BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

Let me preface my argument by saying I could not understand half of what you said during the entire debate. Not that it was some how out of reach or to complex, but I just could not decifer what you seem to think is a use of the english language. Also, I could do without the personal attacks. Anyway, I'm not advocating biomass in the debate. You asked for an alternative and I gave you one. I can't really decifer what you argued for on the point, other than its lack of supply. In response, biomass is essentially garbage. I think it is safe to say we have more than enough garbage lying around. On to nuclear facilities. I'm not claiming nuclear plants don't provide energy. Shernoble and five mile island have scared the general public away from nuclear power and stirred a political gridlock on the topic, making it hard to establish enough nuclear power, even if it is safe, to replace natural resources. I was not talking about nuclear bombs, rather the danger of plant leaks or nuclear waste, but more notably the politcal barriers to nuclear power (i.e. those "STUPID IDIOT DEMAGOGIC dcemocrats"). On the electricity point, you pretty much just insult me and move on. You admit that creating H energy is terminally inefficient. All of your statistics account for the electric bills on homes, not energy requirements. What about heating costs, driving cars, etc. Your stats prove my point. Just to account for the electric bill on homes we would need 500 sf of solar panels per house. Does this in any way seem plausible or realistic? The average house doesn't have that kind of roofing space, so we can't do it that way. We could put solar panels somewhere else, but the transfer of energy to homes makes it even less efficient. As of 2003 there are 9 million homes. So, we are talking about constructing 500 million square feet of solar panelling just to take care of homes, not counting businesses etc. Practical? Cost efficient? Possible? NO. Keep in mind those figures are JUST for electricity in homes. I would imagine a solar plant in the Mojave would be profitable. How would this fair for locations that are not in the hottest locations in the world? It still doesn't counter cost of building. So, we can't store H. The gas tanks would be immense and H is incredibly volatile. Anyone remember Hindenburg? We have to keep H at extremely cold temperatures and it remains large. You don't answer the engineering problems for a pure H car, something necessary to REPLACE oil. A simple hybrid isn't enough. I know its a currency, thats the problem. Its a middle man and will always be inefficient. We talked about this earlier. I don't need to provide you with an alternative (eventhough I did). You are here preaching the wonders of H and I'm showing you that you are wrong. If a college student knew the miracle cure to the looming energy crisis, don't you think we would be working on it already? The fact is H is not the answer. Its terminally inefficient, impossible to store effectively and safely and is just another hyped up quick fix to a problem that is going to take a lot of time and dedication to solve.
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

I don't think I have ever seen such an eccentric argument. Biomass. Biomass is waste and green resources which are turned into fuel. While biomass still takes energy to produce it is incredibly more efficient than hydrogen and has the capability of being even more efficient. Biomass is made from our own waste (not crap, garbage), so it is ever-abundant and we are producing it instead of depleting it. It needs technological development, but is a much better prospect than hydrogen. Nuclear facilities are a tough candidate because of the potential danger and political contreversy surrounding them. But, you don't advocate them anyway and they are off topic. OK, so hydrogen is made with electricity. Where does the electricity come from? People could spend all day circling a hand crank like those Farraday flashlights... If you want to use solar energy to convert water to hydrogen, keep in mind that it takes 1.3 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of H energy. Laws of thermodynamics dictate we will always get less out of H than we put in. To create the kind of electricity we would need to replace natural resources it would take a massive amount of sunlight. So, anywhere other than CA or the Sahara is pretty screwed. Also, building solar plants big enough to replace the resource vacancy is about 50 times MORE costly than current plants. Also, hydrogen is simply not dense enough. It would take 237,000 litres of gas hydrogen or 60 gallons of liquid hydrogen to replace a 20 gallon gas tank. Not to mention the fact that liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air, presenting countless engineering messes. As you pointed out, H embrittles metal. This means it naturally escapes your car while eroding it. Also, you don't answer the impracticality of hydrogen. Why invest in an energy middle-man? Especially one that costs a boatload. All hydrogen does is transfer energy. It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell. We put energy we already have into a 'fuel' that provides diminsihing returns at staggeringly higher costs? DOESN'T MAKE SENSE PERIOD ILLOGICAL DONE
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

First of all, take your time First of all I want you to give me what YOUR alternative fuel of choice IS ETHANOL IS A DISASTER SO ARE BIOFUElS hydrogen is the ONLY energy carrier capable of supplanting gasoline, diesel and JP4 etc IN TOTO period. No product of photosynthesis is going to replace gasoline again ETHANOL IS A DISASTER SO ARE BIOFUElS "The world is approaching the oil peak rapidly." "This is not to say we will run out of oil" well which is it? and FIRST OF ALL WE NEED TO DRILL MORE YES MORE EVERYWHERE Im sure we agree on this point AND BUILD NEW REFINERIES again, Im sure we agree on this point AND NUCLEAR FACILITIES again , Im sure we agree on this point BOTTOM LINE SOLAR PERIOD. SOLAR - HYDROGEN IT WORKS ITS SIMPLE TAKE PV ELECRICITY at 15% efficiency or large solar thermal at 20% there is enough sunlight hitting the planet DAILY to power it for a few years 10% of available commercial roof space in Los Angleles county will provide the total power for the state at peak load (50,000 MW or 50 GW) hydrogen is produced from WATER it can be done at HOME with a LITTLE MACHINE called an ELECTROLYZER so ELECTRICITY + WATER = HYDROGEN HYDROGEN + YOUR CAR , TRUCK , SHIP , AIRPLACE, SPACESHIP + OXYGEN= WATER Water-----> Hydrogen --------> water HYDROGEN POWERS THE SPACE SHUTTLE- It has the HIGHEST ENERGY DENSITY it also is a VERY LIGHT GAS and embrittles metal, and escapes into space easy but it is THE ONLY ANSWER KIDS THE ONLY ANSWER for our transportation needs GET FAMILIAR WITH IT PROMOTE IT THE TIME IS NOW DO YOU HEAR ME? IT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN OBAMA GOT IT? SOLARMAN
HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

Hydrogen is most definately not the answer to our fuel crisis. Short and simple, as your opening argument gave me little to work with, hydrogen doesn't solve the problem. The world is approaching the oil peak rapidly. This is not to say we will run out of oil, but that there comes a point when drilling for natural resources yields marginal returns. As we drill deeper it costs more and yields lower quality resource which costs more to refine, which also costs more. So, as Dr. Hubbard famously predicted, there will come a point where, eventhough natural resources are still left, it will be more cost than benefit to retrieve them. Now, you may say this is the exact reason we need hydrogen, but take a closer look at how we get hydrogen. Hydrogen energy requires energy to be produced. That production energy comes from the natural resources we are running out of, namely natural gas. Best estimates report 10% of hydrogen production is by renewable energy. So, we are just using our depleting fuel to create another fuel. This means hydrogen is a virtual go-between for energy reliance. On top of that, hydrogen is entirely impractical. A hydrogen ready car costs almost $1 million on order and can go about 70 miles before needing a recharge. Natural resources account for more than 80% of our energy source and is set to peak in less than a decade. How to you expect to counter that with a fuel that is that impractical and relient on the very fuels we are running out of?
The death penalty should not remain legal in the United States.

I affirm the resolution, "The death penalty should not remain legal in the United States." I would like to use this round as an introduction and to define key terms: death penalty- a sentence of punishment by execution; capital punishment. [1] murder- the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. [2] legal- permitted by law. [3] *"Death penalty" may be replaced with "capital punishment" throughout the argumentation because they have the same meaning.* This round has solely been utilized to clarify what the debate is covering and to decipher critical definitions associated with the resolution. In this first round, my opponent has the opportunity to bring up any concerns or stipulations about any of my wording and use of definitions. If my opponent is satisfied with the way I have presented the opening, I would prefer if he/she refrains from posting argumentation in round one (As Instigator, I feel the need to post beginning contentions) and simply type the response, "I accept SAC's definitions and am prepared to debate." [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... I look forward to an intricate and interesting debate. Thank you.
Homework

Students need homework in order to reinforce the lessons they have learned in class. It is a hassle, but a necessary one. I would like to start by addressing some point you brought up.1. "the average student" What age group is this? This could include anything from first grade to a college graduate.2. "Students want to go home and relax" Everyone wants to go home and relax, but it is a part of a student's job to get their homework done.3. "In fifth grade, my teacher never assigned homework. Almost everybody got an A or higher." A singular event that does not prove any trend whatsoever. You cannot talk about an average student later in your discussion and use yourself in the argument.4. "Is that not the reason why more kids are becoming obese?" Obesity comes from many factors such as how a child spends his free time and diets. I think you need to make a better argument to convince me or anyone else that homework causes obesity.Homework exists in order to help a student fully understand a topic on their own. Teachers benefit from homework because they can tell where their students are in the class. Who is struggling? Is it safe to move on to more advanced topics now that the basics are covered? I think that homework is a necessity in understanding advanced topics, especially in later grades.
Homework

School student should not have homework for several reasons. After roughly 7 hours at school. Students want to go home and relax. But when they get home, they have to do more school work. They learn the materials at school, but why do the need to re-learn the stuff they l;earned at school. In fifth grade, my teacher never assigned homework. Almost everybody got an A or higher. I believe that all students can be more successful without homework. It takes the average student about 1-2 hours doing homework. They should be outside playing. Staying inside doesn't get you fit. Is that not the reason why more kids are becoming obese?
God is More Cruel than Satan

If God Was Cruel Would He Create You ? If God Was Cruel Would He Create You Without Any Defects ? Do You Think God Takes Away People And Make Others Struggle And Feel Bad ? You Yourself Said Life Was A Competition.....The One Who Struggles And Sacrifices Can Only Achieve.The Path Of Devil Is Easy,And The Path Of Good Is Thorny With Deats And Sacrifices And Loses.THIS ISNT THE LIFE.This is Just a Small Test,The AfterDeath Matters.God Created Everyone Equal and Have Given Us Instructions on how to Live life.Todays World Is In The Way Of Devil,ILLUMINATIS Run The Entire Hollywood And Music Industry,ISIS And Al Qaeda.Those Who Stand Against God Will Live A Happy Life Now,But The Life After Death Will Be Horrible For Them.So Stay Great...God Loves You,Cuz He Created You :)
God is More Cruel than Satan

God is more cruel in that he sits back and does absolutely nothing for us, besides letting us into what is called "Paradise" for those who continue to cling onto their faith. (Which, if they go through absolute hell, may be all that they have.) Satan on the other hand, punishes those who commit the acts of sin. Phrased this way, God could be acting like the court and Satan as the prison, but it's more than that. God doesn't answer prayers. God doesn't answer questions that may be critical for that person. He is, in a way, causing people to lose faith on his own. At least this was how I viewed in growing up. When I was at one of the worst periods of my life, I prayed to him to help me, but that help never came, and I thought, "How cruel." The only way he could save me was by not upping up the pain caused on Earth by sending me to Hell. It could even be compared to a school bully. They'll make you feel worse about yourself, they'll make you struggle (In this way, it's God letting abusive parents conceive children, etc), but they won't kill you. God will let bad things happen to you, even to the extent that you think about taking your life, but he won't let you go to Hell. (I don't remember if suicide is a sin. Once again, not an expert on this religion.) So, is he more cruel? He sits on the sidelines watching this happen, but he won't truly help you. This all-powerful being lets you suffer. You end up going out one night at the wrong time, you get kidnapped, and then tortured so they could feel that sadistic pleasure, but he won't influence someone to call you just before you step outside, or influence you to have the sudden urge to use the bathroom just as that sadistic person is going by. So, as my conclusion goes, God is more cruel than Satan in these circumstances.
Nintendo is the greatest game developer out there

Opponents case: 1. First of all, Snake wasn't stolen to go in smash bros. Nintendo got a deal with Konami, and had legal rites to put Snake in(Same with Sonic) 2. Next, Snake was created by KONAMI, NOT SONY! Drop this argument 3. Mario does jump on heads to kill, and burnout does crash, yes, but that doesn't make either better. First of all, Wipeout, GTA, Burnout, and Metal Gear are all from different companies, i don't know which company you are defending! My case 1. My opponent is saying that it takes skill to control the car, true, but does is not take skill to kill Bowser? Yes, it does! It takes skill to do it! Also, my argument is about influencing, and my opponent doesn't say how the games he mentions influences. 2. I think my opponent is thinking of games individually. I am talking about DEVELOPERS ON A WHOLE, CREATING FRANCHISES. Yes, individual games matter, but franchises matter more. oh, and isn't Burnout on Nintendo consoles too? So was Metal Gear Solid 2?
Nintendo is the greatest game developer out there

why i should agree nothing is the best in the world and one of the smash bros. episode they borrow(may be steal) snakes that came from Metal Gear Solid which is from sony PS2 and sony has a very exciting game like "Burn out","G.T.A.","wipeout pure" and "metal gear" and compare to nintendo "mario" is just a man who jump on the enemy head to win but "burn out" is a car that crash another to win and the player need to be very good at controling because the car is very fast and you need to play this game undr stand my sentence
Nintendo is the greatest game developer out there

When you think of games, what do you think of? Master Chief, Sonic the hedgehog, pac-man, and Rayman are answers for some people. However, most people would say "Mario," More people know Mario than Mickey Mouse, and Mario has become a phenomenon. From his 2D games, such as Super Mario World, to his revolutionary 3D platformers, like Super Mario Galaxy, Mario has had some of the greatest games created. But the company behind Mario, Nintendo hasn't just created the Mario masterpiece. They created Zelda, Metroid, Animal Crossing, Star Fox, Kirby, Donkey Kong, the Wii games(Wii fit, wii sports, Wii play, Wii music) And the infamous Super Smash Bros. These series have been some of the most influential series in gaming, and no other developer has come close to the magic of Nintendo. Nintendo games have been played by all of us at one time, and they have impacted gaming so greatly, that without Super Mario Brothers, and Super Mario 64, gaming wouldn't be near what it is now. And with Super Mario Galaxy already giving developers new ideas, the magic of Nintendo is still alive. Note: This debate will be mainly on Nintendo GAMES, not consoles. Consoles can be brought into the debate, but it must relate directly to the idea of nintendo games. Thanks in advance! If you want to debate consoles, I have another debate about the Wii and PS3 in challenge period.
That public schools should enforce uniforms

No problems have ever resulted from uniforms. and if they have, my opponent should give me them. Since casual wear has been known to cause problems I urge your vote. What you don't understand is that if you do enforce uniforms, people cant afford it and will obviously do something desperate to get it leading to more problems. What I understand is uniforms are designed to be cheap. To solve the economic problem. That was the main point of uniforms. True, the Nazi were remembered for their killing but also the uniforms. Just take for example the cross they bore on their right arm. Whenever we see that cross we think of the Nazi's and Hitler. So, we should take away military uniforms because they entitle too much power? When we neglect uniform we do not neglect equality because how can you achieve equality by FORCING uniforms on to people that's supposedly going to stop stereo types. Voting rights for blacks were forced upon people. Is that a lack of freedom? Uniforms do carry power because they represent the authority that chose it. So, Taco Bell is going to take over the world because of their uniforms. When I walk into Taco Bell, I don't think that the uniforms are a sign of evil. It's organized. My opponents rebuttals are based on that uniforms are designed to destroy freedom. Uniforms are used everyday at work. Why? To represent unity. Not evil.
That public schools should enforce uniforms

Ok, Attacking my opponents rebuttal line by line. (In my school there are rich kids and poor kids. My opponent doesn't understand the fact that casual wear is discriminating no matter what. Even if one kid is offended) I agree, casual wear is somewhat discriminating. But as I stated before, discrimination will always exist and uniforms will not fix that problem. Yes some public schools have rich and poor kids, but what the negative is trying to state is that as long as private schools exists so will the discrimination between the rich and poor. (Taco Bell is not known for their uniforms. Uniforms don't carry power. The Nazi's were not known for their uniforms. They were known for killing millions of people. My opponent neglects the power of casual wear. We all have stereotypes for clothing. ) Ok Taco bell was an example of IF they had uniforms but as you stated, other stores wear uniforms swell. Uniforms do carry power because they represent the authority that chose it. True, the Nazi were remembered for their killing but also the uniforms. Just take for example the cross they bore on their right arm. Whenever we see that cross we think of the Nazi's and Hitler. And again yes stereo types will exist within casual wear but it will always exist. (Personally, I have been made fun of because of my clothes. When we neglect uniforms we neglect equality. People have killed themselves because of people making fun of their clothes. Its not their fault if they can't afford it. Why should we put kids through hell in order to have some freedom. I agree with freedom. But freedom has the purpose fulfill happiness.) When we neglect uniform we do not neglect equality because how can you achieve equality by FORCING uniforms on to people that's supposedly going to stop stereo types. When we neglect casual wear, we neglect culture, freedom, creativity. What you don't understand is that if you do enforce uniforms, people cant afford it and will obviously do something desperate to get it leading to more problems. Because uniforms do not solve stereotypes or any other problems, I urge a Con vote.
That public schools should enforce uniforms

I will defend my case and then attack. Cont. 1 In my school there are rich kids and poor kids. My opponent doesnt understand the fact that casual wear is discriminating no matter what. Even if one kid is offended. Taco Bell is not known for their uniforms. Uniforms don't carry power. The nazi's were not known for their uniforms. They were known for killing millions of people. My opponent neglects the power of casual wear. We all have stereotypes for clothing. This affects the person wearing them like or not. Personally, I have been made fun of because of my clothes. When we neglect uniforms we neglect equality. People have killed themselves because of people making fun of their clothes. Its not their fault if they can't afford it. Why should we put kids through hell in order to have some freedom. I agree with freedom. But freedom has the purpose fufill happiness.
That public schools should enforce uniforms

Ok my opponent forfeited so ill just extend some contentions My case: (Cont 1) Again No matter how you see it, discrimination exist. Uniforms not only doesnt solve the matter but it has a possibility of causing more problems. (Cont 2) School is something required by law to attend, work isnt. We have to attend a certain number of years in these schools no matter what. You knowingly accept these uniformed required jobs when you accept the interview or position. (Cont 3) Uniforms represent the power they are chosen by. If taco bell states that all employees must wear a black shirt with blue pants thats there uniform. That uniform represents taco bell and the power and influence it holds. So yes, Uniforms does support the power it is chosen by.