at something?" It also said in this article (http://msn.foxsports.com...) that this 9 year old has not hit any one. Why should he be disallowed from pitching in this league
Jericho Scott should be allowed to pitch in his league

I respect your defending Jericho but your argument is failed. Developmental leagues, in regards to 8-10 year olds are to develop non players into becoming players. The ability of one should not comprimise the efforts of all. According to the following text Jericho was given option not to pitch. "The right-hander has a fastball that tops out at about 40 mph. He throws so hard that the Youth Baseball League of New Haven told his coach that the boy could not pitch any more. When Jericho took the mound anyway last week, the opposing team forfeited the game, packed its gear and left, his coach said. Officials for the three-year-old league, which has eight teams and about 100 players, said they will disband Jericho's team, redistributing its players among other squads, and offered to refund $50 sign-up fees to anyone who asks for it. They say Jericho's coach, Wilfred Vidro, has resigned." http://sports.espn.go.com... Whereas, the league banned Jericho from pitching, this did not in fact ban him from playing other positions. It was only when he came out for the next game...as a pitcher... did the opposing team forfiet. Therefor it was by Jericho, his parents or coaches own doing that he was banned from play. Whereas, Jericho is highly advanced for his age, he had- and still has- the ability to move into the next higher division and pitch with developed players that are closer to his ability than the competition that he was playing against. Lastly your argument about being the best is failed. To argue the meaning of life in context to this covnersation: Life is not about being best, it is about "Becoming Better". We long to become better, watch people and are impressed by their ability to become better than what we know. There is no best- only better. Jericho belongs in a league where he can become better at a pace that matches his rapid advancement. The other children deserve to become better in an atmosphere that does not frighten them or their parents. When they get to the 11-13 division they will be exposed to better pitching and it will be normal. Right now the advanced pitching is not normal, thus it conflicts with societal norms Therefor, banning Jericho Scott from the 8-10 year old New Haven, CT Youth Developmental League is the correct decision.
Jericho Scott should be allowed to pitch in his league

My opponent is right in the aspect that Jericho pitches harder then all the rest of the kids in his league, but the one thing that he failed to mention was that if Jericho was not in the league, someone else would throw harder. Obviously most of these parents do not fully understand the idea of competition. Yes it is an instrutional league, but if you have kid pitchers then you will have to have some competition. Jericho may be the top dog now but he may not be the top dog later. Of course he may be, but he will inspire others to do better and improve so that they can beat him. It will make the other people in the league understand baseball and strategies. Also life is about being the best. The best diner, best in the office, even best scholar. Jericho has practiced and shown that he is the best. For people to become even they will need to practice and work as hard as he has. Jericho has raised the bar. Will others try to reach it or just give up because it is hard. In the 2008 little league World Series there was a player who threw 80 miles an hour. He is only 3 years older then Jericho. Jericho should be allowed to pitch, because in a recreational league all who can should. In argument toward the safety issue, Jericho has shown excellent control and has not hit any batters.
Jericho Scott should be allowed to pitch in his league

The ethics of - what you propose is failed because right and wrong is molded by societal norms. It is the societal norm that parents and coaches are threatened by a child that is not within the societal norm. Thus the parents- even though Jericho has not hit another child- fear for the safety of their children that cannot adjust their bat speed to match the speed of Jerichos pitches. This is especially crucial in a "developmental" league as The_Dan states. So opposing parents see the pitcher as being a threat to safety and when someone threatens a child's safety, parents generally defend. Parents defense is to remove the child that throws faster than ALL other 8-10 year olds in the same league. This is a normal reaction found throughout society. Opposing coaches are charged with three things. 1.) Provide a safe atmosphere for the players to compete. 2.) Provide an atmosphere that is fun and fruitful for the players that are competing. 3.) Teach children lessons that are inherent with competitive sports such as winning, losing, teamwork, focusing, discipline etc. Jericho Scott's ability to throw consistently faster and harder than any of his peers, has taken away the "perception of safety," the fun of the game when a child realizes that they have no chance at getting on base because they do not possess the advanced skills that their opponent possess. Thus the coaches have the extreme difficulty of teaching lessons, to children that may have trouble comprehending that Jericho is only trying to do well, and not embarrass them.
Jericho Scott should be allowed to pitch in his league

Though some may argue that this league is an instructional league, others may ask why there is a child pitching. By allowing a child to pitch in a league, why should you be allowed to ban the child and dissolve the team. In the article The_Dan wrote on Fox Sports (http://community.foxsports.com...), since when has any one protested how fast a child could throw. Also, in a developmental league wouldn't it be good to see that some one had developed in your league. I am not insulting the other kids in the league, but the adults are acting ridiculousy. In my baseball leagues if you couldn't hit a pitcher you practice hitting faster speeds. The young man said himself that not being able to pitch made him sad. Is this what you would want for your nine year old son, who is playing in a recreational league. It even said on the article that Jericho did not hit a batter. (http://msn.foxsports.com...). Also, isn't life about facing your fears and trying to overcome it. Life is like David and Goliath, except for the fact that David had the guts to fight Goliath fairly, while the league officals and the other adults are trying to cheat shot the Goliath.
One equals to two, 1=2

1=2 No way. Let me show my evidence by doing A & B'S. 1=a a*10=10 10-a=9 2=b b*10=20 20-a=19 No way they are the same. That's why 1 is lower then 2. 1*100=100 2*100=200 no way they can equal unless you round up. 1.99999999 and 2*2=4 * 2 3.99999998
One equals to two, 1=2

2 + 2 = 5, 4 = 5 (subtracting four from both sides) 1 = 2 You said that and if subtracting 4 from each side then the answer would equal 0=1 not 1=2. "The pope and I are two, but we see that two equals one: The pope and I are one. Therefore, I am the pope." How are you the pope? Really how can one person be equal to another. If what you say is correct then the whole world is equal to the pope. If one number equals another, then what is the use of numbers overall? If one equals two. "One equals two and one does not equal two. Therefore, one equals two." How does that statement make any sense. You are contradicting yourself. If one doesn't equal two then how can it equal two?
One equals to two, 1=2

* I have proven my case by assignment of values between 1 and 2. * I have shown that incoherent mathematics are permitted by the topic. * I have proven that my mathematics are coherent. * I have proven that my opponent cannot (by Godel's) prove his mathematics are coherent. * I have argued that math debates are stupid and whoever starts them should be voted down as a general rule. * My opponent has forfeited. Math is typically abstract, however, when forced to correlate to things in reality we must disallow contradiction (because reality lacks them). Nothing about the original topic asked for coherency, so my argument succeeds. It is a narrow line, but if we are just dealing with numbers, assigning the numbers to equal each other just allows for contradictions. Contradictions aren't wrong, they just make the system you are using completely absurd, pointless, incoherent, useless and limitless. It doesn't negate my position in favor of creating such a system.
One equals to two, 1=2

When I say "1=2", it is not part of any theory. Theories are models for explaining the real world. And, as noted assigning 1 to equal 2 creates an incoherent system which would be incompatible with any theory because it's inconsistent with the real world. When dealing with math, we are, by definition, dealing with the abstract. We produce a coherent system because coherent systems are useful in the non-abstract world. Adding one thing to a box which already has one things gives us two things in the box. However, that relationship with reality is not a requirement for these numbers and they could very well mean whatever I say they mean. 1 does equal 2. As a consequence everything can equal anything and every statement is true (even false ones). You could argue that in *your* system one cannot equal two, however there are one problems with this: 1) I am in favor of this position and proving something in your system doesn't negate the assignment I've made. 2) Due to limitations of coherent systems, you can't prove your system. And due to an utter lack of limitations to incoherent systems, I can prove my system. I assign one equal to two, the resulting mathematical system is useless but cannot be proven false and can be logically proven true. You can have useful systems or limitless systems. This debate didn't require the former so I'm taking the latter. Other than practical matters such as the relationship the system has to reality there's nothing suggest your system is true while my system is false. And again, Godel's uncertaintly says that you cannot prove your system true while I actually can and have proven that my system is valid: -- Either one equals two or one does not equal two. Only one result may be accepted. Therefore, only two results may be accepted. We have two options: "equals two" or "does not equal two" -- Therefore, two of the two options are correct. One equals two and one does not equal two. Therefore, one equals two. Try to assemble a similar valid proof for your system; it simply cannot be done. I have proven my case. You have not proven your case. Further, I have proven that you cannot prove your case. I have refuted your arguments against my case. 1=2 isn't a theory nor is 1=1. Theories refer to science not math. In math we deal with abstracts. If 1=2, so be it. If the system produced by this assignment is incoherent, so be it. There really isn't much more to say, you can't win.
One equals to two, 1=2

Really hard to say anything, but 1=2 is impossible theories by definition is 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture. http://dictionary.reference.com... If you spot number 2,6,and 7 theories are just a guess or a way to put things to a prospective to what could of happened. Thus, 1=2 is impossible unless you by a property into the equation, but me trying to exclude that thus and mathematics without using a property will have 1=2 impossible.
One equals to two, 1=2

"That meaning that 1=1 can only be the one number equaling one." "The space of numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite and saying 1=2 contradicts that." You misapprehend obviously. If one equals two then *every* statement is logically true. 1=1 is true, as is 1=50 as is 1=2 and 1!=2 and 1 != 50. Assigning 1=2 makes mathematics incoherent. There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2 and there are also 0 numbers between the two. With incoherent mathematics you can prove everything. The topic didn't say that I needed to use a useful form of mathematics which correlates to the real world, rather I need to show that 1=2 and it does. And by Godel's incompleteness. I am no longer bounded by by being incomplete. I can actually PROVE that 1 = 2, whereas you're mathematics is incomplete and cannot actually prove that 1 = 1 without invoking the correlation between the real world and that number system or just assuming it. "Either one equals two or one does not equal two. Only one result may be accepted. Therefore, only two results may be accepted. We have two options: "equals two" or "does not equal two" -- Therefore, two of the two options are correct. One equals two and one does not equal two. Therefore, one equals two." By the limitations of the mathematics you are using, you cannot prove that 1=1 or any statement within that mathematics has a foundation. I can however prove everything because I have ASSIGNED 1 to equal 2. Because one equals two, every statement is true. And by restrictions established by Godel's you actually cannot provide a foundation for your assertions. "That meaning that 1=1 can only be the one number equaling one." No. There is no restriction on what numbers can equal 1 anymore. All numbers equal 1 and none of them do. The coherency of mathematics is gone. True = false. Your only recourse is to suggest that your intro required coherency and it didn't. "1! is 1*1 which equals to 1 not 2." -- No. It equals both! ----- You didn't require coherency. So I assigned the numbers to be equal. I proved that they are within the incoherent system and by Godels you cannot do the same. My case is proven and your case is unable to be proven.
One equals to two, 1=2

Now onto the debate. You said that "The pope and I are one. " Really? I in definition is 1. the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself. . http://dictionary.reference.com... And the pope is one person. Meaning that 1+1=2, thus excluding the fact you need another 1 to get to two. You also said that "1=2, multiply both sides by 10. 10=20, subtract 1 from each side. 9 = 19. Reflexive property. 19 = 9. Previous conclusion: 9 = 19 Substitute: 9 for 19. 19 = 19. Divide by 19. 1 = 1. " That meaning that 1=1 can only be the one number equaling one. You said "1 is less than 2, therefore 1 ! = 2 However, we know that, 1 = 2. - Contradiction. The original statement is false. A number can be less and equal at the same time. " 1! is 1*1 which equals to 1 not 2. You said that We see now that your previous conclusions simply assumed that 1 could not equal 2 because you mistakingly believed that 9 could not equal 19 or that 100 could not equal 200. However, if one accepts that 1 = 2 then these assumptions are inaccurate. Further, you would need to prove that 9 could not equal 19 and to do this you would need to justify the system of mathematics from within the system of mathematics. However, by Godel we can tell that this could not be accomplished by any coherent system. Really I am trying to prove that 1=2 impossible by showing basic multiplication. Not put division into it. But then that meaning that 1*2= 2 or 4. 1! =1 2! =2 The space of numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite and saying 1=2 contradicts that.