BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anthropogenic climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent.StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Source.0. http://www.debate.org...
Anthropogenic climate change.

The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8]As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case."Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -StupidapeThis appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9]The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic. In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. "The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures."This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. Sources:[8] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[9] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...[10] https://www.epa.gov...
Homosexuality

there you are wrong!!! homosexuals have as much rights as any person!!!! In the eyes of god and our government we are all people!!! yes they made the wrong choices. but who doesnt... nobody is perfect we all make wrong decisions in life. you cant tell me you have never done something you shouldnt have. In the eyes of the government, We all pay taxes, we all hold jobs, we all do anything a citizen must do, so seripusly, why should marriage be a different institution. and i guarantee that if they had just one partner, the disease will stop spreading
Homosexuality

First of all I said nothing about rape I said child molestations and yes it is true visit think link http://hem.passagen.se... it has a study performed by homosexuals that shows the percentage is above 75% in the north eastern states that homosexuals make up a much higher percentage of child molestations thus proving that it is a perversion unsatisfied by the homosexual agenda. And as far as Michael Jackson is concerned is he truly the subject you want to support your opinion? that fact is I am showing you statistically proven facts about homosexuals and their immoral and unhealthy contributions to society and you are simply telling me your opinion based argument. You see you are the one that is stereotyping, rights?? haha why should they have rights? your trying to compare them to a race or a undecided dysfunction if homosexuality is not a choice or a prevision then why is it a fact that some have become heterosexuals and quit the homosexuality completely? you cannot quit being black or white or Hispanic, you cannot choose if your born with blond or black hair, you can however choose if your going to succumb to perversion. Homosexuals should not have rights under the fact that they are homosexuals, as a human and a citizen yes but not as a homosexual. And it does not matter to me if its more in the male community the fact is homosexuals are spreading HIV to over 500 partners in life, and yes heterosexuals spread also but heterosexuality is natural and reproduces, homosexuality does one thing only and that is satisfy a perversion that exists only because we are taught to accept it.
Homosexuality

no matter what it is still their right just like you and i have tthe right to marry who ever we please.....the stats about hiv are only in the male community.... lesbianare also homosexuals F.Y.I. and also deeply affected... as of right now its still just a stereotype and what you have is called homophobia..... if they are you cant honestly tell me that only homosexuals commit rape. as i remember anybody can commit rape even catholic priest... hell micheal jackson raped and molested kids to... so the whole rape thing is just a stereotype
Homosexuality

Are homosexuals really hurting anyone? apparently you did not read my entire argument, yes absolutely they are they are statistically speaking they are spreading sexually transmitted diseases in an enormous rate more specifically HIV, in the 1960's the HIV virus was a issue in the homosexual community ONLY after a few years did it eventually reach everyone who is sexually active, also committing crimes? absolutely as well you apparently did not read my post completely, according to a study done in 04 more than 75% of child molestations were performed by members of the active homosexual community. And apparently you did not read my comments again, they are not being judged by their orientation they are being judge on there dysfunction's and the clearly unhealthy and abominable lifestyle they lead. Also do you truly believe the founding fathers would have supported the homosexual community? its not even worth mentioning
anyone who didnt vote for Obama is a racist!!!!!

man you all ganging up on me like im the one whos doing bad! time to step up my game then you talk to republicans they tell you they not racist, because iits not populer to be racist. but secretly they all voted for Ramney and McCane because theyre racist. my opponent says there other reasons not to vote for Obama. but is this really true? Obama is the great Furer who leads america to the American Riech! his unaffordable care act show his greatness! surly those who oppose Obama are racist trecherus enemees of the state! its not racist to vote for Obama, we need first black president no matter who he is! May the Senit and the Houss declare Obama der Furer of the American Rejeem! my arguments have prevalled against the racist republican!
anyone who didnt vote for Obama is a racist!!!!!

Ahh, we have more fallacies to examine here in round 2. Let me introduce you to the most notorious one there:AD HOMINEM"the evasion of the actual topic by directing the attack at your opponent." My opponent avoids the topic completely by trying to degrade me and the cause itself; Accusing me of being a Republican, A confederate, intolerant bigot and racist. He did not answer nor refute my arguments and he did not place any new to the table. Now, his attacks on me are not based on anything and to be completely honest are so far off mark that it's almost humiliating. Let's recap: I'm a Republican, despite the fact that I do not live in a 2-party system nation. I'm a confederate and yet I don't live in the US; I'm Intolerant despite living in a country where the first female president was voted into office and am a friendly, patient man that tolerates everything and everyone. I'll on the other hand gladly accept that I tend to be a bit of a bigot, but only a little bit. I have a bit of an ego which isn't a good thing when you're intelligent. I've improved a lot over the last few years and I'm not as full of myself as I used to be. now, I'd like my opponent to watch his mouth and spelling: we are on a mature debating platform and making three spelling mistakes in the line where you're insulting your opponent doesn't fit in well here. Back to the debate:Since all my arguments went unanswered completely I'd like my opponent to answer them in a mature and reasonable way and properly support his opinion and defend the resolution. I await the next set of arguments and hand the debate over.
Leave the Toilet Lid Up

Now that I have done some research, due to your argument, I think I am turning into a germaphobe. My argument had nothing to do with sanitation. I had assumed that water being sucked down could not somehow shoot up. If your source is correct... Now I see there are no lids in public washrooms. Forget men vs women stuff. This means that there is upspray from how many users during one day? What about a hockey game/rock concert? Ah.... this is not good. Why is the public not made aware that they are grabbing handles, toilet paper itself that is 'compromised'. This is grossing me out. I think this has led to a new debate: public washrooms have to have toilet lids and shouldn't won't flush or the stall door won't open unless the lid is down etc.
Leave the Toilet Lid Up

Thank you for suggesting I have conflated the issues under question. I do like to to solve two problems with a single action (or kill two birds with one stone, as the saying goes).The resolution deals directly with toilet lids, not seats. I have provided the clear reason of sanitation for putting it down. It need not be any "'huge' health hazard," to wish the bathroom not be sprayed with fecal matter bacteria; granted if someone is ill the importance increases [1]. The wisdom of my source stands (for an example of how to properly refute a source, see Albert Einstein below)."It is a hold over from the old times when there were out houses."A very nice fallacious Appeal To Novelty (to say something must be better for being newer) [3]. The importance then was greater due to noticeable smell (like porta potties now), yet the issue of sanitation has not been properly refuted.Further I have countered the side argument about fairness, with a logical solution that both men and women should close the toilet lid causing equal effort to be taken."Albert Einstein"A great Appeal To False Authority [3], doubly so since it allowed the introduction of a .edu site as a source. For refuting it... Albert Einstein was a brilliant physicist, without whom he might never have had the atomic bomb. He was not a mechanical engineer with anything to say about toilets. Thus he's useless as a source. From the source we learn that "I'm afraid I can't vouch for [the quotes] authenticity, tell you where it came from, who compiled the list, who Kevin Harris is, or anything like that." Thus authorship of the quote falls not to Einstein, but the author of the webpage Stuart Cheshire; a guy who is good at programming computers. Also not an authority on toilets. "Read More" Done, and pro's second source clearly supports my side. "'It is very clear from our work that the lid is there for a reason,' Professor Wilcox told Mail Online. '...we found that the toilet could spray up to 50 droplets per flush.'" How many people really want that much extra piss or fecel matter (mixed with water) spread around their home?I stand by my assertion that it is common sense to close the toilet, as the very design has a lid for a reason. If this is too much trouble, you have the middle ground option of buying a seat without a lid; or even scrapping the seat and lid entirely within your own home (either utterly side stepping the "leave the toilet lid up" resolution). Sources:[3] http://www.informationisbeautiful.net... (Novelty is seventh down on the left, Authority is second down on the left)
Leave the Toilet Lid Up

I think you are conflating the issue a bit: "The professor said that although it was unlikely that keeping the lid up would be a 'huge' health hazard, their findings suggested patients with a superbug should at least have a dedicated toilet." Ok, if you have a super bug fine. Bottom line is wash your hands and keep your bathroom clean. I think this whole lid thing gives people a false sense of cleanliness. It is a hold over from the old times when there were out houses. It is common sense? "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." Albert Einstein How old are you :) Sources http://rescomp.stanford.edu... Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...-
Leave the Toilet Lid Up

Gross.Men should put it down, because without a great amount of creative effort there is no way to close the lid prior to flushing, while leaving the seat up. "Scientists from the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust found that leaving the lavatory lid up when you flush the toilet causes a cloud of bacteria to explode into the air and settle on nearby surfaces" [1]. You don't by chance leave your uncovered toothbrush in there with the lid up do you?I'm not going to suggest the lengths to address the problem shown on South Park [2], but seriously, this is common sense. Both men and women should close the lid before flushing. Equal time is taken for both sides.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...[2] http://www.southparkstudios.com...
Leave the Toilet Lid Up

Noting the number of conceeded points, I'm assuming that was a concession (voters, that means I suggest argument for me, but conduct for him. .. If you do not accept it as such, measure the argument as you normally would). Often there are waterspots on the seats of public toilets from it spitting some of the water back up, not that many people actively piss on the toilet seat and leave it there. Thanks for the debate. Having served as a combat medic, I know far too much about germs. ..
The website "Debate. Org" has serious problems that must be addressed.

When I attempt to access this debate from "my messages" ( which says "you have a debate argument due" I get this. . . . . . Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, Had its name changed, Or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested URL: /debates/The-website-Debate. Org-has-serious-problems-that-must-be-addressed. /4/
The website "Debate. Org" has serious problems that must be addressed.

Here is proof. . . . When I attempt to find this debate I get. . . "Server Error in '/' Application. The resource cannot be found. Description: HTTP 404. The resource you are looking for (or one of its dependencies) could have been removed, Had its name changed, Or is temporarily unavailable. Please review the following URL and make sure that it is spelled correctly. Requested URL: /debates/The-website-Debate. Org-has-serious-problems-that-must-be-addressed. /4/" I had to find a "backdoor" into my own debate!
The website "Debate. Org" has serious problems that must be addressed.

This website has some serious problems. In the debate https://www. Debate. Org/debates/We-need-bigger-government/1/, The voting period began on March 7, 2019. Five days later an email went out saying an "argument was due" (after the debate ended? ). Also in that debate CON's argument was lost in round 2/. Here is a comment made. . . . "I am CON. Again I posted my reply. . . The timer reset to 3 days. . . My argument again did not appear. . . ~! " and then "Finally. . . . My argue has been posted. Thank you. ". Then later that argument disappeared! There was a similar problem in the debate. . Https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Trump-is-a-bad-president/3/. Here is the comment "Where is my round 4 argument. It was posted, Accepted, And now gone. " These glitches are affecting these debates. They must be fixed. Also these "glitched" debates must be "set aside" until these issues are fixed.
Evolution vs Christianity

"Well actually telling about the great flood was great evidence because it lets people know that there must have been a creator that caused that. Which leads to creationism."Fine, I'll talk about it. Noah's flood is impossible. There is not enough water on Earth to cover all land masses. If that's not enough proof, how did two of every animal fit on one ship? How did Noah maintain all of these animals? How did the kangaroos get there? Did they swim? There are many more flaws with this story then I care to mention.http://history.howstuffworks.com..."Oh and not finding the missing link is good evidence. Because it shows that it is impossible for evolution to happen."It doesn't show that evolution is impossible, it only shows that we haven't found the missing link yet."And I've heard many Christian scientists say they believe natural selection happened, but evolution and the change from a cell to a monkey to a human."If you find natural selection to be possible, there is no reason for you to find evolution impossible. Evolution is just Natural Selection over millions of years. Little changes over a long period of time can result in massive changes.
Evolution vs Christianity

"Can you snap your fingers to make a rose? If you believe that there is no overall being that created everything, then a single rose must have come from somewhere. If you believe that, then you should be able to whip one up right quick. Oh, what's that? You can't? Well then how did the first rose come to being? There must have been something there to make it. That something is God."When your friend said this, I didn't know what he was talking about. Now you say it and I still don't understand it. Please explain this 'point'. "...if evolution did happen why haven't we found the missing link? Ohhh whats that it doesn't exist!!!"Just because we have not found it yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Also we do have evidence that creationism did happen its called the Bible"The Bible is not proof. The Bible is only a book. Real world observations are proof. We have no real world observations that provide proof of Creationism. Therefore we have no proof. "...we have also found Jesus's death blanket"What does this have to do with anything? And just so you know the blanket thing is a fake. "Sources the Great Flood happened: National Geographic Society explorer Robert Ballard, inspired by Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis, has discovered supporting physical evidence"I'm not even going to argue this. We are talking about Evolution vs. Creationism here.
Evolution vs Christianity

First want to state that I meant to put evolution vs creationism. Sorry I just copied something from your other debate, but *Can you snap your fingers to make a rose? If you believe that there is no overall being that created everything, then a single rose must have come from somewhere. If you believe that, then you should be able to whip one up right quick. Oh, what's that? You can't? Well then how did the first rose come to being? There must have been something there to make it. That something is God. -And second of all the person who came up with the idea of continental drift was a christian named Alfred Wegener. And if evolution did happen why haven't we found the missing link? Ohhh whats that it doesn't exist!!! -Also we do have evidence that creationism did happen its called the Bible, and we have also found Jesus's death blanket -Sources the Great Flood happened: National Geographic Society explorer Robert Ballard, inspired by Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis, has discovered supporting physical evidence, including an underwater river valley and ancient shoreline as well as Stone Age structures and tools beneath the Black Sea. His team has also unearthed fossils of now-extinct freshwater species dating back some 7,460 to 15,500 years. Source- http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Evolution vs Christianity

Currently, I'm working on another debate proving evolution vs. creationism. The evolution vs. creationism debate is a good one, but evolution vs Christianity? I hope you realize that evolution is a scientific theory and Christianity is a whole religion. I don't get how you want me to argue. I am assuming you want to argue evolution vs. creationism. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this assumption. So, let me begin.Creationism Shouldn't Be on the Same Level as Evolution How do you even compare these two explanations as equal? One is backed up by tons of scientific evidence, and one comes straight out of a book that also says that the earth is flat. There is no evidence for creationism. None. I really don't get how Creationism has survived this long. Why is Creationism not on the same level as the flat earth or the geocentric model? They all come out of the same book. Why discard one and throw away another? Please tell me if you agree that the Earth is flat or the geocentric model.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Evolution HAS Evidence Behind itExcuse me for copying and pasting from one of my previous debates on this issue, but I explained this issue better in this response.There is lots of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I it useless to deny it. If you don't believe me, just look around you. Do your own research. Evidence from Geographic Distribution Data about the presence or absence of species on various continents and island. Fossil Record It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Evidence from Comparative Anatomy Comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals or plants reveals that certain structural features are basically similar. Evidence from Observed Natural Selection Examples for the evidence for evolution often stem from direct observation of natural selection in the field and the laboratory. Evidence from computation and mathematical iteration Computer science allows the iteration of self-changing complex systems to be studied, allowing a mathematical understanding of the nature of the processes behind evolution ...and many more. I don't have time to go into detail, but you can read more about these evidences and others here: http://en.wikipedia.org...