BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans

For now, i drop most of the sources since its all coming from the same source. DEFENSE;*Slams desk* Actually, the CO2 is what keeps the heat in. It's called the greenhouse effect (1), the CO2 in the atmosphere is like the plastic wrap on microwaved leftovers. It lets the microwaves in, but traps the steam from the warm food. We wouldn't be roasted from a lack of CO2, and the atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's gravity(2). The Earth would actually be very cold without CO2. The atmosphere has actually 2 effects on the warmth. The first one is that it reduces the warmth that gets inside earth, just as i said, we will be roasted if this didnt happen. The second one is that it keeps the warmth inside for a set period of time and then they will be released from the atmosphere. However the atmosphere thickness at the start doesnt cause the bad effects of global warming to happen as i said. COUNTER;*Points finger in your direction* 1. The temperature is nearly double of what it was when? How exactly does that prove the atmosphere has thickened? And, although emissions from an increase in technology can contribute to an increase in temperature, you don't say how this proves global warming is entirely our fault. It seems you do ignore my sources, if u readed it, the warmth began to rise in the year 18's Thats around the same time when the Industralization began. The industralization is the start of the increased emissions of CO2 and other gasses. So it proves our fault. 2. That does not prove that global warming is caused by humans, only that we can do something about it. Before you actually do something about, you must locate the cause of it. Many suspected that the gas emissions were the causes and so the emissions were lowered. The effects of global warmth has been lowered slightly. Now, you say that we can do something about it, but its not our fault. Then how do you explain that we fixed the global warming because we lowered the emissions? In short, we caused the global warmings bad side effect. I await my opponent's response Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans

Thanks for debating with me. "Cant really refute this one, this one is true. If CO2 wasnt there, the atmosphere would be so thin, that we all would be roasted and life on earth would be impossible. But this argument says nothing about humans not causing the global warming. Aside from humans, the CO2 emission alone from nature doesnt cause global warming. " Actually, the CO2 is what keeps the heat in. It's called the greenhouse effect (1), the CO2 in the atmosphere is like the plastic wrap on microwaved leftovers. It lets the microwaves in, but traps the steam from the warm food. We wouldn't be roasted from a lack of CO2, and the atmosphere is held in place by the Earth's gravity(2). The Earth would actually be very cold without CO2. "Uhm, we wont be happy if the ice age comes again >. < But ice ages wont just come because it wants to, there was always a cause. (meteorite strikes, etc. ) It may have been a natural process back then, but it still proves nothing that humans didnt cause the global warming. " I agree, another ice age would be a very bad thing. I never said there wasn't a cause to any of the ice ages, so I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with that, or how an ice age would "want" to happen. If it was a natural process back then (you didn't say when, exactly), it shows a pattern. The pattern would suggest that global warming would again be caused by a natural process. "1. The temperature I mean look at the temperature. The temperature is higher (nearly double) then it was back then. It proves beyond the doubt that the atmosphere has thicken. Not to mention that the CO2 emission was high back then with the new technology and industralization. " The temperature is nearly double of what it was when? How exactly does that prove the atmosphere has thickened? And, although emissions from an increase in technology can contribute to an increase in temperature, you don't say how this proves global warming is entirely our fault. "2. The CO2 emissions The moment they found out about the Global Warming, the CO2 emission was decreased. A year there after, the temperature went down too. Not to mention that the big hole of the atmosphere in Australia has also been smallen. It proves beyond a doubt that it was caused by humans. " That does not prove that global warming is caused by humans, only that we can do something about it. Sources 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans

Now i've come up with multiple reasons why humans are actually the cause of global warming. But lets refute yours first. "My argument is that, while global warming may have been intensified by human influence (CO2 emissions, methane emissions, etc. ), it is also a product of the Earth itself and this should be considered when reporting on the drastic effects of global warming. " Cant really refute this one, this one is true. If CO2 wasnt there, the atmosphere would be so thin, that we all would be roasted and life on earth would be impossible. But this argument says nothing about humans not causing the global warming. Aside from humans, the CO2 emission alone from nature doesnt cause global warming. "The ice caps will melt and water levels will rise. These are leftovers from the most recent ice age, the Quaternary glaciation (1), and should be expected to melt as we move toward the Holocene epoch (2). Rainforests and deserts will change, but this has happened before. Global warming, while real, is not entirely a result of our actions. " Uhm, we wont be happy if the ice age comes again >. < But ice ages wont just come because it wants to, there was always a cause. (meteorite strikes, etc. ) It may have been a natural process back then, but it still proves nothing that humans didnt cause the global warming. My arguments why the global warming is caused by humans: 1. The temperature I mean look at the temperature. The temperature is higher (nearly double) then it was back then. It proves beyond the doubt that the atmosphere has thicken. Not to mention that the CO2 emission was high back then with the new technology and industralization. 2. The CO2 emissions The moment they found out about the Global Warming, the CO2 emission was decreased. A year there after, the temperature went down too. Not to mention that the big hole of the atmosphere in Australia has also been smallen. It proves beyond a doubt that it was caused by humans. I await the response of my opponent. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . https://www.socialtext.net... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming is Entirely Caused By Humans

My argument is that, while global warming may have been intensified by human influence (CO2 emissions, methane emissions, etc.), it is also a product of the Earth itself and this should be considered when reporting on the drastic effects of global warming. The ice caps will melt and water levels will rise. These are leftovers from the most recent ice age, the Quaternary glaciation (1), and should be expected to melt as we move toward the Holocene epoch (2). Rainforests and deserts will change, but this has happened before. Global warming, while real, is not entirely a result of our actions. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Beginners' Tournament: Abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape.

Pro begins with an interesting point. Pro states that the fetus is a human. This "human" is barely conscious of its own existence but, more importantly, is nothing but a parasite to its host (the mother) and frankly is a parasite even after birth unless she gives him/her up for adoption. Would we apply the same morality we would an earthworm to a tapeworm? Would we apply the same morality we would to a soldier of our nation to one of the enemy nation in a war? There are many contextual aspects to the morality of killing a human being that Pro fails to address.Pro is using a form of morality called deontological ethics[1] which state that ones duty and role in society dictates what is 'right' or 'wrong' and that no other factors should be taken into account. This is not only a flawed way to go about morality in the legal sense but is not substantiated by any means.Everything Pro has proves that the fetus is of the species human. That is all that it proves.Pro overlooks back-alley abortions abortions[2], the feelings or ethics regarding the mother and situations where the mother may die from childbirth.Pro has not uphold their resolution at all and I'll bring more evidence in R3 if necessary. Quoting famous people proves nothing.Sources:[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.jamaicaobserver.com...
Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate

My opponent has forfeited, if I'm not mistaken, The original promise of god, still never forsaken, Part of a new covenant? so now can eat bacon. The messiah will eventually come, and nations awaken. The Oh T, is the only T, it's never been amended, If otherwise, in this debate, it's never been contended, I'd like to apologize, I realize, if anyone is offended, I'll leave it there for now, with my arguments extended.
Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate

My rhymes have that effect, but I don't like to boast, I'll break it down, like a proper noun, while you nosh on the host, This rap will continue, tough like a sinew, even if you don't post, So let's get in this groove as I disprove the son and holy ghost. Let's get cliche and check it, inspect it, in each way we can, Let's go through the verses, reverse this, I'll draw up the plan, I'll shine enough light, if that is alright, so much we both will get tan, You saying it's Jesus, that's how you read this? from "Let us make man"? Connect the dots, we sure have lots, to whatever is your conclusion, I know it's not Judah, so maybe it's Buddha? Just pick your allusion, So what is the source, it's anything of course, to match the illusion, Do as you want, but no reasons to flaunt, this theological transfusion. I want to reiterate, before I obliterate, the problem perceived, The logical problems inherent, apparent, to connect it to what is believed, The after-the-fact notion to this promotion, that's not preconceived, It's a false source of divinity, and even the trinity, so nothings achieved. The commentator Rashi: He's inclined to opine, that it's humility that is key, To teach us this, even if easy to miss, by being humble like god's decree, Nachmanides explains: It's us, the ground, earth or plains, can't you see? He formed man of dust from the ground, thus this is it, and more likely to be. But it's not what you stated, ever so how elated, so let's keep this going, "Let US make man", I see you're a fan, but my arguments keep flowing, It's not in the bible, it's practically libel, and it's that I am showing, The logic is lacking, and I'll keep on tracking, as the flaws keep on growing. Let's keep this moving, before we're concluding, and then we're departed, "In the Zohar it says..." What?, that's not three names, don't get me started. "Hear oh Israel, "Gods name" is your god, "God's name" is one" is a better translation, "How can three names be one?" you ask, well that's already faced total negation. It's easy to rebuild, make it fulfilled, if the scripture faces this type of mutilation, But that is not what it means, however it seems, in any single OT location. "Hear oh Israel, Hashem (the name) is your god, Hashem is ONE" That's what it's saying, to only one we are praying, no matter how it is spun, How many gods are there, just look you know where, aside him there are none, I'll continue this, as there are things I did miss, but this round is done.
Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate

It's errant, transparent, like a drunken college streaker. I know the scripture, the big picture, so pay attention to this speaker. Messiah is a Jewish concept, he just hasn't come yet, When he does, it will be obvious to everyone, so get set, God made it clear, he is one, Jews repeat it every day so they wont forget. You believe it means gods, but the word has less clarity, The pluralization is unique as the word has dexterity, It can be used, abused, towards even more parity, 3 parts of god? How bout 10? Let's make it about popularity. Wanna get esoteric? Ignore the generic? I'll listen to the mystics, Want to quote the Zohar? Think that will go far? So we'll ignore the linguistics. I can rant all day, it's just a matter of statistics, But we're not talking about "gods", it's about characteristics. Let me reiterate this concept of preconceived notions, It's easy, it's can prove anything that comports with emotions, It's important when you can pull from text like the oceans, But it doesn't prove anything, as I refute all your motions. You're dropping verses like you have the burden of proof, "Hear oh Israel, I am ONE", so what is the truth? Quote the obscure? Are you sure? You's swinging like Ruth, Seeking any text you can, like candy for my sweet tooth. Let's start from the beginning, you must first prove divinity, Then we can move on, and you can try to prove trinity. Want to assert this that you have such affinity? Then show why it matters, from now to infinity. I can't refute something before it's been stated, I'll wait til you bring up Jesus so that can be debated, It's not my intent for anything to be desecrated, But be sure your verses have been properly translated. I'm arguing that Jesus wasn't the messiah, he never was crowned, The "anointed one" he wasn't, not in any verse I have found, Renowned, abound, sure, his impact is profound, But not the messiah, good luck in your next round.
Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate

Ok, say the wrong thing, you might get executed by the Mujahideen Did i tell you that it is by beheadin', palm sweatin', no red beam? But how can i deny the great things of God that i have seen? I see within these Scriptures, the true nature of God, Elohim People think that Christ doesn't exist in Judaism time to bring back the Jewishness of Messiah, restore the holy land, Zionism God is eternal, existin' in all places, Buddhism, Hinduism, even Taoism Even in these lyrics, the all-seein mind can reveal himself in this lyricism One supreme deity, united, but it means Gods Diggin' into the divine mindset through the Bible like prods Lets not forget impossible solutions, it can't be a plural of majesty An angelic being containing the inexpressible God's image, that's a tragedy A singular entity within this divine reality when it says "Let us make man.." a catastrophe Hmm, lets see, lets go into the Jewish mindset of Kabbalah take into consideration that there is more to the nature of Allah n' Jah There could be many manifestations within a single being But from what we can see is that there are only 3, all agreein' Lets examine the uniqueness of the trinity, it's not a pantheon nothin' can separate em' not even if you tried to drop a cosmic bomb E'ery person is a god, workin' as the almighty, whole in essence, shalom In the Zohar it says, 3 persons exist within Godly emanations Didn't touch the N.T, but we still received these greatest revelations No words by pastors, "three in one" these are words of Jewish rabbis A man who raises the dead should not be blasphemed, he can raise a livin soul when it dies In the Zohar, it says "Hear, 0 Israel, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai is one. These three are one. How can the three Names be one? Only through the perception of faith.." Right there, father, spirit, ' holy Son! I would argue tha holy one of Israel before all right before us as God gave me truth, but i save that for the next 1 that we'll discuss
Christian rapper (me) vs. Jewish rapper Rap battle/debate

This will be a debate focusing on proving Jesus is the Jewish messiah. I as a Christian will argue for why Jesus is not only the messiah, but also God from the Scriptures. My opponent will argue for why Jesus is not the Jewish messiah and why he's not divine. There's a twist though, both of us will rap battle our arguments and the person with the best raps and arguments wins. Rules: Once you accept, you cannot forfeit any match, if you do, i get a vote. Other than that, there are no rules, you can say whatever you want. Let's get this started, do you accept?
My opponent is a zombie (not serious)

Thanks for the response. "I am compelled to correct any illusions my opponent is [has?] as it is not said he is a zombie. It is not said he is a zombie it is said he is an illusion." When was it ever stated that I was merely an illusion? This debate is titled, "My opponent [me] is a zombie"! How can you go full-circle and call me an illusion, rather than a zombie? I've been arguing about 'zombies' for the past rounds, and you bring such an argument up now? Regardless, to answer such a point, I'm not an 'illusion.' Illusions are things of a mental state, and if I existed only in a mental state, how could I be typing on a keyboard? How could I be observing the case you have presented? I don't exist in a mental state, I'm not an illusion, and I'm certainly not a zombie. Closing My opponent has never answered the fact that I think, therefore I am. This means I must have control over a mental system, my brain, which I can use to post my arguments and refutations. By proving that I retain just one aspect of a normal human being, I prove that I am not a zombie. Because of my mental capabilities, I believe that I deserve to win this debate.
My opponent is a zombie (not serious)

I am compelled to correct any illusions my opponent is as it is not said he is a zombie. It is not said he is a zombie it is said he is an illusion. As for the MFT argument I must say that I am not saying that anything has a different chance of happening. If something has not happened there is no proof of it ever being possible. I don't know what type of determinism you study but mine could better be described as the brick universe theory or eternalize. Please educate yourself and click the following link while I impose revolution in Latin America. http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)
My opponent is a zombie (not serious)

Thanks, Sonofkong. I completely agree with your opening statement. I realize that most of the time in the previous round, I have been simply saying things only I can experience, which could not held accountable. Now, I'll try to do the opposite and use real info that isn't my own personal experience. I realize that the Proposition must prove that I am a zombie. My opponent has never specified whether or not a zombie must fit all criteria he listed, and I am pretty sure that a person only needs to fulfill one area to prove that he/she is not a zombie. For this reason, I pick mentality/consciousness. Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience, awareness, the ability to experience "feeling", wakefulness, the understanding of the concept "self", or the executive control system of the mind. It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena [1]. A zombie has no real thinking capability. And instead of actual literacy/speech, a zombie would probably write gibberish, or it would moan nonsensical words [2]. Am I writing gibberish? Am I devoid of all literacy? In writing this, it would certainly appear not. I can control my mind in this sense to think, to write, and to argue. "I'm afraid that even if you were to magically disprove mentalist theory or descarteanism there is a backup idea which says that time is set (similar to Dr. Manhattan) and we have no free will to change it. This is very complicated idea, backed up by Quantum physics which says there is a set chance or role of the dice for every possibility. this is too complex to put to more complex words so I will show you a link which explains it better." To this, I respond with the minimal free will thesis (MFT). "1. With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. 2. Whatever should be done can be done. 3. If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done. 4. I believe MFT. 5. With respect to the free-will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods. 6. If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods. 7. If determinism is true, then MFT is true. 8. MFT is true. (from 7) [3]" For more information, go to my third source. I believe I have sufficiently proved that I can think, and since a zombie cannot do such an act of controlling the mind, I am not a zombie. I await the response. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.wegame.com... 3. http://home.sprynet.com...
My opponent is a zombie (not serious)

Thanks for replying Sonofkong. Refutations "We live in the world of Physicalism, the commonly accepted belief where everything including consciousness is a physical object and if I am almost certain I touched something it indeed happened." I'm very certain that I am in the response section, for I touched the mouse on my laptop to move the cursor to the 'reply' link and found myself here. Today, I accidentally burned my finger while touching a plate that was extremely hot. I felt that, and if I touch my burn mark, it still hurts. By writing this paragraph, I must be conscious to do so. "We live in the world of mentalism where everything is an image in my mind which is not physical but is instead mental material." I'm envisualizing the words I plan to write in this paragraph. There certainly aren't words in my head, but they're merely 'ideas,' as former English philosopher John Locke described. "Note that when I say that I exist I am in no way speaking of my entire visible body but rather sense outputs and a mind which is capable of collecting data, inferring, and making decisions, something you zombies can't do." Sight is a sense. If I couldn't use such a sense, I wouldn't be able to copy and paste your arguments, like above. I collected the 'data' you posted. I infer that you are pretty clever, judging by your philosophy. I made the decision to respond. Therefore, I am not a zombie. As for the argument about Occam's Razor, none of the questions or statements my opponent has posed have much to do about me being a zombie, with no conscious or physicalism. If there is some hidden connection, my opponent has yet to explain the connection. "Back to the two possible worlds we may live in some have stated that Occam's razor disproves the mentalist theory as they find it too complicated yet I, as well as several other philosophers, believe physicalism is the complicated one." So, it would seem my opponent deliberately ignores that Occam's Razor does disprove the mental theory, and instead, focuses on physicalism. As such, anything associated with mentally is negated. As you can see, I have been thinking and writing this past round. Since you, Sonofkong, follow the philosophy of Descartes, I say 'cogito ergo sum,' which literally means, I think, therefore I am. Since I must have thought about the refutations I made, I must exist, in mind and in body. I think about my refutations. Mentality. I infer my opponent is intelligent. Mentality. I am envisualizing dinner. Mentality. I've watched your videos. Physicality. I'm touching the keyboard. It's smooth. Physicality. I popped my pimple. It hurts. Physicality. As I have these senses and I have proven I can think, I am not a zombie. I await the response.