BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electric Cars are overall better than Gas Cars

Conclusion Gas cars have the advantage of being around a lot longer and have been tested a lot longer for safety. When people are shopping for new cars, safety is number one on their list to look out for. With electric cars they aren't the safest cars around and can make people think twice about purchasing them. Expenses I know shopping for a new can be expensive but if you know how to shop car with the best unities you can save some money. The car doesn't have to be $30,000 dollars to get great benefits from it you can get a reasonable well working car for just $13,000. If you can buy a new car that has great gas mileage you can save thousands of dollars year round. Another great benefit that will save you money is that some car dealerships give free oil changes every few months which save money a good amount of money. Maintenance Electric cars do require maintenance, maybe not as often but they still need it. With electric cars it can be more costly because they supplies that electric cars needs are different from gas cars so most mechanics only deal with gas cars. Since gas cars have been around longer mostly mechanic only specialize with gas cars and not electric. It's hard to find a mechanics where you live that also looks after electric cars. In the future I'm sure there will be a lot more auto shops that will deal with electric cars but for now there aren't that many. Safety Since electric cars a new to the market, gas cars a much safer to be driving on the road today. This especially, is a serious issue for person who is driving the car has an infant in the backseat. Safety comes first when you, your families and friends life are on the line. Distance A very important matter when it comes to drive is how far you are able to go. You a security blanket when you are driving on a road trip or have long commute hours every day to know that you can fill up your tank at any time if your tank gets low. There are more gas stations are every corner then there is charging units for smart cars. Driving a smart car is risky when you have to drive for long amounts of the day. Environment In a way electric cars still do harm the environment with their very toxic batteries. Yes, electric cars don't run on gas but people fail to see that these batteries in these cars can affect the environment badly if they aren't disposed of properly. Since, now there isn't really a safe way to get rid of these batteries carefully now isn't a good time to buy these cars. Maybe in the future when there are more people who are educated with these types of cars like mechanics, when there are more electric charging stations available, and more HOV lanes available in more states, have higher safety ratings and a safe way to dispose of these batteries then these cars can be a truly good way to help the environment. However, now just isn't the right time to have these on the road because in the end are they really doing more good than harm?
Electric Cars are overall better than Gas Cars

Environment Electric cars are better in many ways. First they help the environment. Gas cars are a mess with all these pipes in the ocean and ships transporting oil from other foreign nations. These things cause oil spills and that harms a lot to us and the environment. Pollution is another hazard. The tail pipes of cars release CO2 into the air and it mixes in with other gases from factories and plants. It poisons the air and harms the respiratory system. Savings You save money with electric cars. The government gives people who own electric cars a $7,500 tax credits the first year. In Los Angeles their department gives a lower rate on the electricity used to charge the car. You don't pay gas anymore and have to worry about it going up. Also you don't have to take that much of trips to the mechanic. You save a ton of money annually for that. HOV Lanes People complain about that electric cars can waste energy easily just for waiting in traffic. HOV lanes are used by electric cars so they won't have to waste energy. In California they allowed only electric cars can have one person in the vehicle to access the lane. There aren't that many of them anymore, but nce electric cars become big they would install the lane in all types of places. Accidents Safeties for electric cars are the same for as any other car. Any car can get into a car accident. Electric cars size isn't the prime target for car accidents. Gas cars also have small cars like the fiat and smart cars. They are even smaller than the electric cars. Batteries Batteries are another thing that makes people not interested in buying electric cars. They say that throwing the batteries out is bad and not good for the environment. Since they just came out there is a lot of flaws. They companies of these vehicles are trying to come up with ways to recycle them. Electric cars all these advantages to help not just the environment but everyone. It's a less of a mess to deal with and not that much hazards.
THW allow the buying and selling of human organs.

Okay. Pro just forfeited this round. Also this is an one day debate which is so short, so I won' have much time for arguments. ArgumentsI will just write my arguments in this round not the rebuttal because there is no time. Please do not count that as an dropped argument. 1. First of all, this argument is based on selling and buying organs and why we should not allow it. Okay this is my first argument. My first argument is that the poor will only do hard work. Do you think that the rich will sell or buy organs even thought they are rich? No! They can get better healthcare and alerady has a lot of money. Then who will sell these organs? Of course the poor will sell these organs to get money. The poor can’t buy these organs because of no money, so they need to take out there own organs which is bad First of all it is just bad for your health. Would you really think you will have no problem with one kidney. There will be some damage in your body so you might get serious injuries for getting these organs. As I said poor can’t buy but can sell. They will sell but who will buy these organs when they can have healthcare? The poor will just have bad health and have no money the same as the beginning. 2. No help "The global organ shortage has spawned illegal and unregulated organ markets. The World Health Organization estimates that five to ten per cent of all kidneys transplanted annually – perhaps 63,000 in total – are obtained in the organ bazaars of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. Thus, we face a dual tragedy: on one side, thousands of patients who die each year waiting for a kidney; on the other, a human rights fiasco in which corrupt brokers deceive indigent donors about the nature of surgery, cheat them out of payment and ignore their post-surgical needs. Altruistic appeals to organ donation have not yielded enough organs for transplantation. Not all developed countries have made the most use of posthumous donation, and of course they should. Unfortunately, much of the world transplant establishment – including the World Health Organization, the Transplantation Society and the World Medical Association – focuses exclusively on obliterating organ trafficking. While at face value this may seem reasonable, in reality it is a lethally one-sided prescription, because trying to stamp out underground markets either drives corruption further underground or causes it to flourish elsewhere. Government-sponsored compensation of healthy individuals who are willing to give one of their kidneys to save the life of a dying stranger is the best short-term solution. " Okay this is what it said in an article. First of all there is no help. They can’t buy organs and will just die. I think that this is no much help whatever you do. It is all the same if we do this act or not which just makes everything useless. Therefore, the resolution is negotiated. Please respond Pro.
THW allow the buying and selling of human organs.

Definitions: We define the house as Canada, and we're currently debating over the topic of purchasing and selling these organs through a legal and safe process. In the world that we live in today, with health technology advancing everyday and the ability to cure a disease becomes more efficient, why aren't we allowing the buying and selling of organs if it will ultimately help someone in need? Today I will be constructing two arguments titled "Legality" and "Impacts. "Legality" By making the buying and selling of human organs legal, black markets currently selling organs will shut down all over the country. This is because most people would rather buy these organs in a safer and legal transaction than to go to a rather sketchier establishment to make an illegal purchase. Also, buying organs from a black market doesn't assure the actual condition of the organ, which can lead to organ failure if they are transplanted. Secondly, if a individual is in desperate need of finances they should be allowed to sell their organ legally. After all it is their body, and they can choose what they want to do with it. Now onto my second argument titled "Impacts" In the current status quo, many people are suffering from diseases which can cause an abnormality in an organ. The intentions of these patients is to become healthy again, but to complete that goal, they will need the help of a donor; a organ donor. Now, most people in our society today aren't completely motivated to donate their organs as it would have the negative effect of losing theirs. If we pass this bill, more citizens will consider the act of selling an organ since there is now an reward for them. If more organs are sold, more patients will be cured from their abnormality. So overall the impact that this bill would have on our country is a lot more positive than most of the population were to expect.
Halo is better than Call of Duty.

Now, I believe that "COD" is better than Halo. However, this is only my opinion. I stress and put emphasis on the word OPINION! Whether a game is better than another is judged by a person"s viewpoint or opinion, if you, personally, say Halo is better, then that is your own opinion. I can question you and disagree with you, but it doesn"t mean that you are wrong " nor does it mean you are right. However, I will make my first argument. This being that "COD" is more POPULAR than Halo. For example lets take the two latest games: COD Black Ops 2 and Halo 4. Comparing the amount of games sold, Black Ops 2 clearly is more popular. Halo 4 sold a total of 8.41 million units on Xbox (as of 20th July 2013) globally. Black Ops 2 sold around 4 million more totaling to 12.57 million units(also as of 20th July 2013) globally. As a result of this, clearly more people like "BO2" than the amount of people who like "Halo 4" therefore: the higher the amount of people who buy it, the higher the amount of people play it and the higher the amount of people that play it, the higher the amount of people who will like it. This makes it better because more people have it, play it and can like it (this does not mean that everyone who buys it will like it).
Halo is better than Call of Duty.

Generally, when something is more popular, more people think it's better because they buy it. You've yet to explain WHY Halo is better than COD so it looks like it comes down to popularity anyway. As mentioned previously, it's not for you to say that Halo is better just as an opinion without evidence. This only suggests that YOU think it's better not that it IS better! Something can't be better than something else just because YOU think it is - that just means that it's better FOR YOU, in your opinion. It's down to a persons' opinion to decide which is better. More people think COD is better because more people buy COD rather than Halo. Wouldn't this imply that if more people choose to buy COD, more people think it's better? Good luck!
Is Biblical creationism valid.

Well, Im sorry you feel that way. But I have rebutted your point in the rounds above. You stated in the 3rd round about Pythagoras and Aristotle and I rebutted that very clearly. I have rebutted your point many times. I have pulled out scripture (prophecies to be exact) that are real today. Like I said, before a big majority of people lived on this earth, Jesus described the way the earth looks, and what was upon it. Today we can clearly read the book of Genesis and know that everything that has been written, is in fact real today because we can see it. You say that just because it's in the bible doesn't make it true. But yet everything and every scripture that I have argued is true. We have facts here on earth!
Is Biblical creationism valid.

There isn't much to say. Frankly I'm disappointed. You haven't even addressed the scientific arguments I have put forth, or given some of your own. I had already stated that even if the Greek philosophers were not the first to come up with the idea that the earth was not flat but rather spherical, it would not justify other falsehoods in the bible. It's 100% meaningless to talk about the things that the bible happened to be correct about, and using that so say that therefore evolution is wrong. When you had the heading " more reasons why creation beats evolution" I was hoping for some, you know, reasons. Not bible verses. Something testible and measurable. If this is what one has to rely on in order to come to that position, then how anybody could adopt such a position is beyond me. I don't really know what else I could say. There really isn't much.
Is Biblical creationism valid.

Rebuttal #1My opponent states that : "There are a plethora of issues here that need to be addressed. You claim essentially that the bible makes predictions that were not known at the time" FALSE. First off, lets define Prediction: n. noun 1. The act of predicting. 2. Something foretold or predicted; a prophecy. Lets use Noah's Ark for example. Jesus told Noah that there would be a flood, when also scientifically proven there was a flood. Now this isn't a prediction. This is fact. Just look here: http://abcnews.go.com... Rebuttal #2 My opponet then claims "You gave the examplOe of a verse saying that the earth is round, and it's true that it was not known scientifically at the time. Although even that isn't true, The Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras postulated the idea, as did Aristotle" This is false. Phythagoras was born in 571 B.C and died at the age of 75, while Airistotale was born in 322 B.C. They were not the people do discover the roundness of the earth. The Book of Isaiah (Hebrew: ספר ישעיה‎, "Sefer Yeshayahu") is the first of the Latter Prophets in the Hebrew Bible and the first of the Major Prophets in English Bibles.[1] The oldest surviving manuscripts of Isaiah are two scrolls found among the Dead Sea Scrolls; dating from about 150 to 100 BCE, they are substantially identical with the Masoretic version which forms the basis of most modern English-language versions of the book . As you can see the book of Isaiah was written before Pythagoras and Aristotale was born. Meaning the the bible was the 1st to tell us that the eart was round. (Isaiah 40:22). More reasons as to why Creation beats Evolution: 1. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. 2. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago. 3. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea. 4. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. How do you explain theese? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: https://search.yahoo.com... https://search.yahoo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://rr-bb.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jesus is the Messiah

it is going to be NC AC my opponent does not respond to any of my arguments relating to whether jesus is the messiah. therefore we must assume that he agrees with them, and he can not bring them back up later since they have been dropped my opponent does not present anything in his constructive so clearly my case stands better than his nonexistant one I would also like to point out the extreme rudeness of my opponent, which i believe to be agains the spirit of LD with this in mind, i urge a negative ballot
Jesus is the Messiah

Its going to be AC NC my opponent has no case so i win by default my opponent continues to deny that i brought up science, but as we can see, my constructive mentions science, which is the only argument in this round, and it has not been refuted. moving on to key voting issues 1) i urge a negative ballot because my opponent simply has no case 2) i provide the standard of science, which has not been contested in the whole debate 3) my opponent has frequently implemented explanation marks throughout the debate, which shows an expression of anger and have hurt my feelings, which is clearly against the spirit of LD debate with this in mind, i urge a negative ballot
The non-aggression principle is a justified ethical position

It has been educational, to say the last. But unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the final round. Because of Pro's rule that drops count as concessions, I think it is reasonable to assume my opponent has conceded the debate. In conclusion, I offer a brief summary of my arguments: I deconstructed Pro's argument by locating its inherent contradictions, specifically in its simultaneous reliance on foundationalism and incompatibility with foundationalism. I also made an argument for pragmatism so as to completely negate the force of foundationalism. Finally, I directly argued against the NAP as an "ethical" position, using multiple moral systems to support my critique.
The non-aggression principle is a justified ethical position

===Resolution and BoP===Pro will have the burden to provide and defend an argument or arguments for why the non-aggression principle (NAP) is a justified ethical position. Con's burden will be to deconstruct Pro's argument(s) and show that the NAP is not a justified ethical position.===Definitions===The Non-aggression principle (NAP) is defined as an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.[1]An ethical position may be defined as any principle governing right or wrong methods of interpersonal actions. An ethical position is justified if it is demonstrated to be just, right, or valid.===Structure and Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.===Sources===[1] http://wiki.mises.org...
USA should significantly spend less

our debt is out of control. if you look at the experts, we see the congressional budget office, and plenty of current and former administraters in that and realted organizations that say the same thing. a noteable name comptroller david walker. our triple A rating has been downgraded a notch, and they warn us it could be more if we don't get our affairs in order. china is warning us that we need to get our affairs in order. only people like paul krugman argue it is not a big deal. he probably does this mostly to be a contrarian and get attention. he argues for keysian econonomics, that we can grow ourselves out by spending more. while keynesian econ has some merit to it, it's not applicable now. that theory says when we are in a recession we should spend so as to stimulate. now, we are not in recession, and while we are not optimal, i would argue it's the new normal. employment won't go down more, cause our economic structure doesn't need that many people working. and similar arguments could be made about other economic indicators. the measure of how much we should spend is often GDP v debt. we are about 75% debt to GDP, and the highest it has been was around WWII. what makes now different, is that the country was developing, and had a marked advanged over less developed and war torn counties. that allowed them to pull themselves out of the mire. now, we dont have things like that to pull us out. also, probably a better measure, is that we should compare debt to national revenue. if we continue to grow in debt, we revenue won't increase in proportion. also, within maybe thirty or so years, interest on the debt will eat out much of other spending, even to the detriment of entitlement spending. i'm not saying we are beyond the point of no return. but we are getting there. things need to shape up. we can't keep spending like a drunken sailor.
Anarcho-capitalism would turn into anarcho-communism or socialism given enough time

Con may begin their argument in round 1 if they so wish, but if they do, they must waive round 4 and say something like "I'm waiving this round as agreed upon" since I am not using round 1 for debate. This is to keep the amount of rounds used for debate even. Otherwise, begin your argument in round 2 after I've done so. Debate structure will be this: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Main argument Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion/reasons why you believe you won If my opponent uses round 1 for main argument, it would be the same thing but move everything up a round, delete acceptance, and round 4 is the waiving of the round. All mainstream definitions of socialism and capitalism will be accepted.