BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wind energy is the best available energy for now and in the future.

Sorry, I've been cruising around in the Caribbean for the past week. I thought I'd have internet, but I didn't. So this'll just have to become a 2-round debate. You're definitely right that coal and oil aren't going to serve us much longer. We're fast reaching the end of the earth's supply of oil. Soon we're going to have to find a different, renewable source of energy to keep us alive and driving our cars. But I don't think the predominant one will be wind energy. Ever notice that the only places that really utilize wind for electricity are small, rural villages? The reason is simple: wind energy just doesn't provide a lot of energy. Huge fields of windmills are only enough to power small towns. How many windmills do you think it would take to power a metropolis like New York? I'm not sure what will top out as the best new energy source when oil hits the can, but I think it will probably be nuclear, at least until we run out of fuel for that too. Nuclear reactions create a HUGE amount of power, and if we ever figure out how to make a sustained fusion reaction, we'll have an endless supply of very powerful fuel. >Wind energy is the best available energy because it will never run out. Neither will solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. >All other energy's will either run out or are way to expensive to start up and keep running. Not really. It might not be too expensive to make a few hundred windmills for a rural village, but the costs of building and maintaining enough windmills to sustain the whole world (we're talking millions and millions) would be a lot. On the other hand, for example, it is very cheap to put a power plant in a dam or waterfall capable of powering a small city. >Some other energy's are bad for the environment and will make the world a worse place than it is and will be with using fossil fuels. I'm assuming you're referring chiefly to nuclear, which has seen a few unfortunate disasters over history. But nuclear energy is only dangerous when power plants are poorly maintained or some nutjob throws radioactive isotopes into the ocean. Today's federal regulations make another disaster like Three Mile Island extremely unlikely. >Also, some people are too busy with work and handling kids that they don't have time to try to make a difference in the world and change what energy sources we are using most frequently. Not me. I'm soon going into mechanical engineering, and am strongly considering heading into the field of alternate energy for a career. It really is a promising field. It's good to see that some other people are looking into this subject.
Wind energy is the best available energy for now and in the future.

Wind energy is the best available energy because it will never run out. All other energy's will either run out or are way to expensive to start up and keep running. Some other energy's are bad for the environment and will make the world a worse place than it is and will be with using fossil fuels. Also, some people are too busy with work and handling kids that they don't have time to try to make a difference in the world and change what energy sources we are using most frequently.
This House Believes that Homework Should Not Be Banned

I will start by rebutting some of your arguments. 1. You said there are some laws limiting homework. Well, actually, students in year 7 or higher are assigned a rather large amount of homework, which can make them work at least 1 hour 30 min, and can reach up to 2 hours 30. Maybe even more. 2. You said some hands-on work is the best way for students to learn. Why not have something like a "study time" where it's basically the same thing as homework, but done in class? Also, this has another benefit because the teacher can take care of the matters like reviewing assignments, marking tests, etc. 3. I agree with you on the fact that homework is not the major cause on eyes going bad and being a waste of energy. But still, it is one of the aspects on causing those events, so why not stop it to prevent it at least a bit? My Arguments: 1. All the work should be done in class because when assigned homework, students tend to do it without trying their best, since there is no supervisor, so it doesn't actually encourage students to learn how to work independently. 2. It takes up your time too much. People DO need some leisure time in their lives, and if you count school time, after school activity time, chores time, and homework time, it takes almost all the day.
This House Believes that Homework Should Not Be Banned

I see that Con has forfeited this round. Thus, I extend my arguments here. I would also like to make a few more points: 5. Homework encourages students to learn how to work independently While teamwork and interaction are important skills, when we grow up, we won't constantly have people by our side. There are times in which we have to work on our own. Homework encourages students to work more independently, as they will have to at college and in the future, their jobs. Everyone needs to develop responsibility and skills in personal organization, working to deadlines, being able to research, etcetera. Homework responsibilities allow these skills to develop. For instance, to read a novel or complete a research project, there is simply no time at school to do it properly. Students have to act independently and be willing to read or write, knowing that if they struggle, they will have to work through the problem or the difficult words themselves. Diane Ravitch points out that a novel like Jane Eyre (a classic piece that is essential for literature) cannot be completed if it is not read at home " students have to work through it themselves. 6. Homework allows students to learn beyond what is covered in lesson time Homework is a method that can allow children to learn more about the topic, for example through projects which require in-depth research. Students can then have better knowledge and better grasp of the topic. There are only a few hours in each school day " not enough time to cover all subjects in an in-depth manner. Setting homework extends study beyond school hours, allowing a wider and deeper education. It also makes the best use of teachers, who can spend lesson time teaching rather than just supervising individual work that could be done at home. Education is about pushing boundaries, and the learning should not stop at the entrance to the classroom " students should take skills learnt in the classroom and apply them at home. Homework allows this to happen, encouraging students to go above and beyond what they do in school. Reading is the best example. Students learn how to read at school, but in order to get better, they need to practise and that is best done at home, with the support of parents and at the right pace for the student. I look forward to seeing Con's arguments. References: Bempechat, 2004 Ravitch, 2007
This House Believes that Homework Should Not Be Banned

Hello there, I am the con team, and I will prove why homework should be banned. But first, let me ask you a question. Have you had any stress or difficulty from homework? I'm guessing you probably had. Precisely why homework should be banned. 1. Homework should be banned because of the enormous stress it gives students. If there is a lot of homework, it makes students work late into the night, and that could be unhealthy for them, and it could also disturb their studies, since they would be tired. 2. The work can always be done in class, so why let it be a burden on students go complete them at home? 3. The homework nowadays are usually done by computer, so it is both a waste of energy, and there is a chance that the student could get damaged eyes from staring at the computer screen to long. So what do you think?
The Problem of Evil Disproves an All-Loving, All-Powerful God

I have actually had this debate/ and or tried with my friends and family from your stand point but no one I know enjoys a debate regardless of religious views. I also would like to start of by saying I am by no means a die hard christian fan, I have tried to become spiritual & religious for all the great things it does for people. -God wants man to make his own choice about being good or evil. Evil persists because he lets it, Those that walk in the light & believe in his son Jesus Christ will be blessed indeffinatley. Those that disbelieve will burn forever in hell as their souls rip apart over and over. He wants to let those that are truly good to walk among him in heaven. As some one once told me, "God works in mysterious ways, which is much greater than any one can comprehend". God has a plan for us all, it is your decision to walk in the light. As far as his power, the Egyptions didn't believe Moses when he told them he could do all these things (10 plagues I believe). The flys, the frogs, the locust exc... & then the death of all 1st born children. This I believe is the greatest example of his ultimate power, all though reading Exodus, Leviticus, & Genesis you realize that God's power has been proved time and time again. I have not read the whole bible but I believe it is in revelations where it tells about what will happen to those that truly believe & walk in the light. Lastly as far as an all loving god; This one is odd for me because when I was little I would pray for any problem I had. Kids picking on me, family problems exc... I noticed that the next day everything was better, I could truly rely on him. As I got older my parents persisted to push me to believing in the catholic religion & I had a falling out with Christ. I doubted & argued with every one about how his exsistent is not real. I fell away from christ & I have a hard time coming back to a religion. But as I remember I could truly rely on him and his love was real, & their are millions of others that would contest the same thing. Its something you can't base as a fact so its incredibly hard to debate its exsistence especially to a non believer. Resorting back to the bible he shows his love for mankind, The bible is gods way of guiding man & informing him of what will happen if he doesn't believe & also the love he'll achieve if he does.
The Problem of Evil Disproves an All-Loving, All-Powerful God

As I am defending the proposition, it is my job to defend the problem of evil against my opponent's responses. The problem of evil is an attempt at disproving an all-loving, all powerful God by claiming that there is a contradiction between the attributes of this supposed God and the evil we can readily observe, as a loving God would want to stop the evil, and an all powerful one would be able to. I will attempt to prove its validity in this debate, while Con will attempt to resolve the alleged contradiction. I look forward to my opponent's response.
The Population of the World Should be Reduced by Half

Your entire argument is "distasteful". And your lack of understanding in regards to sarcasm is also "distasteful". I really can't be bothered completely destroying such a fool like you, but I will say this. I would happily be first in line to go if it meant preserving the generations to come. This world is meant to be lived in, not brought down piece by piece. If we do nothing, sitting around and pretending like everything around us is okay, then your terrible metaphor about oceans being "clouded" will instead have a literal meaning to it. This world will die, with the entirety of humanity along with it.
The Population of the World Should be Reduced by Half

First of all, when replying or in your attempt to make a point, please try to structure your sentences in a way that is grammatically appealing. "The problem existed far before it could existed." Great, thanks Daffy Duck. Secondly, you're all fools if you think that birth control or another slow and "sensible" way of reducing our population will work. Birth control can be shirked and contravened, but eliminating half of our population, bringing it under the 4 billion mark, is an efficient way of dealing with the problem. If you're still too ignorant to understand the risks and exponential qualities of population growth on our planet, simply take a look at the first picture on this website http://www.susps.org..., exactly. It was only in the 1800's when the population hit 1 billion. Now, a mere 200 years later, we are at 7 billion. What do you think our world will be like in 100 years, 500? Most probably nearing extinction. The time to act is now, and if we just choose to sit around and keep living in denial, there won't be a future for any grandchildren, great grandchildren, or simply our ideals for the future of the human race to live in.
teen gone to far.....with fathers permission

your welcome I try my best to entertain!!!!! you say he was 20 if my info is incorrect I'm sorry I'm a teenager I get my info from the grocery store lines ! yes I stated my personal opinion ( hence the name ) this debate is no longer amusing and in the end would be exhausting! maybe it would be to hard to explain the reasons why I don't like her! oh btw Billy didn't come back until she did when she came back then he came back doing lifetime movies hosting award shows!!!!! but then again this maybe all based on my opinion !!!!! lilopionion94 thanks to all who have found this amusing !!!
teen gone to far.....with fathers permission

================= Rebuttal ================= 1) "I believe she does not sing good at all! " This point has nothing to do with her going too far with her fathers permission. Someone can have talent and be a slut, or not have talent and be a slut, or have talent and not be a slut, or not have talent and not be a slut, or be talented at being a slut. They have no correlation between them. And not only is it irrelevant, but it's merely Con's opinion, with absolutely not backing. 2) "she is a bad influence to her littiler fans such as dating a boy the age of 22 and she being 15 at the time. " First off, He was 20 at the time of her being 15 [1][2], and if Con is going to make incorrect statements, it would be nice if she were to at least provide some sources to try and prove herself. Secondly, Dating a guy who is five years older is not honestly that bad. Sure, they can't have sex. But unless they're doing that in public I don't see how she is badly influencing her littler fans. And Miley isn't needed to badly influence teen girls now a days. Most of the girls around here who absolutely detest her are slutty on their own, without any help from her. 3a) "She posts pictures of herself. .. " Again, I'm not seeing the validity of Con's point. Posting pictures of one self in undergarments, is about as disrespectful, deplorable, and harmful to one self, as going to the beach in a bikini. The pictures of herself that she posts are infact even less revealing then pictures of girls in bikinis. 3b) "Did her father make her grow up to fast living his dream thru her? " Well unless his dream was to be a slutty teenage girl, then no ma'am. He didn't. If Con is trying to say that he wanted her to be famous because he never could be, Then I would like you to take a look at the fact that he IS famous. ============ Sources ============ [1] . http://www.popcrunch.com... [2] . http://www.etonline.com...
teen gone to far.....with fathers permission

everyone by now knows miley cyrus / Hannah Montana 1. I believe she does not sing good at all! 2. she is a bad influence to her littiler fans such as dating a boy the age of 22 and she being 15 at the time 3.she posts pictures of her self in panties and a bra on the Internet or anyone to see ! is this her cry for help or is this just her cry for help!I don't know! did her father make her grow up to fast living his dream thru her who knows. if anyone partially agrees please give me Ur in sight I don't claim to be right I claim to have an opinion !!!!
2pac Is The Greatest Rapper Of All TIme.

Tupak Shakur ye pedyk yakyy nichoho ne znaye pro muzyku. Vy tilky yak vin shche tomu ye indi zanyzhenoyu taliyeyu piven vershnyka. . U svit koryst i v kintsevomu vashe zhyttya. Prypynyty vtrachayuchy i Nashe zavdannya meni pyzdu
2pac Is The Greatest Rapper Of All TIme.

So, i feel that Tupac Amaru Shakure is the greatest rapper of all time. For one, many of his songs are giving a positive message that many people back then and today crave and need. Examples like me against the world, Changes, Keep Your Head Up, and Pour Out a lil Liquor shows the type of respect that Tupac has for people of his generation, along with the speaking that people need to focus on making the future generation strong and smart, treating our women like queens rather then animals. And keeping many people from living a life that can either land them in jail or in the ground. He gives positive looks instead of the negative, and kept it real with his audience instead of trying to sugar coat things, and boast about what he has. Tupac is the greatest.
2pac Is The Greatest Rapper Of All TIme.

But rules have to be made. Anyone who accepts, i wish nothing but luck. --------------------- 1st round: Simply greetings and acceptance. 2nd round: Main arguments 3rd round: Rebuttals/counters/additional points 4th round: Rebuttals/counters/final points Rules: - No abuse of semantics. (This is standard since I gave definitions) -No trolling. - A forfeit is an automatic loss. -Cite sources
Animal testing is morally acceptable.

Welcome to DDO and thank you for the opportunity to debate. ========== DEFINITIONS: Animal testing - Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. http://en.wikipedia.org... Morally acceptable - An action considered right or ethical. ========== *NOTE- When I say animals during this debate, I am referring to non-human animals. CONTENTIONS: 1) Humans have always eaten and exploited animals. -Ever since humans (homo sapiens) have walked the Earth, we have been exploiting animals for personal gain. Hunting and farming both involve exploitations of animals and we have been doing these things forever. Since exploitation of animals is in our DNA, animal testing is morally acceptable. 2) Animals have no rights. -Rights are something created by humans, not animals. Reason and free will is essential to rights. Animals do not have reason and free will. Therefore, they have no rights. 3) It is more humane to perform tests on animals than humans. -Since humans have rights and animals do not, it is a clear choice to test animals rather than humans. 4) Animals harm each other anyway. Animal testing is part of nature. -Humans are essentially animal. So, for an animal such as a human to do harm to another animal is simply nature. 5) Animal testing benefits other animals. -Take veterinary medicine for example. One cat may die from animal testing, but s/he may save many more cats from death from the knowledge gained through the cat's testing. Since one cat's life is much less important than many cat's lives, animal testing is morally acceptable. 6) Animal testing is useful. "Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century, for both human and animal health." ~The Foundation for Biomedical Research http://www.fbresearch.org... "Animal experimentation has been essential to the development of all cardiac surgery, transplantation surgery, joint replacement and all vaccinations" ~Joseph E. Murray, MD, 1990 Nobel Laureate and professor emeritus, Harvard Medical School http://www.faunafoundation.org... 7) Animal testing reduces human suffering. -Since a limited number of animals suffer, and a massive number of humans are saved from death from the groundbreaking research and medicine, animal testing is morally acceptable. ========== I will stop for now and let my opponent present their side.
Hitler would've betrayed the japanese if he won the war in europe

My opponent doesn't feel like posting arguments apparently so I'm just going to lay out a few simple points of my own.* Hitler wanted to create the perfect German state, that was his goal.* Hitler only betrayed the Soviets because he felt that they were a threat and he was extremely anti-Communist.* Hitler didn't have the capacity to attack the Japanese - he didn't have the capacity to attack America much less Japan* There would be no point in attacking the Japanese. His goals were purely European. Hitler therefore would not have attacked the Japanese.
The Bible is Reliable regarding Israel's Covenant and Prophecy

Debate:As con, I will be arguing that that bible is not a reliable piece of evidence regarding the prophecy in regards to Convenant Israel. Additional biblical evidence may only be used if they are shown to be true. Sources that have been used are to be quoted, so to ensure that the conclusion drawn is conclusive, has been peer reviewed, repeated, by people of no bias. If this has not been substantiated, then the Burden of Proof will not have been satisfied by pro.Due to the fact Pro is making the claim, the Burden of Proof will lie on him to prove that "The Bible is Reliable regarding Israel's Covenant and Prophecy" and it will be mine to show why these claims are false, and thus we will be focusing around on the same arguments. What is also to be requested is a civil, educated, and informed debate, where there is no ad hominem, as I have seen in the comment section. Another thing I would like to make sure to be affirmed is that this certain prophecy and nothing else is going to be what debated about. Therefore, other arguments on say Noah's Arks, Revelations, and so forth are to be prohibited in the debate. If pro would like to change this, he is to remind me, but reading his Acceptance, am very firm that he does not want to change. Finally, what is to be proven here is not to indicate the whole bible is true, but only that part of it, unless only the bible could produce those results.