BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The claim that "97% of scientists agree 'man made global warming' exists" is a lie.

John Kerry has been quoted as saying, "And let there be no doubt in anybody"s mind that the science is absolutely certain. . . 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible. . . . . they agree that, if we continue to go down the same path that we are going down today, the world as we know it will change"and it will change dramatically for the worse." This is very false. But leaving aside the catastrophic/"change dramatically for the worse" assertion which is not supported by any scientific agreement. The most common source of this 97% number is in Cook et al. (2013) which leaves out the 'catastrophic' part. In Cook"s summary of his paper: "Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause." ( main cause meaning over 50%) 97% of what? Of papers they surveyed. Not climate scientists. However, if we were to say "97 percent of papers by climate scientists endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause" this too would also false. ---------------------------------------- This is not a debate on if global warming exists or doesn't exist. This is not a debate on if global warming is harmful to humans. This is a debate on the 'Man Made' with the 97% claim. If it is not man made then it's usage is meaningless, and the claim should not be used. If there is not a 97% consensus, the the claim should not be used. My argument is that 97% of scientists, or climate scientists, or climate papers DO NOT agree that 'man made global warming' exists, and anyone who claims this is misrepresenting facts, and that the 97% claim should be disregarded a false. The Con side must prove that: 97% of scientists/climate scientists/climate papers agree that Warming is Man Made(51%).
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the american political process.

"While all these things may hold true (all though you haven't any evidence)"I apologize if this comes across as rude, but when I read this, I laughed a little - I ask my opponent, and my audience, do the three videos I have presented not constitute valid evidence of news spins and uneducatedness in the news? Does my opponent agree with FOX news that the historical Jesus and St. Nicholas were white, and takes their word for it over the word of certified, professional historians? A better way to be educated about such things would be to simply do evaluative research on one's own. Example:http://www.biography.com...http://www.biography.com..."in a democracy the media is vital for it to function"I would like to point out that this is a bit of a red herring here - from what I understand, the topic of this argument is whether or not the media is detrimental to the american political process. Even so, I will go ahead and say that, in my opinion, there are better ways of being educated politically than using the news. Perhaps the news is practical in that it provides rough information of what is currently happening in america, but this information tends to be skewed towards political party leanings of the news station or website, and for this reason, it can be detrimental to the american political process."As for bias, this is a value debate, we are arguing what not to be, not what is."Well, we certainly do not want to be neo-nazis in America, so if there just so happened to be a neo-nazi leaning news station, would it not become a detriment to the American Political Process? Suppose such a news station were created. Would the voters of America not be influenced by a neo-nazi leaning news station?Perhaps people do absorb multiple news sources, but it cannot be denied that while the news informs its viewers, it also holds much power. I recite a quote from Malcolm X:"The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make a criminal look like he's the victim and make the victim look like he's the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." - Malcolm Xhttp://blackcommentator.com...Biases and spins on the news, as Malcolm X had recognized, has the power to completely corrupt a legion of people who follow the news reporter's every word. If one watches CNN and sees the opinions CNN newscasters have concerning the Occupy movement, they will see that CNN has a very different oppinion of the Occupy movement than does FOX, and vice versa. Although I concede that the news is informative, I am arguing for the fact that the news is indeed detrimental to the political process on account of the spins and biases which are commonly found in the news.
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the american political process.

While all these things may hold true (all though you haven't any evidence) the fact is, in a democracy the media is vital for it to function. The reason being the people have to be informed, and through ideological diffusion and knowledge, the people are informed from the media. As for bias, this is a value debate, we are arguing what not to be, not what is. So to this I say that we have to trust in humanity to view multiple news sources (I also have evidence that they do) and discern right from wrong and bias from non. As for your second contention saying that people usually stick to one news source, i have statistical evidence saying otherwise included in my case.
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the american political process.

l. News Spins.For this argument, I would like to start off with a video concerning FOX news from The Young Turks:http://www.youtube.com...And secondly, with a recorded segment from CNNhttp://www.youtube.com...As my opponent and the voters can see, and as many of you may already know, the news is notorious for putting a spin on the facts in order to make them sound more urgent or more optimistic. This happens all the time in the news in order to grab the viewers' attention, and can range from a harmless, barely visible political bias, to a full blown message of urgency meant to keep the viewer watching (I would like to point to how, in the first youtube link, the news reporter briefly mentions that they are "losing viewers" even though this does not have very much to do with weather or not net neutrality is good or bad. Is the priority whether or not net neutrality is a good thing, or is the priority how many viewers are tuned in to FOX news?).ll. News outlets tend to have a political bias.Many people choose to subscribe to one news outlet and stick to it, when it is much better to gather information from multiple sources and draw your own conclusions. Because news outlets tend to be biased politically (i.e. FOX news leaning conservative, CNN leaning democratic) it is usually better to listen to multiple sources rather than listening to one source like people usually do, and it is because people usually listen to only one source that the given news outlets tend to become a detriment politically. People may become welled up in the hype generated from one news source, that it could influence every part of their political action, for the good or for the bad of the country as a whole. FOX news is especially notorious for this .An admittedly hilarious example here: http://www.youtube.com... )I mean, let's be honest - suggesting that Santa Claus and Jesus were both white is just not the best example of an unbiased, informative news story (It has historically been shown, actually, that neither of whom would have been white).lll. Many people watch the news.This is essentially the same argument which my opponent has used to support his/her claim. Many people watch and trust the news to give them a completely accurate depiction of reality in the U.S.. I believe it is safe to say that many of these people do not do more research on the subject after hearing whatever it is that they hear on the news. With the news spins and news biases which vey commonly influence the news on a regular basis, many people may be very strongly influenced by these spins and biases, and these people may allow their votes and opinions be influenced accordingly. This can effect the presidents who are elected, the senators who are elected, the representatives who are elected, the state governors who are elected, the state senators who are elected, the state representatives who are elected, et al.
RESOLVED: The influence of the media is detrimental to the american political process.

Since I do not have the access to these videos I cannot count them as evidence because I cannot view them. " Even so, I will go ahead and say that, in my opinion, there are better ways of being educated politically than using the news." Here my opponent has neglected the definition for media that i am using in this case and is operating under the false conclusion that news is the only way of conveying information to a large amount of people. On my opponents hypothetical "Neo-Nazi" argument. Since this is value debate we are arguing what ought to be not what is, therefor I do believe we can both agree that the American people ought not be "Neo-Nazi's". On my opponents argument citing Malcolm X, Malcolm is specifically talking about the press, the news media, and the mainstream media. The definition for the media that I am operating under is more than just the mainstream media. Therefor this argument doesn't include the majority of my case. Also, my opponent has failed to attack my value and criterion, and via the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate is not allowed to present new arguments in the third round of the debate. Now moving on to attack my opponents case. My opponent does not possess a value or criterion, therefor I am winning this debate already. But I will still attack what little of a case he has presented. The entirety of my opponents case is based on the assumption that the media emits bias, due to a lack of time, I will cover his entire case with a blanket attack. The people that we are speaking of are not mindless sub-human slaves at the hands of the government. We have the ability to think and perceive what is right and wrong. The media is nothing more than a tool to convey knowledge from one place to another via ideological diffusion. Any bias emitted ought to be debunked by the public (since this is a value debate and we are still arguing what ought to be not what is). I rest my case.
Homeless people deserve to be where they are

I'll like to bring up a point to counter my opponent's argument stating that homeless people ask for spare change. This in itself is a flawed technique. Asking for spare change does very little in order to better a homeless person's life. It can be exhausting and they usually only recieve very little. Instead of panhandling, the person effected could be putting that energy into finding a job or doing volunteer experience that could lead up to a job. My opponent is indeed correct that homelessness is effecting welfare and taxes; just too much is being spent on things to try to help this one group when it could be spent on things for the contributing members of society to use. This money should not be spent on the homeless. They aren't helping to pay for anything through taxes. My opponent also mentions that many homeless people are stereotyped as criminals. She fails to address the fact that some may actually be criminals. What should we do with criminals? Give them special privilages? I'm sure many people would disagree and want to punish a criminal, particularly in the case of crimes directed at family members or close friends. If somebody is addicted to drugs, it's often their own fault. They're the one who chooses to snort, inject, smoke, etc to begin with. If they get addicted and destroy their lives then they're the one to blame. My opponent fails to address this. It's a well-known fact that drugs can often be brutal. This article points out some of the re-occuring problems among homeless addicts: http://www.libraryindex.com... Lastly, my opponent does indeed that not all homeless people are "poor and innocent". This is true and these people among the homeless who do bad thing shouldn't be helped by society. They take things from society and provide nothing in return so we shouldn't be expected to give to them. I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. :) Cheers!
Homeless people deserve to be where they are

Thanks again for the intresting arguement. As my opponent is opposed to the following argeument i will treat this fairly and evaluate your points. I agree all homeless should help themself and not rely on others for codependency but the truth is many of them have accepted the fact that they cant do that and so defend on the street asking for spare change and so fourth. My opponent remarked that the homelessness is affecting welfare and tax, well to be honest what isn"t? Tax payers fork out alot of money to prisioners and young offenders criminals who are lacking in the justice system as well as projects and such that have been invested on and not used, aswell as the brutual death penalty. I can see my opponent has based alot of their suggested points to do with money, but like i said there are thousands of things today that tax payers money is wasted on and the homelessness is very minimal to that,. The truth is in todays world there is more gun crime and violence which as you can imagine can be scary living out in the streets no matter what your unfortunate circumstances might be, we cant prejudge these people based on societys outlook, no matter what they have done they deserve alot more than they are recieving most are treated like criminals and subjected to this terrible stereotype Its easy for someone to say " go out and look for a job and stop your habit" but unless your out there and have experienced the bruatality of it all you can trully understand. More money invested could provide a homeless person with stable accomodation and councelling etc. Drug addiction is the biggest factor for ending up homeless it changes your state of mind most times , so your not able to make concious descisions for yourself and so need someone to step in and motivate you to go out and sort your life out and not in a crude way. In conclusion im not suggesting that all homeless people are "poor & Innocent" there are ones out there that DO commit crimes and end up in prison or held in custody but if we really want to stop this we should stop being at the right wing of everything and actually think what benefits just a few more pounds could have to one homeless person and stop the stereotypical tag it has become. I once again thank my opponent :) http://www.deathpenalty.org... http://www.help-the-homeless.org.uk...
Homeless people deserve to be where they are

:) First point I will like to address is that my opponent claims that many homeless people may have had a difficult upbringing which led them into drugs. This could be true in many cases. However, if people are addicted to drugs they should be helping themselves to get support to overcome their addictions rather than continuing to drain the welfare system to buy their substances. At the same time they could be getting counselling and such to help them cope with problems they had during their upbringing. They should be trying to help themselves first before turning to others. My opponent also addresses a statement made in my previous argument. Sadly, it is far from stereotypical and creates an entire wave of opposition to social services. It is estimated that about 11% of the entire US budget is spent to provide welfare services. (. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...) It is unknown exactly how many Americans abuse these services due to their lack of incentive and refusal to work, but as a tax-payer would you want 11% of the total budget wasted to give people drugs? So in reality, if people were really motivated to get off the streets they would crack down and break their habits and go search for work. Now I'll hand this over to my opponent. ..
Homeless people deserve to be where they are

Firstly you explain Why should the welfare help people in such bad circumstances I drug addiction? , well to be honest, why not? The education system has seen a huge downfall even though schools receive more money then any other business etc so basically half there money has been wasted. My opponent then explains " why should we see homeless in a different light" well we should as a nation who have the courage to understand different perspectives and peoples lives instead of pre judgement, How do we know some homeless people haven"t overcome bad situations and revelations in their life? such as abuse as a child? , which then could explain their life and why they turned to drugs and obscene behaviour. Yes I understand there is many ways money could be more beneficial to health services etc, But that is only because they have the power for Medicare etc homeless people don't have this, so what would be the harm in society looking at them differently and instead of dismissing them for poor self esteem and mentality and actually help them? My opponent then continues to say and I quote -" they make pick up a mentality why get a job, I have the government to provide for me-" that can be seen as quite stereotypical, anyone can make a remark like that for example people who claim benefits and don't work but live in a stable environment and home. If people were honestly not receiving any support I think its quite on the contrast ,because people would not be as motivated to luck for work and this could be due from anything to high anxiety to mental illness thus economy breakdown. I conclude I understand where my opponent is coming from but I do believe the tax payers money is been wasted on alt of other things that is necessary and homelessness should not be dismissed in such a brutal way which is affecting society as a whole. Along to you now :)
Homeless people deserve to be where they are

My opponent claims that drug addiction is a factor in homelessness. This can often be correct. This can be a particularly prominent problem, especially when the addict is using welfare checks in order to buy their substances rather than pay the bills. This alone can often lead to evictions due to unpaid rent. Should these people continue to recieve support from welfare when they're just going to waste it on drugs rather than helping themselves to better their situation? My opponent also states that homeless people are often frowned upon. This is true, but why view them in a positive light when many of them are drug addicts who refuse to get help and abuse the welfare system? That welfare funding could be going towards those who actually need it and would use it for its intended purpose. There are about 300,000 homeless people in Canada and about 750,000 in the United States.(http://housinghomeless.ca...) When put into proportion these numbers can become quite significant. To provide every single one of these people with shelter would become quite expensive. Also, in many urban areas it may be hard to set aside land to build social housing. Many tax-payers would much rather have their tax dollars go towards things that directly benefit them, like healthcare and education. One could also argue that these social programs such as housing and welfare are ineffective for many people as they don't provide incentive. They may pick up a mentality of "why get a job? I have the government to provide for me." If everybody thought like that the economy would collapse. If people aren't recieving support they get more encouraged to go find work thus keeping the economy strong. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. :)
Homeless people deserve to be where they are

Analogy 1. Homeless people vary from people who are on the streets due to drug addiction debt and/or personal problems. Statistics show that in the UK every 4 people per 1000 are Homeless in the UK. Although in defense there our community's and federal services who set up food shelters. small hostels etc, but is that really enough? Anybody can be homeless due to any situation, yet some people prefer to look down on homelessness as if the people have contracted some disease, Its now said that people in prison have more definitive rights than homeless people, Police are now trying to advocate people sleeping in the streets sleeping, drinking etc , without talking or trying to talk to them some now prefer to dismiss them as " tramps" or as if there inferior to anyone else . Many can turn to drug addiction by coming on the streets rather than starting there the first place and develop mental illness which can be disguised through appearance and drug addiction etc. Our Society are first to complain about crime rates yet lack help for the homelessness which is only surely making things worse? Many Homeless citizens are not motivated to try and help them self because of the way society judges and precepts them, So all they can do is turn to drastic measures to feed there drug addiction rather than having there will power to help them self. Many homeless people also are very grateful to receive loose change, money etc, so why would it be any different from someone having the determination to help them? Local councils have specific legal duties towards homeless people yet they are not achieving swell as they thought they would. - So my stance as stands, Homeless people don't deserve to stay where they are, they are eligible for help we will see more homelessness particularly due to the current economic and foreclosure crises So many people this year and next will see eviction from their property. There needs to be more help on tact to help innocent people reside to the streets! I wish my opponent good luck in the second round : ) Sources; . http://www.citymayors.com... . http://www.kalimata.co.uk...
illicit drugs should be legalised

I have issued this challenge after seeing you debate with THEBOMB and thought that you would make an excellent opponent in this issue should you be able to spare the time for this debate. If you accept, we will define illicit drugs as drugs that are currently illegal in the majority of first world countries, drugs which have been determined to cause damage to the health of a human user in any amount above 1 mg. Rules: 4 rounds, first is for acceptance, definitions and anything else you might want to say outside of this debate before we begin. This first round you can also use to post your argument, but if you do so there will be no new arguments allowed from you in round 3. last round will contain no new arguments, only rebuttals and defenses of previous arguments. BoP is on Pro, but Con may state arguments if he wants. If Con's arguments do not attempt to adequately negate the resolution Pro may ignore them altogether. (within reason) voting period is 2 weeks 72 hours to type your argument 8k character limit. No semantics or trolling. Forfeit results in 7 point penalty.
A flying tiger would defeat a flying shark

I guess since my opponent forfeited I will still proceed with my argument. Reasons why a flying shark would win in a fight with a flying tiger. a. The tiger lost space. b. The only thing the tiger can do is attack and kill, which is what he is supposed to do. c. The shark can survive anywhere in air or water. d. The tiger cannot survive in water. (this is an advantage to the shark.) e. Sharks are slimy, meaning when the tiger attacks the shark it wouldn't be able to get a hold of the shark, the shark will just slide right out of his mouth. f. The shark has sharper teeth. g. A shark is faster when it attacks. h. The shark is more air dynamic than the tiger. i. The shark can easily confuse the tiger.