BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Corn Ethanol is an inefficient, environmentally harmful, impractical fuel that will not increase US

I have accepted to argue with you, but I refuse to back up my claims and hold the burden of proof on you.Argument:To discern whether corn ethanol is effcientt, good for the environment, and will increase US energy security. I must first explain what corn, ethanol, and corn ethanol is, how they are used, and their benefits/impacts.Corn: Corn, or Maize, is a main resource of starch native to the north americas. Maize flour, as you know, is an important constituent in home food preparation as well as in numerous mechanized comestible goods. Starch originating from corn can be utilized into constructing polymers of high molecular accumulation, textiles, bonding agents, and various other chemical compound goods.The reason corn is used, is because it is so cheap and useful.Ethanol: Ethanol is an explosive, combustible, colorless liquid. The leading singular utilization of ethanol, is ethanol as a motor fuel as well as a fuel stabilizer. It is known that ethanol as an energy source moderates detrimental tailpipe emanation of carbonyl, respirable suspended particles, nitrogen oxide, and other trioxygen producing toxins. http://www.ethanol.org... Corn Ethanol:Now with corn ethanol, you have created something in mind of two things. Corn Ethanol results in a 19% diminution in GHG, is better for the environment, and is fully biodegradable, unlike some fuel chemical additions. http://www1.eere.energy.gov... http://ianrnews.unl.edu... By rising demand, the production of corn ethanol augments the value of corn. This stimulates constructive financial outcomes for US cultivators because it aids in decreasing federal farm program expenses. http://www.ethanolrfa.org... Conclusion:Its true, I just spouted facts at you and haven't actually said anything argumentative or how these facts prove my point.But, It is more energy efficient because the cost of oil remains expensive, and the inexpensive use of feedstock like corn are practical and efficient.It is better for the environment, and is fully biodegradable. Therefore, I say it is good for the enviorment. It is an increase to energy security, by switching the need of foreign oil to domestic production of energy resources.http://ethanol.org...Con has just officially argued that corn ethanol is efficient, good for the environment, and will increase US energy security.I hereby rest my case.
Corn Ethanol is an inefficient, environmentally harmful, impractical fuel that will not increase US

Round 1. For acceptance/questions only. Corn Ethanol is defined as a fuel produced by the fermentation of sugars, etc. of the corn itself. Debate excludes cellulosic ethanol. 'Good choice' means that it is an economically viable fuel which succeeds at its intentions: namely, being environmentally friendly and reducing dependence on foreign oil/increasing US energy security. Con will argue that corn ethanol is efficient, good for the environment, and will increase US energy security. Good luck!
Corn Ethanol is an inefficient, environmentally harmful, impractical fuel that will not increase US

To continue with my arguments. You mentioned a reduction in GHG emissions of 19% (your sources ranged from 18-52 %) as being beneficial. Putting aside the fact that anthropogenic global warming is still largely n doubt and is probably not true if one looks at balanced, unbiased, and uncorrupted data, as well as the fact the the Department of Energy has a definite anti-fossil fuel agenda, this is not true in the long run. While ethanol emits about 1/3 less GHG than gasoline (a more reasonable estimate form Iain Murray of the Competitive Enterprise Institute) with all other factors being equal, all other factors are NOT equal. Ethanol is not as fuel efficient as gasoline (essentially, a car that gets 26 mpg with regular gasoline would get only 17 mpg on ethanol); you need to burn one and one half gallons of ethanol to get the same Btu rating as one gallon of gasoline; and the ethanol refining process itself uses far more GHG than oil drilling/refining. Therefore, ethanol almost certainly results in the emission of more GHG in the long run, especially considering things like the fact that ethanol must be trucked as opposed to pipelined, etc. Ethanol certainly does increase the value of corn, and that is a decidedly bad thing. Since the US supplies a large portion of the world's corn, and since even 15 billion gallons of ethanol will and has consumed over 40 percent of that crop, food prices around the world will rise. With the increase of ethanol in gasoline in late 2006 due to the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) mandate, the price of corn rose from $2.80/bushel to $4.20/bushel. Neighboring Mexico, who imports 80% of its corn from the US, experienced a doubling in the price of tortilla flour, a staple for poorer families. About energy security: in 2005 the US harvested 280 million metric tons of corn. The University of MInnesota states that if all of that corn were converted to ethanol, it would displace merely 12 of the national demand for gasoline. To continue to feed the nation and replace a paltry 10 % of gasoline needs, we would need to plant an additional 55 million acres of corn, likely this need would be greater since this land would not be of the best quality. Additionally, much of this land would have to come from the deforestation and conversion to farmland of forested areas.
Corn Ethanol is an inefficient, environmentally harmful, impractical fuel that will not increase US

Ethanol is not energy efficient because it contains just two thirds of the heat energy content of traditional gasoline. This fact is generally recognized, but specifically, I found it in a book by Robert Bryce called "Power Hungry." It is also inefficient because it requires massive amounts of land use compared to oil. Bryce compared the land use of various types of energy (wind, ethanol, nuclear, natural gas, solar, coal, and oil) needed to produce the equivalent of 2,700 megawatts. An average oil stripper well covers 39 square miles and produces approx. 148.5 horsepower per acre. Ethanol requires 21,267 square miles at only .25 hp/acre. Ethanol is not better for the environment because it uses obscene amounts of water. Ken Glozer, in his book "Corn Ethanol" states the fact that ethanol needs about 1,100 to 1,500 gallons of water per acre of ethanol, depending on the state which the corn is grown in. Using the lowest estimate (the average for Iowa), it would require 16.5 trillion gallons of water for a mere 15 billion gallons of ethanol. Even these 15 billion gallons will require more than 40 percent of US corn crop, driving up corn prices around the world. Ethanol will not increase US energy security. In part, this is because ethanol is extremely unreliable. Ethanol production would be impacted severely by either drought or floods, so it would not be able to function as a fuel source without significant reserves of petroleum in case of a bad crop-growing year. Oil, on the other hand, remains in the ground until needed. Ethanol is inefficient, worse for the environment than oil, and fails to increase energy independence.
hitler was a very smart man

Hmm. Not much to define. "very smart man" means someone who is surpasses others in intelligence by a great level, a genius. ==Rebuttals==PRO claims that Hitler is smart, because he managed to convince the people of Germany to hate Jews. 1) It wasn't actually Hitler that convinced the public, but rather Dr Joseph Goebbels, who was in charge of propaganda. He was also knows as the "Minister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment". Goebbels was the main reason why the people of Germany were tricked. He micromanaged what the public saw, and made sure nothing harmful about the Nazis were shown, and tried to increase public support for Nazis. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...PRO also mentions that Hitler was a great military strategist.1) Hitler didn't trust his generals, and even called them cowardly or stupid. Are these the actions of a brilliant war leader?2)He tended to reject any information that did not fit with his own wildly innacurate ideas. Furthermore he relied on his instinct, and believed that he could win the war through sheer will.3) He took personal command too far. Near the end of the war, Hitler ordered that no unit could move without direct permission, and he demanded reports on every armoured vehicle and position that he lost. Good opportunities were lost, and great dangers were unnoticed, due to these issues. Furthermore, on-the-scene commanders were held back by Hitler.4) Hitler also often put off big decisions. For example, in 1943, Hitler was unable to make up his mind about an attack at Kursk, which, in the end, delayed the attack from April to July. By then, the Soviets were already prepared for the attack.5) Hitler was also considered a nuisiance in military operations. He forced everyone to listen to him, and it was his choices that resulted in the loss of the war. He began attack Britian, with no plans on how he was going to win the war. He also started a war agaisnt the Soviet Union, where he had no back-up plan and assumed that he was going to have an easy win.All of this section came from this source:http://www.bbc.co.uk...;==Arguments==1) Hitler was forced to drop out of high school due to his failure in academics.http://library.thinkquest.org...2) In Vienna, he tried to get into the Viennese Academy of Fine Arts. However, the school believed that Hitler lacked any talent in drawing and in art. http://library.thinkquest.org...3) Hitler was believed to have Parkinson's disease. Around 40% those infected with this disease lose decision-making functions and become mentally inflexible. His disease also made him slow to respond to issues.http://www.fpp.co.uk...=======That's all I'll put for now... :D+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
States ought not possess nuclear weapons

First I will ask that my opponent forfeit last round as this debate is going to be in LD format. Quote: "I don't know what WWIII will be fought with but I know WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones. Since I agree with Albert Einstein I must Affirm the resolution that states ought not possess nuclear weapons. Define: States- as a nation. Morality - Which is the rightness or wrongness of actions Value is Utilitarianism - Which is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. My Criterion is Minimizing risk and increasing Security. Contention 1 : The possession of nuclear weapons are immoral when put to a utilitarianism stance. If we look at nuclear weapons in a utilitarianism stand point they just dont hold up. This is because nuclear weapons are extremely deadly, If the heat dont kill you that goes about 6 miles killing instantly then the blast or radiation will. Nuclear weapons also cause a EMP so medical attention or support is going to take some time. Nuclear weapons are also a threat to everyone not providing the most happiness to the greatest number of people. Contention 2: Nuclear weapons are in every since of the word paper weights, This is because nuclear weapons only deter nuclear weapons. If state A Conventionally attacks state B and they both have nukes, state B will of course attack back with conventional weapons. In which case nuclear weapons have not deterred or stopped this conflict and Mutually Assured Destruction has done nothing and falls. Contention 3: The possession of Nuclear Weapons is a useless unbenificial risk to society. In the states that MAD doesn't work then its only a matter of time before an accident or worse.
A leftist Anarchist society would be functional

What the Spaniards practiced in the Spanish revolution was "Anarcho-Communism" which is a leftist Anarchist society.To be more specific, some of them practied "Anarcho-Syndicalism" etc, which all falls under the realm of leftist Anarchy.They had no Government, and they had no CapitalismThey had no oppressive hierarchy or bossesThey didn't have money or oppressionNo crimes against each other or people that were able to work, unwilling to workThey proved to the world that a society without Government or Capitalism would function, and not only function but thrive.They achieved brotherhood, love for man, and equality
A leftist Anarchist society would be functional

I will be arguing that a leftist Anarchist society would work in regards to achieving the end of hunger and homelessness, the end of authoritarian iniquitous oppression, the high production of resources, and the end of most crime. In a leftist Anarchist society, currency would be abolished, exploitative private property would be abolished, and through consensus would decisions be made. Con will be arguing that a leftist Anarchist society would NOT function in regards to hunger, homelessness, oppression, crime, and production of resources.
the biblical god knowingly hates children

*yawn* Such a typical christian teeny bopper response. How boring can you be? A true boring boring boredom which bores a boring bore, namely yourself. I bet you can entertain yourself during a nuclear war. Oh and oh yeah dimwitted dullard snot meat sow, its not about winning or losing, its about what is right and is wrong and what is just and fair. So you by being as pathetically stupid and as uneducated as you are will always be on the losing end so I've already won before an ignorant spattered egg like you muttered his first syllable. Bye bye.
the biblical god knowingly hates children

I truly hate teeny bopper infidels who figure that 2 + 2 = 5 mathematics sustains the life engine of the planet in his orgrymama mind. No s--t for brains the bible is a fictional book as I clearly implied. Wow. Did yah figure that one out all on your own? Or did your special p**s help you when you drank it to give you that plop plop fizz fuzz oh your noodle brain is undone. Who cares about Harry Potter in your own special teeter laughter uppsy downsy lift that armpit to the world of yours so you can be sure to put on that special skunk perfume of yours. Now pay attention to the title of the broadcast "the biblical god..." So what does that tell you? Next time you enter a debate teeny bopper who cannot possibly be more than 15 years of age, get that razor blade out from your you know where areas before you develop some corn syrup blisters. Have a nice little noche'.
Oppressive Government is preferable to no government

I disagree with my opponent that this will come done to safety and body count. When looking at which is preferable, oppressive government or no government, you have to consider the fundamental human needs, which include subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure, creation, identity and freedom [1]. I will address these in the next round, and hope you will as well, but first, I will focus on your points. SafetyI am willing to concede that one is more safe during a time of no government. According to Benjamin Powell in his article about Somalia [2] ". .. a relative peace developed in Somalia. Crime and violence persisted, but not at the levels seen during the civil war. Various clan elders, warlords, and Islamic courts had power, but none were strong enough to impose themselves as the new government, and most of the fighting stopped. "During the regime of an oppressive government, the people are orderly, yes, but why can't the same be said of a state without government. Humans inherently strive to be orderly. Even without government, there can be civilization, and order, with little to no harm done to civilians. What Government? No GovernmentWhat my opponent says is true. There was a massive death toll in both of the oppressive governments of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and his argument as to why this is preferable to the body count caused by states with no government, and this is false. While there is no set time stamp as to how long an oppressive government can last versus how long a a state with no government, a country without a government is more likely to instate a central, non-oppressive (or oppressive, even)faster than an oppressive government due to the simple fact the people without a government are free to do so. Somalia's anarchy state only lasted for 21 years, and it is drafting its constitution and drawing nearer to a non-oppressive government everyday [3], while Soviet Russia took 74 years to do so[4], and Nazi Germany took 27 years to make the change [5]. I conclude by restating my points. a. A state with no government is just as safe, or safer, than an oppressive government. b. The time period where a state would have no government is shorter than that of one with an oppressed government. No government is preferable to an oppressed government.
death is too easy

To be honest, I think saying that the death penalty is deserved by some is usually out of pure anger. But if you stop to think about it, wouldnt the death penalty be too easy? I for one think life in solitary confinement is a better punishment. Let them suffer with the families they have destroyed! We are not God, so allow God to do his job in his own time. Let them stare at the walls. Let them think about the horrible things they have done. This also gives the wrongly convicted a chance to live as opposed to being put to death for a crime they did not commit.
Cthulhu for Prime Minister

Whilst this maybe true the great old one really knows about the issues of today. Equality, in ecanomic equality terms everyone will have a perfect equality of opportunity due to having only two meaningful choices, become Cthulhu's slave or die. And then their's gender and racial equality, Cuthulhu considers everyone inferior to him. Now i know what you're thinking, mental heath, well Cuthulha really understands mental health, he does that because he turns people who see his terrible might insane.
Full 50-State Green Retrofit Initiative

Sorry, I have to make my conclusion a little short. We're moving out of my house today and I don't have very much time or internet capacity.In Conclusion- Green energy is risky.- My opponent argued for more debt and debt for people already in debt because he thinks it is a "small amount", debt is debt. No energy project with such small yields is worth the extra debt incurred especially in our financial situation.- Neither the banks nor the federal government are in a secure position to guarantee loans - they can't even pay off the debt/payments they currently have much less ad BILLIONS of dollars in additional risk and spending.- All of the effects my opponent listed are exaggerated or are presented without the negative consequences.- Green retrofitting is EXTREMELY expensive in a time when most banks and American families have unstable financial situations this is bad policy.- My opponent asks for HIGHER energy bills NOW to get EVENTUAL savings. This doesn't sound like a good deal to me nor does it sound good for a struggling government and economy.While this energy retrofitting idea may be viable in the FUTURE in today's world with today's markets and economy it simply is not. We cannot take on more debt, we cannot afford the large loans in question, we cannot support HIGHER energy costs in the near future. Job creation in this economy is a myth and claiming you'll creat "1 million" jobs is a false claim Democrats have been making since 2009 when no jobs have been created. Guaranteeing loans and jobs in the green energy market has failed miserably up until this point. There is risk involved here.We cannot make this work in today's world.The resolution is thereby negated.
Full 50-State Green Retrofit Initiative

R1: Acceptance and Definition(s)R2-R3: Arguments and RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and Closing *No semantics or trolling----Background----50-state Green Energy Retrofit Iniative;is basically a public/private partnership by some aspects. To put it on a more basic level, a retrofit is when a utility company comes to the customer's property and basically makes it more updated, modern, and efficient by installing more green, clean energy systems to the building in areas such as water, insulation, HVAC, etc.However, to finance this retrofit, which has somewhat large upfront costs but longterm savings, the customer would continue to pay the original energy bill (the rate before the retrofit) or slighty more over time so eventually the cost of the retrofit plus interest comes as a net profit to the utility and the bank. We will assume that utility rates are decoupled for the purpose of this debate.To pay for the retrofits initially, most utilities would require loans from banks to finance the retrofits, -----This debate is over whether or not the Federal gov't should set up a loan guarantee program to assure banks that they will be repaid (upfront costs are large). The banks would give loans to utilities so they can perform retrofit(s) on their customer's property. In each retrofit scenario, the ideal result would be long term savings for the customer, a profit for the utility and the bank(s) involved. We will assume that the customers voluntarily agreed to the retrofits.Good luck.
Pornography should remain legal

Resolution - Pornography should remain legal and should not be bannedRoundsPro(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/Rebuttals/Closing StatementsCon (1) Contentions(2) Contentions/Rebuttals /Closing Statements(3) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing elseRules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point loss due to my adversary having an extra round. This means that if any other words are typed besides the aforementioned ones, my adversary will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss. (2) 10k character limits. (3) No semantics or trolling/ this will result in a ff
Best Pizza Topping

Rules of Debate:I will argue that pepperoni is the best pizza topping. My opponent will argue that another topping is its better. The burden of proof is to be shared equally. Argument:Pepperoni is the best topping for a pizza. And I'm not the only one who thinks so, it tops the list at most popular pizza topping. "It is estimated that 36% of all pizza orders have pepperoni."[1] Pepperoni is the classic pizza topping for a reason. Vote pro. Sources:1 http://tinyurl.com...
Resolved: It is rational to believe that God only lets Atheists into Heaven

"If god/ gods would allow those who deny their/his/her possibility than why would those who "believe crazy sh*t without evidence" not be allowed?" Because believing something tremendously outlandish without a shred of evidence and then using that unfounded belief to deny rights to other people is the biggest d*ck move you could ever pull in life. Also, nobody likes having a bunch of conspiracy theorists in their house. You think God would want heaven to be full of people who think the Illuminati control everything? Of course not! Conspiracy theorists suck which is why nobody, not even God, lets them into their house. When was the last time you actually let a Jehovas Witness inside your home? Exactly. People hate conspiracy theorists, which is why they dont let them into their home, and why God wouldnt let crazy religious people into Heaven.
Resolved: It is rational to believe that God only lets Atheists into Heaven

If god/ gods would allow those who deny their/his/her possibility than why would those who "believe crazy sh*t without evidence" not be allowed. If humans were given reason by an all powerful being than wouldn't be logical and within this reason to fear this being? For evidence I look to the flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the twelve plagues of Egypt due to the prevalence of Christianity.