BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Acknowledging Black Peoples significantly lower racial intelligence standards isn't racist

YOu and this debate is nothing more than a cringe inducing smug pc liberal waste of time and energy.First: The debate title says: "Acknowledging Black Peoples significantly lower racial intelligence standards isn't racist" NOT "Acknowledging black people's typically lower IQ for nowhere or as bait for racism is racist" I'm never debating a new user ever again they're amateurs and have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.Second: You recycled the same argument!Third: I'll proudly debate you when you're more ready and this subject matter to someone an ultimate IQ
Cannabis

Thank you for accepting, hope to have a good debate with you. Firstly, I would like to say that I wish to take a different approach to this argument than what is typical. I believe that, in a fair society, one must be innocent until proven guilty. I cannot think of an opening argument to defend cannabis use as I don't know what needs defending. I believe, that the actions that need defending are; throwing people into jail and squandering their future career prospects; sacking people from jobs they are good at, have worked hard to get, and need to earn a living; expelling children from school and impairing their education. All because they chose to use weed. I believe that the prejudice that these people have felt, is in more need of an explanation, than the use of a marijuana. Which I remind you is less harmful than both tobacco and alcohol. Thank you
Humans are the main cause of global warming

Pro Says: This debate is not about geography. Pro Said in Round 1: Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States. This deals with geography. Pro Said in Round 1: In the year 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol"This deal with geography. Pro Said in Round 3. This is a straw man fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case. Yet, my opponent is missing the connection with geography in his own data and facts that he/she provided. Plus, why does the government have a department called National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. These deals with geography such as mapping oceans and measure the CO2 levels in atmospheric over certain continents. The argument that humans are making Antarctica smaller due to CO2 levels melting the ices on Antarctica which in turn is raising the ocean levels. This is geography. Climate changes warming or cooling deals with geography, atmospheric, temperature, Ocean levels, and ice. [2][1] [1] http://www.noaa.gov... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent is trying to use the halo effects or sometimes called halo error which is a cognitive bias in which our judgment of person"s character can be influences by our overall impression of me [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces?The above is as wrong as: "anti-warmists say that humans use CO2 to make patties"I drilling move contenent! This debate is not about geography. CO2 does not move continents, plus I never told you that. This is a strawman fallacy, which is misrepresenting your opponent's case.A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It"s all about money.This is an irrelevent argument. Attacking someone's sources or the person making the claim insted of their arguments is called an Ad Hominem fallacy. [1] Plus, how does the organization working for conservation mean that the source is wrong? That is anther fallacy, called correlation is not causation. The company working for energy conservation has nothing to do with its validity, until you prove it otherwise.B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size.Just because it is a rough idea does not make it wrong.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

Changes in the temperature or direction of the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north from the Gulf of Mexico, have heated sediments in a strip along the North Atlantic seafloor by 8 degrees Celsius, unlocking 2.5 billion metric tons of methane from deep-sea caches, scientists report in the Oct. 25 [1] Understanding these processes is important to global climate studies because the Gulf Stream plays a major role in the distribution of heat in the northern hemisphere.[4] This shows that evidence that humans are not the main cause of global warming. You are telling me that humans produces CO2 can move Gulf Stream. Can human drilling with machines move the seven continents on earth or even the fault lines that are in earth surfaces? It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA. A.The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. [2] There are going to make numbers up so people working for the EPA now will be rich in 5 years when those policy come into effect. It"s the same idea that President Bush and Big Oil companies got accused during 2000 thru 2008. It"s all about money. B.Estimated is A tentative evaluation or rough calculation, as of worth, quantity, or size. [1] http://www.sciencenews.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

Note: The sources did not show up in the last round. They are in the first round of: http://debate.org...There is no evidence out there that proofs that temperature and CO2 are statistically significant to each other. I am talking within 5% of each other. Of course evidence cannot proof anything! Proof is a noun, not a verb, something cannot do a noun, period.Plus, temperature is statistically significant to CO2. In fact, it correlates almost perfectly. [1][2] Humans have been recording data for Earth for less than .001% of the time that this planet has been around. This is equal to 1 out 1000 grapes. If that one grape is bad in bag are you going to throw the whole bag away? No, you are going to test few others to see if they are bad. However, we CAN indirectly know the temperature back then. Ice cores provide a way to do so. [3]Please provide scholar articles here if they exist. Former Vice President Al Gore does not count on scholarly.1. I nowhere did quote Al Gore in my last round.2. I did post articles in the last round, the sources did not show up, so you should check this link (Where I copied my argument from) for the sources: http://debate.org...There are also large amounts of methane gas below the ocean floors. Many kilometers underwater " where light never reaches " there are large stores of methane called clathrates frozen into the sediments along ocean margins. It has been estimated as much as 2000 to 4000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon are stored in these sediments.gas [3]. How do we know that the ocean is not release more methane gas than humans?It is estimated that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities, according to the EPA. [4] [1]http://ossfoundation.us... [2]http://www.grida.no...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.epa.gov...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

Temperature Humans did not start taking records of temperature until 1792 [2]. Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old [1]. Humans have been recording data for Earth for less than .001% of the time that this planet has been around. This is equal to 1 out 1000 grapes. If that one grape is bad in bag are you going to throw the whole bag away? No, you are going to test few others to see if they are bad. There is no evidence out there that proofs that temperature and CO2 are statistically significant to each other. I am talking within 5% of each other. Please provide scholar articles here if they exist. Former Vice President Al Gore does not count on scholarly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... Methane in the Oceans There are also large amounts of methane gas below the ocean floors. Many kilometers underwater " where light never reaches " there are large stores of methane called clathrates frozen into the sediments along ocean margins. It has been estimated as much as 2000 to 4000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon are stored in these sediments.gas [3]. How do we know that the ocean is not release more methane gas than humans? [3] http://oceanlink.island.net...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

I will be arguing that humans are the main cause of global warming. Theefore, the burden of proof lies on me. There are no rules other than no trolling and try not to forfeit. My arguments: (copied from one of my previous debates): http://debate.org... , does not count as plagirism because it is my own work.Carbon Dioxide a. Correlation to temperature CO2 is increasing. In fact, the level of it in our atmosphere now is higher than any point in the past 800 thousand years. [1] Temperature records show that the temperature is increasing, [2] and that CO2 does have a strong correlation to the temperature,[3][2] without any apparent lag, as shown in the short term chart at [2]. b. Source of CO2 For the global warming to be caused by man, the CO2 has to be man made or have some kind of relationship to human activities. Generating electricity using fossil fuels is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, accounting for about 40% of the total CO2 emissions in 2009,[4] followed by transportation at 31% in 2010[4], and industry at 14% in 2010. [4] As you can see, humans do emit lots of CO2. Another Greenhouse Gas: Methane Methane has 25 times the effect on the atmosphere than CO2 over 100 years, [5] and it is increasing.[5] In the year 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. [5] For this to be a part of human induced global warming, it has to have a human based source, and it is. Rice fields generate large amounts of methane during plant growth. [6] Municipal solid waste also produce Methane. [6] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2]http://ossfoundation.us...... [3]http://www.grida.no...... [4]http://www.epa.gov...... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org......
Humans are the main cause of global warming

Members of the Jury and voting members, my opponent has used negative attacked when I provided better facts them him. I do admit that my comments were scared at times however; the response of my opponents not willing to discard the sarcastic comments and provided more facts about his side of the argument shows that he did not have strong facts and more relievable proof. There was a great presidential debate this past year that use sarcastic comment. The following was the sarcastic quote "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed," Obama said, after Gov. Mitt Romney jabbed the president for, he said, overseeing a Navy that is smaller than at any time since 1917. [1]" Gov. Mitt Romney went on the negative attacked because he could not provide a better argument to this sarcastic comment. The facts are Methane gas in the Ocean being release is causing Global Warning and changes in the temperature and/or direction of the Gulf Stream is also causing Global Warning. With that say, I ask the member of the Jury to look at only facts and not at the sarcastic comment and negative comments towards each opponent. [1] http://www.politico.com...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

Yet, my opponent is missing the connection with geography in his own data and facts that he/she provided.I never said that drilling in the ground moves the continents. I also never said that co2 moves the golf stream, an ocean current.[1] Plus, although this debate includes geography, it is not mainly about it. Your claim that I think that drilling can cause the continents to move is completely baseless. My opponent is trying to use the halo effects or sometimes called halo error which is a cognitive bias in which our judgment of person"s character can be influences by our overall impression of meHow am I using it? Plus, you only described what a hao effect is, you did not say where and when I used it. This means that you have just made another baseless assertion.Because my arguments still stand, I have met my BOP. My opponent, however, (this is not an ad hominem attack as it is about my opponent's arguments, not him/herself) has used fallacious arguments, including thinking that just because it is an estimate means it is invalid, and strawman statements including stating that I think drilling moves contenents. That was not a good case.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Soccer/Football is better than Amercian Football

Yes, soccer is the most played sport in the world and therefore probably the most popular with the most people playing the game too. however, there is still the fact i stated earlier that anyone who knows anything about american football knows to be true; American football has much more to the game than soccer does. soccer has some fancy tricks and such but there is only so much strategy and technique and all that that can go into such a simple game.
Bsh1 vs. Lee001: Hot Guys Battle

Thank you Bsh1 for giving me another shot at this. As requested, I shall re-post the images from R3 into R4 properly this time.Name: Matthew TerryAge: 20Height: 6'1Weight: 172 As also agreed, I shall post my next hot guy.Name: David GandyAge: 35 yearsHeight: 6' 3"Can't find weight :l
Bsh1 vs. Lee001: Hot Guys Battle

Thanks, Lee! Because outside links aren't permitted in this debate, I have asked Lee to embed her R3 photos into R4 in addition to her R4 photos. Alternatively, she could save them to her DDO album and link them from there. Please do not penalize her for R3.Name: Mariano OntanonAge: 23Height: 6'1"Weight: 170
Bsh1 vs. Lee001: Hot Guys Battle

Sadly, Rich Text wont let me add muliple photos for some reason so I must just copy and paste the link. Matthew Terry Age 20 Height 6'1 Weight 172 https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
Bsh1 vs. Lee001: Hot Guys Battle

PrefaceI would ask Lee001 to please wait 12 hours or more before posting her acceptance. Thanks!I am having this debate because three debates on this topic is a nice, round number. This will most likely be my last debate like this---I am pretty sure it will be fun :)This debate is a non-scoring debate; feel free to cast null votes providing feedback, but do not score the debate. Both my opponent and I (by accepting this debate) agree that all votes cast on this debate should null (awarding no points or equal points to both sides). Any non-null votes should be deleted by the moderators unless an egregious violation of conduct or a clear-cut rules breach occurs within the debate. The response time for this debate is 24 hours. There is a maximum of 5,000 characters. Please be prepared for a swift debate.Purpose/StructureThis is a battle of who can present the hottest guys. No arguments should be presented for who is hotter--the photos should speak for themselves. Voters are free to cast null votes expressing their thoughts on the debate, but again, the end-result will be a tie.In each round, each debater will post 7 to 10 photos of a given model. All of the photos posted in a debater's portion of the round must be from the same model. So, all of my Round 2 photos must be from the same model/actor/person-who-exists, and all of my opponents's Round 2 photos must be from the same model. However, we are not allowed to use the same models as each other in the debate--so the person I pick for Round 2 cannot be used by Con in Round 2 or in any other round. Moreover, we may not repeat models, so I cannot used the Round 2 model in any other rounds. DDO users are off-limits. Models used in either of my 2 previous "Hot Guy" debates are also off-limits (sadly, in more ways than one).We should post the name of our selected model in each round, as well as--if we can find it--height, age, and weight. The name is required, but the other stats aren't; we will rely on the honor system to ensure that both of us made decent efforts to attain and furnish the other information, though. Also, while I use the term "model," it can really be any guy we think is hot.Round 1 should just be acceptance and acknowledgement of the rules. Rounds 2-5 are for us to post our images. Images may be linked to our photo albums on DDO or embedded in the debate. They should not be outside links. All images must conform to the TOS--they cannot be nudes (even ones that aren't fully revealing) or display graphic or inappropriate imagery. I think that this sums up the debate and its expectations pretty well, actually. Again, this is a non-voting debate. So, that concludes this portion of the OP.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere4. No trolling or semantics5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossThanks......in advance to whomever accepts; I look forward to a delectably sexy debate ;)
Snakes are gross!

Because PRO is affirming a positive statement, she alone has the burden of proof - she must be able to prove that snakes are objectively gross. There are several components to this: (1) proving that something can be objectively gross - i. e. , gross to everyone (2) proving that snakes in fact are (3) proving that this is so for all snakes If she fails to prove any of this, including but not limited to establishing a criteria by which something can be objectively gross, you vote CON by default. Further, if one of her reasons applies to some, but not all snakes, you discard it - because it cannot possibly establish the resolution, which applies to *all* snakes. PRO states, "Snakes are disgusting because they slither and they are gross. "PRO makes three claims: snakes are gross, snakes are disgusting, and snakes slither. The first two are her opinion - in fact, it's circular reasoning because she's asserting the resolution to be true without establishing it, so you discard it. The only non-circular point she makes is that snakes slither, but she doesn't establish that slithering is an objective criterion to establish grossness. Is everything that slithers objectively gross? She doesn't prove this, so you discard it at this moment. PRO says, "When they are touching you all you can feel is their muscles contracting. "Of course, this isn't true - because (1) their muscles may not be contracting, which is to say that they're at rest and (2) you'll also feel their scales, which sounds like a silly point but it invalidates this remark. Frankly, there isn't a takeaway or an impact of this. First, why are they touching you? Two, if they're touching you, even if YOU find that gross, that's subjectively, not objectively, gross - and thus cannot establish the resolution. Three, how is this gross? This is nothing more than PRO's subjective opinion. Therefore, you discard it because it cannot establish her burden of proof. PRO says, "They are poisonous and they feel cold and they are totally creepy. "Once more, she does not provide an objective criteria to assess objective grossness. How they "feel" is obviously subjective, the notion that they are "totally creepy" is circular logic and a subjective opinion, and the notion that they are poisonous is factually untrue, because that only applies to some - but not all snakes, though the resolution requires that she make a case that all snakes are gross. Further, she doesn't even explain how being poisonous constitutes being objectively gross. PRO says, "They have piercing eyes that freak me out. "As expected, this is nothing more than PRO's subjective opinion. She may find them to be gross, but others - such as myself - will not. Ergo, they are not objectively gross. Then PRO goes on to restate the resolution, without ever having argued for it.
Islam is peaceful

Islam means submit to Allah, Allah, the Arabic word for God. Islam forbids rape on Muslim women. Our debate is on Islam, not Prophet Muhammad. The hadith 4:24 does not portray, or say anything about rape. It says that the women can get married. Of the thousands of hadith on peace, you misinterpret one and say it is war manual. Islam does not use theocracy. It uses Shariah law, which is flourishing in countries like Malaysia who use a part of Shariah law. Islam does not hate Jews, it encourages to be nice to them. All those verses you posted are historical, and are in terms of history. There is war between Israel and Palestine because Israel thinks they can kick out innocent people because their ancestors were kicked out of there house. Sorry for my short answer, it is hard to type on the Note 4. Just a side note, ISIS has 30,000 recruits, Islam has 1.7 billion followers. ISIS makes up .01% of all Muslims. And besides, a fourth of the world is Muslim, you really think a fourth of the world will be following something violent? Another thing is that you cannot just pick a hadith from the Quran from history, you have to understand the hadiths that apply for the future. This also applies for Quranic verses. You have to do tafseer on them to get the meaning.
China is going to take over the world.

I would like to point out that voting is based completely off who's arguments are the most entertaining.A) China Can't Take Over the World Because No One Takes China SeriouslyIf a Chinese soldier marched into your neighborhood and screamed "CHING CHAO YU DI NO!" at you... you're probably going to laugh and offer him a fortune cookie. How can a culture take over the world when they're too dumb to realize 26 symbols in an alphabet is better than 10,000? What do you think when you think China? Walmart and Chinese food are probably pretty good bets. You don't think war machines, because if it's made in China it's probably sh*t. That includes their actual military stuff. If you saw a battleship with "Made in China" printed on the side, are you going to be afraid? No. It's probably made with lead paint in a sweat shop of disgruntled 5 year olds. Nothing to fear there.B) One Does Not Merely Take Over the WorldNo one has actually managed to take over the world. Not a single person, not a country, not a cult nor a fast food chain. No body. The world is just too big. Who wants to conquor Antarctica? And Christmas Island? (Yes there's a Christmas Island) And the Outback of Australia? No one. That's who. The Chinese don't want to do it either. They just want to sit around and eat rice and make things for Americans who enjoy annoying plastic crap. C) China = Na ic HIf you rearrange "China" you get na ic h which means "Take over the world?" Na. "Why not?" Ic. "What?" HClearly, the name China just screams "I don't want to take over the world." It's science. D) 'Murica If China wants to take over the world they have to go through... 'MURICA. America put a man on the moon. Kicked British a$$ when they were a superpower... TWICE. Kicked Superpower Germany's a$$... TWICE. We killed the Soviet Union. Built enough nukes to destroy the world. Smashed Japan. Took away Spain's colonies like taking candy from a baby. Ruined Mexico's chances of being a powerful nation by taking all of their territory. Yeah. China ain't getting through 'MURICA. Nice try though.