BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

The argument that plastic bag doesn't drain resources that could be used to make fuel - that doesn't help anything. No trees have to be cut to make plastic bags, they're usually made from recycled paper or from waste material of quality wood processing. My conclusion, however, is that neither of the products is a smart choice. The dispute between the two doesn't have a clear winner, though I believe that paper bag, wherever applicable, is the better of the choices. The concept for single use, disposal plastic bag is outrageous. Contributing to pollution with material that doesn't degrade for 1000 years just to carry a loaf of bread and whatnot is non-nonsensical. You appreciate the durability in a plastic bag. For small shops, where much durability isn't needed, recyclable paper bag can be used, but to be honest that's also a lazy approach. Is an easy, comfortable and careless use of disposable bags, along with its insignificant purchasing cost a good reason to pollute the lungs of sea creatures with plastic debris? Paper waste does not pollute the ocean, although it may contain chemicals, absorbable into soil, which then doesn't make it an ideal alternative. A strong fabric or composite bag will take long time to wear out, has strong handles and very decent weight capacity. It saves the environment, and has basically no disadvantages. For people that do not drive to store can use one of the alternatives, which are thin yet still durable and can be folded into a small pouch. Yes, there's no such thing as ideal world. But we evolve. We have the option to make smart and more responsible choices, and it's up to us to exercise it - either within organised group, or us ourselves as human individuals.
Plastic bags are the superior grocery bag compared to paper.

I am sure we all can agree that there is no perfect world. Litter does happen, resources that -could- be recycled or disposed of in better fashion simply aren't. In appreciating those simple facts of life, why waste a larger portion of resources, including environmental ones, on a product that is demonstrably heavier, requires actively harvesting of forests, occupies more space, and does not have the durability of another product? The world is better served to ensure that the impact of a manufactured product is felt immediately, rather than a finger's crossed approach to a post consumptive application. Plastic does not require a commensurate cost to generate, its raw materials come from a by product of a currently harvested resources that serves an green cause, that of course to supplement in the most dirty of fossil fuels. There is no collection of trees by diesel fume belching lumber jacking equipment, nor the subsequent deforestation. There is no mercurial drying of pulped agents. The source material for a plastic bag is literally generated without further effort from exploitation of a resource already being harvested. That is to say, there is no detriment to an ecosystem (papers' harvests' sole purpose is to destroy it) to make the product. When the eco-conscious recycle their products, plastic retains its durability. A plastic bag from recycled materials is just as strong, and needs no further harvested materials to ensure its strength. Were only that other forms of bags so lucky in their recycling process. Even when not recycled, because of the primary quality of the plastic bag, it can be re purposed and reused around the house. I will be the first to admit, my plastic bags do not immediately find their way into the recycle bin. BUT! They do find residence under the sink, and get re purposed as cat-box liners, and waste paper bin liners. I know, this might sound silly, but entertain the notion that by re purposing the bag, my personal pocketbook is better for it, AND another product, and its associated commensurate costs are not expended. The plastic bag has gotten a bad wrap (PUN! !! ). The listed benefits in this debate should have demonstrated to reasonable people that the faults of plastic do not come from the plastic bag itself. In many cases, the benefit of plastic is duplicated over and over with each reuse and recycling, and touches upon other industries for that benefit. The economic, enviro-conscious, informed consumer should find the decision rather easy, based on the merits of this discussion, even with Con's astute assessments. A plastic bag is the superior choice for a consumer went present with the option of paper or plastic.
human advancement is stunted by a lack of international cooperation. i propose...

human advancement is stunted by a lack of international cooperation. i propose that individual nations and countries to be deleted and form one large international government of the planet Earth. At fist, one will think this is simply absurd or infeasible. I though long and hard about it and it is necessary for our own survival. Imagine the progress we would realize in space programs, theoretical physics, mathematics, education, economy, politics, environmentalism, alternative energy, and interplanetary living. Only we can realize this possibility. It is up to us as a species to adapt to an ever-changing world. What do you think? Round 1- Tell me why you disagree Round 2- Make additional remarks Round 3- closing arguments Please only accept the debate if you are truly interested and can bring up points that are intelligent. don't waste my time please. good luck.
human advancement is stunted by a lack of international cooperation. i propose...

:"human advancement is stunted by a lack of international cooperation. " I can see where you are going but there are to many interested stunted in different nations. Different set of morals. To group us all together will just cause a civil war. The reason why it works separate is because other nations feel that they are in power of their own people. Our sense of government would not work in china and communism is a joke. Socialism does not work. "i propose that individual nations and countries to be deleted and form one large international government of the planet Earth." You are proposing things but not looking at the large consequences of what it is you propose. It would be impossible to agree and would love to see your plan on how you will do it. "At fist, one will think this is simply absurd or infeasible. I though long and hard about it and it is necessary for our own survival. Imagine the progress we would realize in space programs, theoretical physics, mathematics, education, economy, politics, environmentalism, alternative energy, and interplanetary living." But you are coming with an assumption that we all have the same goals as others. That is wrong. We do not have the same goals as Cuba. The motives and reasons would differ so much that it would cause war. "Only we can realize this possibility." Who is "we"? "It is up to us as a species to adapt to an ever-changing world. What do you think?" I think you are wrong. We have to worry about ourselves. We need to worry about America and its people.
Newt Gingrich

History is cyclical and a word problem with one right answer. If you change the wording of the problem you can't come to the right answer. For instance we are in debt Gingrich says the problem is spending. So all avenues to reduce our debt are not on the table. Gingrich says Palestinians never existed that way all solutions can't be put on the table. You allude to Rome with the mistakes of ancient History. You'll never hear Gingrich talk about unemployment due to cheap labor causing its fall.
Newt Gingrich

My response focused not only on his lack of historical use but his inaccuracies on historical data. Visit politifact.com note many of his historical points are pants on fire statements. He has a problem with recent history with statements like Sarah Palin was right about death panels. He has a problem with modern historical facts such as "The US spends less on defense today as % of GDP than at any time since Pearl Harbor". The site entitled a response article The Historian rewrites history.
Newt Gingrich

So your saying that because he doesn't use grade school history it isn't right? Because that's what I got form it. If I'm wrong correct me. Just because he makes a statement that doesn't coincide with what you believe doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. I thought I knew about everything about history. Then all of it changed once I hit 10th grade. My teacher taught me new things about history I never knew. I would say Newt paid attention in his history classes.
Newt Gingrich

Newt's ideology slants his view and citations of historical facts. Newt cannot use history to make accurate forecast for the country. For instance Newt says Palestinian state never existed, although the Britsh government created the Palestinian mandate at which time there were 450,000 Palestinians and only 25,000 jews. He doesn't use grade school history to shape his policy. Native American history is a great way to shape an Israeli policy. Newt never cites it as a policy builder for Israel.
Paedophiles

Please note that I do agree with your statement about paedophiles....I am not disputing that. I will debate with you however regarding society and why society is lacking in ways in which to prevent paedophiles attacking. My points will include the following: Parents/Guardians and other 'professional adults' who's duty is to protect children. Social networking and the way in which children present themselves to the public. In the next round I will elaborate further on these points
Prostitution in Ireland should be legalised

Thank you very much for your argument. You made some very convincing points. For my last round of the debate, I will be discussing my final point, "women have the right to their body" as well as arguing (as politely as I can" on some of your points in the debate. First some rebuttal, a point that you brought up that a prostitutes are "owned" by a pimp and can't leave whenever they want, where as a model can leave whenever they want. I completely agree with you, but this is actually part of the point that I will be bringing up in this round so really, I have to thank you. If prostitution was to be legalised, it would be held in a special brothel and all the women , after two weeks of work, can leave at anytime they want. We want to make the women feel safe and independent and in control of their body. Now onto the point of how women have the right to their body. It is basic human right for someone to be in control of their body and they have the right to decide how to look after it, what to do with it etc. This is why if prostitution is legalised in Ireland, women would feel more in control and decide when to say no and not feel so scared to do so. That concludes my side of the argument. I have discussed the points, that the safety of the women would be improved, the police would be able to deal with bigger crimes and that women would be able to feel in control of their bodies. Thank you for listening and I beg you to propose.
Prostitution in Ireland should be legalised

First, may I say, I am very impressed by your resources and style of debating. Now fir some rebuttal, even though Ireland is mainly Roman Catholic, the occupation of prostitution has been around since the time of Shakespeare. Just look at the film of "The Merchant of Venice", in one scene, there are women going around showing off their boobs. This shows that prostitution has been going on for a number of years, so why can't we make it safer. I mean, it's part of our history, we can't deny it. Now onto my second point, that the police can focus on worse crimes. Prostitution is merely women who have sex for money. Crimes such as rape, theft and other horrific . The police are looking for people in the prostitution who do most of their business "underground", as in, out of public eye. The Garda" are both wasting time and resources on something that, in retrospect, isn't really that bad. If you think about it, these women are making money by using their body as their resources. Models do the same, and most of the time, most are half naked. So why are these women judged for making a living by using their body in a more physical way. I wait for your response and once again, I commend you on your brilliant debating so far.
Prostitution in Ireland should be legalised

Let's be realistic here when we discuss legalising prostitution in Ireland. According to censuses taken in 2011, 84.2% of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland and 43.8% of the estimated workforce of Northern Ireland[2] self-identified as Roman Catholic.Now, do not think I am blind to what the Roman Catholic Church once tolerated[3] (i.e. prostitution) however it was tolerated because it was held to prevent the greater evil of rape. Nowadays, rape in Ireland is far less severe than it was back in the Roman empire and I challenge my opponent to prove that there is even a remotely equivalent requirement for society to support prostitution now compared to back then.A society that begins the venture into accepting prostitution must first become liberal and secular in nature throughout its populace. Since the Irish are so severely religious and patriotic they will probably riot and violently break out in rage if the government were to introduce legalised promiscuity, which is exactly what prostitution is in the eyes of Roman Catholics.The bible has a huge grey area on prostitution since it supports women serving men but does not ever state directly that, as a profession, selling one's body is a line of work that God would approve of. In fact, one need only look at the laws of Vatican City[4], where there is zero tolerance of profession, to understand why a nation, such as Ireland, that seeks to emulate Vatican morality would want to follow Catholicism by outlawing prostitution.In conclusion, Ireland is a Catholic majority nation and if it seeks to avoid a civil war or nationwide revolution then it should probably stick to keeping prostitution illegal. It's no secret that Ireland has been very prone to such things as revolutions and civil wars in the past.Sources:[1] "Table 36: Persons, male and female, classified by religious denomination with actual percentage change, 2006 and 2011". This is Ireland, Highlights from Census 2011, Part 1. Central Statistics Office. p. 104. Retrieved 18 August 2012.[2] http://www.equalityni.org...[3] http://relihiyon.fr.yuku.com... [4] The Magisterium of the Catholic Church (June 2002).Catechism Of The Catholic Church. Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 504–505.ISBN978-0-86012-324-8. Retrieved 22 May 2013.
Prostitution in Ireland should be legalised

First of all, thank you for excepting my challenge. Now for the fun to begin. In this round of the debate, I will be talking about how if prostitution is legalised, than the safety of both the men and women will be improved. If women in this line of work are given regular health checks, say, twice a month, as well as free contraception supplies to prevent pregnancies and the development of AIDs, lives can be saved and also women can feel safe in this job. And yes I do say prostitution is a job. The reason women or men go into this line of work is because they may have to support their family and may have no other way to do so. This is just a taste of what I will be discussing in this debate. Lets see what you have to offer.
The Inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the NT must be Reconsidered

This should be an exciting and informative debate. I look forward to debating such an important topic with my Brother in Christ. One note, I would ask that my opponent please postpone his argument until Saturday Evening (or Sunday if possible). I will be traveling this weekend due to the 4th of July weekend and will not have access to a computer starting Saturday Morning. I would hate to disappoint the readers of this debate by failing to post an argument during one of these rounds. Summary of my position: The Pauline corpus (including the letters attributed to Paul but disputed) is not only permissible in the Canon, but is necessary. I stand in contradiction to my opponent's statements that Paul contradicts the words of Jesus, James, and other NT writers, and look forward to seeing the argument my opponent puts forward. I would like to propose the following amendment to the assumptions regarding the authority of non-Pauline work. I hold the Hebrew Scriptures (39 books in the Protestant Old Testament), the Gospels and Acts, and all non-Pauline works (Including Revelation) as authoritative, fully inspired, and useful for teaching and rebuke (2 Tim 3:16). It is also my contention that the 1st Century Church consider Paul to be an Apostle, and fully shares in the Apostolic Authority granted to the 12 (as defined by my opponent).
The Inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the NT must be Reconsidered

Thanks in advance for whoever takes this debate. I would like to use this first round to lay the groundwork, determine the structure and rules for debate, and briefly summarize my argument. I will assume (unless told otherwise) that both I and my opponent accept to some degree the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament) and also agree to work with the gospel accounts of Jesus, and place at least some faith in the Book of Acts. The rest of the New Testament is open for debate, as I intend to call the majority of it (Paul's writings) into question. Structure: Round 1: Discussion of premises and definitions, acceptance, and brief summary of position. Round 2: Full opening argument Round 3: Rebuttals and/or concessions Round 4: Counters to rebuttals and any new arguments Round 5: Final Rebuttals and Final Arguments Rules: 1. Thou shalt not personally attack thy opponent. 2. Thou shalt be respectful. Summary of Argument: It is my position that Paul's inclusion of in the canon may be erroneous. First of all, I reject the authority of the institutional church to determine canon and believe that faith in the Council of Trent is undeserved as the process for deciding the canon was not satisfactory. I reject the notion that YHWH has necessarily intervened to keep us from making a 2000 year error in belief. I believe that the Bible should not be viewed as one book and that it is a mistake to hold any epistles on the same level as the words of Christ or the Torah. Even the non-Pauline epistles were probably not likely meant by the authors to later be taken as Scripture and should be considered edifying or supplemental readings rather than the inspired Word of God. I believe that Paul seems to, if not overtly does, contradict both the Hebrew Scriptures and the words of Jesus Christ. He does so by attempting to repeal the Law of Moses (especially on the issue of meat offered to idols) and his doctrine of salvation is at odds with that of Jesus. James, the brother of Jesus, expressly contradicts Paul. He is not one of the Twelve Apostles (the twelve apostles are the twelve called by Jesus, less Judas and plus Matthias) and does not share in their authority. In my experience, the inclusion of Paul in the Bible has lead to, in most evangelical circles, the de facto placement of Paul as higher than Jesus . I will say now that I do not know exactly where I stand on this issue but would appreciate an interesting discussion of it. Also, I am not a seasoned debater so have some grace (a concept very familiar to the Paulists) with me if need be.
The Inclusion of the Pauline Epistles in the NT must be Reconsidered

Okay, I don't remember if 72hours was the longest I could grant for arguments. It is a little punishing of a time scale for someone with a busy life if an opponent posts at an inconvenient time. Given this fact, I intend to consider this round 4 post and his round 3 forfeit as canceled out. My opponent should treat his round 4 as his round 3, and we will make any further rebuttals and final arguments in round 5. Also, in order to save another forfeit, I would ask my opponent to post no sooner than Wednesday if he can manage that.
I would make a better world dictator

I will start by answering your question: the english law will be enforced by ensuring that all education, government, etc. will be using ONLY english. No person can get a job relating to the government if they do not speak English. People cannot vote if they do not speak English. All children MUST speak English since education will be regulated by the government and teachers cannot grade assignments not in English. This is basically the jist of it. Comparisons of leadership: Social Your world will have several sectional cultures. Mine will not. You may set yourself up for revolt or revolution if people have pride in their heritage. My world involves the destruction of heritage and displacement of many people. While this may be expensive, it virtually eliminates all possiblity of conflict with the government. My world also eliminates most problems with racism. Your world opens up for potential social conflict, depending upon how you handle it. Political My country is a mixture of autocracy and condfederacy. Each state does its own thing but the king can somewhat regulate it in severe issues. Your world only follows one set of laws. Each has its own strenghts and weaknesses. The problem with yours is that one law may work in one area, but not in another. Religious Neither world descriminates against religion. My world does support one over the other. This will increase the drive for a global culture. By creating this culture, conflict decreases as do chances of revolt. Intelligence My world involves philosophy, logic, and debate. You did not address this. Technology I am not sure about this, but I think your world would have a lot of technology in its culture. My world does not have much technology involved which would support a more simplistic lifestyle. I would not restrict technology to a point in which it complicates lives however. Economy You will have very little taxes. This will should support private economic growth. However, there will be issues regarding public services. Both will have a free market. If a revolt does occur in your world, how will you handle it?