BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
we needn't make big changes in our life style to stop global warming

Contention 1: Those opinions you quoted do not prove that global warming is not man made, and do not even contradict the assertion that its man made. Just because the Earth is warming for other reasons doesn't mean that human activities aren't warming the Earth. Contention 2: 1.Although I've never heard any scientist suggest that "we must all become vegetarians" I will respond to your point about harvesting methane from livestock. How exactly do you propose we harvest this methane? This seems like the sort of thing that would require quite a bit of money and infrastructure, but then again, I'm no expert on the subject. Although I know nothing about how this could work, I know it would require a 'major' change in our lifestyles, defining 'major' as a more significant change than keeping thermostats below 72 or unplugging unused electronics. A)If this method you describe were economically feasible, the private sector would currently be doing it. Energy is in high demand, particularly clean or 'green' energy. B)The private sector does not harvest methane from livestock for energy. C)Therefore, this method must not be economically efficient D)Since this method is not profitable, it would require government subsidies to work. Since government expenditures are funded by taxation, this would result in higher taxes, which would be a more significant lifestyle change than unplugging unused electronics. 2.Clean energy may become the energy of the future. But we are living in the present. Switching to clean energy now would result in higher energy prices or higher taxes for the type of subsidies I described above. 3.See 2, but switch energy prices to car prices. 4.Changing your air filter monthly air filter improves your mileage and reduces pollution because it makes it easier for your car to take in air and maintain a proper fuel/air mixture. This reduces CO2 emissions by about 800 pounds a year. 5+6.See 2. 7.I don't see how using a canvas bag "takes a bite out of our lifestyles." It could even be beneficial without the effect on global warming, because it's less likely than a plastic bag to break and spill your groceries everywhere. 8. See 1. Conclusion: My opponent has not shown that humans did not cause global warming. He has provided a couple quotes that argue that other factors could be contributing to the warming of the Earth, but not that human action isn't warming the Earth. He has not addressed the actual arguments and evidence that support the hypothesis that global warming is caused by man. His second contention, that "there are ways to prevent it that do not take a bite out of our lifestyles" is also not proven. He has offered a few examples of ways that don't require 'major' lifestyle changes (major, defined by my opponent, as more significant than unplugging unused electronics or keeping the thermostat below 72), but all of them have been dismissed. Sources: http://www.wikihow.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://timeforchange.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.economist.com...
we needn't make big changes in our life style to stop global warming

You say that you will argue either a) or b). I assume this means I can choose which. I choose b), as I don't know very much about the climate science, and don't wish to debate it. If I misinterpreted this, and you didn't mean that I could choose, I apologize. My opponent states that "there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles." I have no rebuttal to that at the moment, as I don't know what ways he is talking about. I await an explanation in the next round.
we needn't make big changes in our life style to stop global warming

I believe that the public doesn't have to make big changes in lifestyle to stop global warming. These include turning the thermostat down below 72 degrees, paying a lot more money for electric cars, and paying a lot more money for electricity. In this debate, I will be arguing that either a) humans are not responsible for global warming or b) there are other ways to prevent global warming that do not interfere with our lifestyles. I would like to inform my opponent that I do think that we should make changes to our lifestyles, but not to prevent global warming.
how gay are gays and if there gay are they gay? also why does my dad hate me plz help

Firstly, I would call for the suspension of "pro" and "con" labels at this time; my opponent has not taken a formal stance on any position as of yet, merely posited questions. Therefore any debate and it's meaning in terms of "pro" or "con" are to be determined based on whether there is any dispute in my responses. I submit said responses as follows:1. If a gay is gay, is he gay? Yes. By virtue of the transitive property, anything is, by definition, definable as itself. Great literature ("a rose is a rose is a rose"), mathematics ("a = b, therefore b = a") and popular culture (Popeye's immortal statement, "I is what I is") have all voiced agreement with this simple concept. 2. If a lesbian likes a gay, are they still gay?Yes. Gayism is defined as an internal condition based on certain internal feelings and responses to outside stimuli. The act of someone else's sexuality being directed towards a gay person would not, in and of itself, alter their status. 3. Why does my peepee feel weird?I can't take an adequate stance on this issue without a precise description of how it felt before, how it feels now and what about the change qualifies the new feeling as "weird". 4. Why does my dad not love me? This is even harder to take a stance on, because I need similar data (how do you know he loved you before, when did he appear to stop loving you, what circumstances changed between point A and point B) and I would likely be receiving it through my opponent's perceptual filter, which may or may not be accurate. 5. Is my dog gay?This question suffers the same inadequacies as 3 and 4. More datum is needed.
We should be able to wear Pajamas to School

>My opponent makes no reference to her own arguments and thus concedes them. >In response to my arguments, my opponent claims that PJs are not distracting if multiple people wear them. To respond, wardrobes are a huge deal now in schools. If we are to expand them outrageously, what will the learning process be like? It won't be learning at all. >For these reasons you can vote CON. Good luck.
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

I'd like to open with this statement: The more you have of something, the less valuable it becomes. Depending on how much money you make, you value each dollar differently, and so your tax should be treated differently. I will expand on my justifications for differential treatment of people of different income brackets as my argument goes on. 1) Survival The American Income Tax System is based on a bracket style, with the poorest ($8,925 per year or less) paying a 10% tax, and the richest ($400,000 per year or more) paying 39.6% tax[1]. The poor man is left with $8,032.50, and the rich man is left with $240,000 (roughly). The United States is relying on a lot of money from our richer folks. If a flat tax was to be instituted, the tax would have to be somewhere in between 10% and 40%, in order to provide for our government's operational needs. Any meeting in the middle would massively hurt the poor. Let's say for theoretical purposes, the tax goes right in the middle of the two, at 25%. This new tax would take $2231.50 from the poor man, leaving him with $6693.75. The difference between our current tax system and this theoretical flat tax is $1338.75. If this came out of an upper class person, this wouldn't be too big of a deal, but for a man who is barely scraping by, that $1,338.75 could make all the difference to whether or not he can squeeze out his house payments, whether or not he can survive the cost of an ambulance ride, should the need occur. An ambulance ride can cost between $500-$1000[2], and it is not uncommon for the poor to be uninsured, simply because they don't have the budget for it. If any kind of flat tax was instituted, the poor would have to have their tax rate raised, and their economic survivability consequently lowered. 2) It's Also A Big Cash In As I've already stated, instituting a flat tax would require meeting somewhere in between 10% and 39.6%. In my first point, I stated this would be a problem for the poor, because it dips into their 'survival money'. A flat tax would definitely not dip into the 'survival money' of rich people, and neither does a normal tax, for that matter. If we stick with my theoretical income rate, the rich would save a ton of money, $60,000, by my count. This is a huge robbery. The poor pay more, and they pay money that matters more to their survival, the rich actually save money-- money they need less! I'd like to close my half of round 2 by saying I have no animosity towards rich people, and that I look forward to my opponent's points. Sources: [1] http://www.moneychimp.com... [2] http://www.ask.com...
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

Thanks con , I must reiterate however how close I have brought Con to agree with me on this topic.I will make my points breif and to the point Agian Con's entire case falls on one statement he supposes that a 10% flat tax rate would not be a feasible way to fund our goverment.Con himself says that our lowest income bracket is 10% so under my proposed flat tax rate indeed the entire middle class would be saveing money and paying less tax.From statistics...americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.Thats right $300 Billion.From the further economic growth that would result from a flat tax it would surely be a better if not equal way of funding our goverments needs and lower the unemployment rate as a result adding jobs would not only cover the tax given by the wealthy but it would give a surplus and spurr economic growth.America could and would be doing much better with a flat tax rate,that is if we want to create jobs , reduce our debt and grow as a nation.Thanks.Sources 1)Logic2)Cons own arguements3)http://www.usnews.com...; Americans currently spend $300 billion a year in tax preparation costs, to navigate a tax code that is thousands of pages long.
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

Thank you Con , I will breifly provide reasons why your agruments fail and infact i belive you are close to agreeing with me.P1)Con states."My opponent is not incorrect in saying that a flat tax would be simpler." "My opponent begins by saying that is unfair to take a greater percentage of the money of rich people, in comparison to the percentage taken from lower income people. I do not dispute that rich people are productive members of society, nor do I dispute that it is unfair"We see that Con already agrees with my first and second contention,also voters notice the spelling mistake"is"not "its" points to Pro.All of Cons following arguments rest on his following contention."The poor would be taxed to the breaking point by a flat tax"However,the flat tax would generate more economic growth ,under a10% flat tax somone makeing $100,000 annually would pay $10,000 in income tax it's simple and would not punish anyone unfairly.Further more the middle class would most likely be paying less of what they are currently paying and the goverment would have more money than it currently does Con seems to dissagree however we can logically see that the jobs that would be created enmasse would have a dramatic positve effect on our entire economy and create far more tax revenue for the goverment than taxing the wealthy would.I advocate the flat tax being as low as possible. Of course, accompanied by significant spending cuts. The flat tax would remove special interest loopholes from the tax code and allow individuals to file their taxes within five minutes .It's been successful in countries, the flat tax has been adopted in roughly 25 countries. There’s a flat tax revolution going on around the globe and the United States needs to get in.In closeing I would like to thank Con this has been an interesting debate. :) Vote Pro. My opponent begins by saying that is unfair to take a greater percentage of the money of rich people, in comparison to the percentage taken from lower income people. I do not dispute that rich people are productive members of society, nor do I dispute that it is unfair
Instituting A Flat Income Tax In America

Thank you con for that. Seeing as there are no guidelines I’ll take round 2 as opening statements and further rounds as rebuttals. I will be upholding 3 contentions. P1)Fairness and equality.Would it be fair and equal if you work hard and are a productive member of society that you should have a larger percentage of your wealth taken away from you Of course not.P2) Simplicity.A flat tax is easy to understand and comply with, thereby reducing errors and tax fraud and professional tax preparers and advisors no longer needed, saving money for taxpayer. P3) Economic success.I will argue that by decreaseing the percentage at which the wealthy get taxed, will cause a favorable impact on the middle class.Which make up most of the population, and relieve some of the financial burden they have to endure, which could potentially help them become more financially stable. If I make a product, and I sell it to make a living, the only way I am going to be able to make a living off of it is to make a profit off of the good or services I am offering. This means that after production, advertisement, and everything else that goes in to it, my price has to be one that will make a profit. Taxes are like any other expense that gets worked into this equation. The higher my taxes are, the more I have to offset that in the price of my product. Therefor the people paying for my product (since the majority of Americans fall in the middle class bracket they are the majority of the buyers will fall in this bracket) will be paying a higher price, to compensate for some of my losses. This is why raising or keeping a higher percentage on the rich, doesn't work to accomplish the end task it was meant to accomplish, because in the end it is hurting the people it was meant to protect. Now in the same way that having a higher tax percentage on the rich, ultimately gets reflected in the price of the product, so to does having a lower, flat tax. The lower the expense to produce, the lower the price of the product, the less the buyer pays. That means you save money. Now it doesn't stop at just the product price. As a wealthy business owner, if I am taxed less that means I have more money to invest in the growth of my company. With company growth comes more employees, with more employees comes more citizens earning an income and with more citizens earning an income comes, you guessed it, more taxes. This means more money flowing back into the government. Which could help to reduce our debt as a nation and provide economic success. We surely see that a flat income tax rate would increase the economic success of everyone and as a nation.Sources.1.Logic I look foward to my opponents rebbuttals.
Android is better than iOS.

To conclude this debate, I'll simply state that Pro has failed to affirm his argument. He has stated several merits android has that IOS also has. And, for those the two systems don't share, he has failed to prove why this makes Android better.In conclusion, both systems boast merit that have gathered praise and criticism. While some prefer one over the other, either system proves adequate.Thanks for this unusual debate.'it was rather fun and different.
Android is better than iOS.

Login: Some iOS devices don't even have Touch ID, such as the new iPod touch 6th generation. Make a Call: You can install Skype on Android. Music/Podcasts: Apple Music is also available on the Google Play store! Search: Actually, there is an app called Andro Search which functions similarly. Set to Vibrate: Actually, holding the volume down button on the Nexus devices enables a set to vibrate mode. Talk to Phone: There is a very cool app called Speaktoit Assistant for Android. I would even say that it is better than Siri, since not only there is a voice associated with the virtual assistant, but a face that you can change, too. Send to Text: Facebook Messenger is much better than texting, and it is for Android. Also, you can install the free Tor browser on Android, which makes your browsing extremely secure and private. If you want this program on iOS, you have to pay money.
Android is better than iOS.

It seems the bulk of my opponent's arguments stem from the idea that android allows for more customization. However, he has yet to prove why this qualifies the system as "better." If his debate topic was "Android has better customization" I would not have accepted this debate as I agree with that statement. However, if you look at certain aspects outside of customization, you'll find that the two are far closer aligned. In an article from CBS, we get a sense that the two have separate, but closely similar merits. Therefore, I reaffirm my contention that, while both have better qualities than the other, at the end of the day, they are both equal. http://money.cnn.com...
Wet Grass is Evidence

If I were a claimant stating, "It rained last night" I might be challenged to support this claim. In presenting my justification for thinking so, I would utilize a logical argument. A logical argument would present the facts or observations we both accept as true, and my reasoning or inference from the premises. One of those observations would be that the grass is wet. While there are other explanations for the grass being wet, that fact supports one conjecture that it rained. Whether someone is convinced or unconvinced that it rained last night, the observation is still evidence for it rained. Because "it rained" directly effects or logically follows the grass will be wet.
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

"At no point do I say Islam is not immoral by the human rights values held by majority in the west." Then you lost the debate because I clearly stated that this is my definition and that you should not accept the debate if you do not agree with the definition. And you even agreed with the definitions "I agree with the rules and the definitions provided." (round 1 con) "Immoral = Evil/violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (e.g. human rights)." "Please do not accept the debate, if you do not intend to abide by the rules or if you do not agree with the definitions." "Islam in one country in not determined by the actions in another. This makes the whole argument a fallacy..." I cited global sources [12],[20],[4],[8],[14],[17] as often as possible and I cited hadiths (Sunni hadtihs) [1],[2],[3],[18],[19] and Qur'an verses (which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God) [5],[6],[7],[14],[15] only 4 of my 20 sources in the opening argument were for specific countries. "If we fully examined this argument, your whole argument is a fallacy, asserting a whole faith that is spread across numerous different countries with varying laws and cultures to be immoral." The majority of Muslims (Sunni) believe in the revelation from God (Qur'an) and the hadiths which are immoral (read the opening argument again for further explanation). "This makes the whole argument a fallacy and is nothing more than dangerous rhetoric created by hate groups." How are facts "dangerous rhetoric" and which "hate group" created "it"? Conclusion My opponent admitted that Islam is immoral and did not respect rule 2 (see pro round 3). I had better conduct because I respected the rules. (Pro) While I do see several spelling and grammar mistakes in his texts, I believe that my grammar is not perfect either (tied) My opponent was not able to rebut all of my arguments and even admitted that Islam is immoral so I had the more convincing arguments. (Pro) I cited mostly Pew Research studies, official Qur'an verses and hadiths as my sources while my opponent mostly used Wikipedia and news pages to prove (mostly) irrelevant things like "Catholic persecution of women in Ireland". (Pro) Sources: [1]: https://sunnah.com... [2]: https://sunnah.com... [3]: https://sunnah.com... [4]: http://www.pewforum.org... [5]: https://quran.com... [6]: https://quran.com... [7]: https://quran.com... [8]: http://www.pewforum.org... [12]: http://www.pewforum.org... [13]: http://reports.weforum.org... [14]: https://quran.com... [15]: https://quran.com... [17]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [18]: https://sunnah.com... [19]: https://sunnah.com... [20]: http://www.pewforum.org...
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

I agree with the rules and the definitions provided. I would like to provide 2 more points of reference in regards to the rules, I don't want us regressing into a debate on fallacy lol. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... My argument is based around disproving that Islamic culture and the Islamic faith is "Immoral". Having read previous debates you have had I would like to ask you refrain from going overkill on links unless each link is given a reason and an opinion on its contents in relation to the debate, rather than me debating the full content of a list of links if possible!
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

Immoral = Evil/violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics (e. g. human rights). Islamic culture = The cultural practices common to historically Islamic people. Rules: 1. Provide evidence for your counter-arguments. 2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies 3. The first round is for the rules/agreeing to the debate. 4. The fourth round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments. 5. Do not forfeit.
Gay Marriage

Marriages should not be allowed, a neither should government have an affair in it. Being homosexual does not mean they have a right. Black people did not choose to be born that way, they should not have gone through the discrimination. Brown people do not choose to be born like that, and should not be discriminated for it. White people also don't choose it, but they are. Homosexuality is a choice, even though you might say some are born like that, it is still a choice, because one can easily marry a woman even if born castrated and there still be love. A thief chooses to be a thief, it is wrong and they can be punished by law. Should a kleptomaniac be allowed to steal just because the constitution says we are all equal? If gay marriage is allowed legally, then marrying having multiple wives should be allowed because it is also a choice, then next will people want to marry animals!? Gay marriage will promote gay lifestyle which in turn is not something to be encouraged, because as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. Denying these marriages is not a form of minority discrimination since it is something that is chosen, not born into. states have laws regulating marriage, forbidding first cousins from marrying, brothers and sisters from marrying, parents and offspring from marrying, and people from marrying animals, inanimate objects, or multiple other individuals.
Gay Marriage

You are only looking at the biblical side of the issue. This country has a separation of church and state, meaning that the church, including its religious teachings, shan't affect this nations laws. Second you say that, "the decline of the number and duration of marriages and also a decline in the number of children being produced," which is incorrect because the gays will not get married to the other sex, nor will they have children with the other sex. In addition Massachusetts was the first state to legalize gay marriage and their divorce rate went gone down by 21% from 2003 to 2008.