BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Over population is one of the cause for Global Warming .

See the topic is Overpopulation is one of the cause for global warming , I am not saying that overpopulation is the main cause for global warming . Ans ( LOL ) you are saying that global warming not exist . ( I do that by showing that Over population does not exist as well as Global Warming does not exist either ) This brackets words was said by you in round 2 . Then for your kind information Global Warming is the one of the main environmental problem the globe is facing as the ozone layer is depleting because of that . ( If you try to cut down on CO2 you are killing yourself. ) This bracket words was said by you in round 2 . So , you are telling that if you cut down C02 you are killing yourself , so , if there will be more human beings more shelters will be requried and for that wood must be needed . Thus , cutting down C02 ( killing yourself ) . That fact is that population has more effect than changing impact. This equation shows us two scales along which we can slide. We can adjust Impact Per Person, which lowers Damage. Alternately, we can lower Population which also lowers Damage. The glitch is that if we adjust Impact Per Person, and population keeps growing, we end up with the same Damage as we would have had we kept Impact Per Person the same. Thus, a world of seven billion people living in mud huts, eating vegan diets grown in their own gardens, and walking instead of driving has the same effect as perhaps three billion people living 1960s American-style lifestyles. Trying to reduce impact becomes a losing game once we see how low we would have to make impact in order to accommodate our sprawling population. Even more, that misses out on the real problem brought on by overpopulation, which is land overuse.
Over population is one of the cause for Global Warming .

See ...... the debate ain't on is there overpopulation on the globe / universe ..You don't realize that the debate topic that we're debating is Resolved: Over Population is one of the cause for Global Warming. Which means I have to debate that over population isn't causing Global Warming. I do that by showing that Over population does not exist as well as Global Warming does not exist either disproving the resolution while staying under the juristictions. If there is over population , then more vehicles , and the smoke emitted from the vehicles is not good for health as well as for nature . Thus , leading it to Global Warming .This is false I have proved and sourced that CO2 does not cause Global Warming. It only makes up .054% of our atmosphere. Here's another amazing fact. (http://www.differencesmag.org...) If you try to cut down on CO2 you are killing yourself. Why is this you may ask? CO2 is what plants need to survive! Plants take in CO2 and put out Oxygen and this is what keeps us humans alive. Cutting down on CO2 kills plants and furthermore kills us. And if you are showing me the chart of population , then for your kind information last year India had 102 crores population , and he was ranking second .So just think what might be the population of China which was ranking first in census . Here I have an Image that most of the world's population is shrinking. (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) Not only that, but the Washington Post has predicted that most Devoloping Nations population will begin to shrink here in the up comming years.
Over population is one of the cause for Global Warming .

See ...... the debate ain't on is there overpopulation on the globe / universe .. Secondly ...... let me revise you ...... food , clothing and shelter are the basic needs of a human being ... Hence .... more human beings = more shelters , more shelters = destroying of nature (as we need wood to build houses ) and thus leading it to global warming .. If there is over population , then more vehicles , and the smoke emitted from the vehicles is not good for health as well as for nature . Thus , leading it to Global Warming . And if you are showing me the chart of population , then for your kind information last year India had 102 crores population , and he was ranking second . So just think what might be the population of China which was ranking first in census . GOOD LUCK !!!
Over population is one of the cause for Global Warming .

I accept. Contention 1: OverpopulationHere's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://www.realclearscience.com...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.Contention 2: Earth is actually cooling.I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) If you gaze at the image I had provided you. You can see that Earth is in a pattern and currently cooling off and the IPCC is incorrect with their predictions. We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier this year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (http://www.nytimes.com...) How about Al Gore. The man who brought Global Warming to our attention? In 2009, the man breaks down in tears stating how it's nothing, but hot air and how he fabricated everything just for the money! He said the arctic sheets are not melting and CO2 is not responsible for depletion of the Ozone. (http://www.thomaspeep.com...)
Laptops/Ipads should not replace notebooks and textbooks in school

Ipads and laptops are a lot more expensive than ordinary textbooks, that being said would students benefit more from looking at a screen 6-7 hours a day rather than looking at a piece of a textbook with the answer in front of them? Ipads and Laptops are known for playing games on, even in school many students play games on technology equipment such as ipads and laptops in their free-time, who said they wouldn't be playing when in class as well. Also, it is proven that Ipads and laptops do not directly impact youth on having glasses. However, when using Ipads and Laptops it does reduce the amount of blinking that one person does making their eyes dry and soon causes eye strain.
Laptops/Ipads should not replace notebooks and textbooks in school

The resolution says it all.Rules:No semanticizing, cursing etc.BOP will be sharedRound 1:PRO makes his argumentsRound 2:CON makes his argumentsPRO makes rebuttals and final conclusionRound 3:CON makes rebuttals and final conclusionPRO posts "No round as accepted"Failure to comply to any of the above stated rules will result in an immediate forfieture of all 7 points to the other party. Please make a comment in the comment section If you have any questions or queries.Good Luck!
Karma exists

There is no such thing as karma. The truth is that, no, we don't want to say it"s good for a man to cheat, even if from a past tense perspective, he learned from it later. The truth is, it happened because of cause and effect, and the outcome was completely under his controlR02;"R02;like most outcomes. However, we don't always have control over our outcomes (or so we think, depending on perspective :p) and therefore, we invented karma. Karma is a desired outcome that is determined by some outside source that takes care of a problem for usR02;"R02;while masqueraded as a "spiritual force". Karma is about feeling comfortable, rather than acknowledging the cold hard truth: he got away with it. Sometimes, people get what they deserve, sometimes they don't. If we value truth over superstition, only then can we learn more about how to actually avoid these problems in the future. As long as we have perspective by which is determined by probability, there is no reason to think that karma actually exist.
Karma exists

So instead I will clarify what I meant. Everything is determined by karma and the universe is a system with vedantic elements. Interacting elements determine the interaction phenomena. From the initial cause which is Brahman branches out a (this is a metaphor) a meshwork of karmAni, I. e actions. Each individual action has its own interaction phenomena like vAyu (air) and Jalam (liquid) forming something like a hurricane. Now karma in the case of the hurricane can be explained indirectly as the accumulated karma gathered over time. This is correct too. Definitely the hurricane shows the force of karma. Now I also said that the gross body will deteriorate leaving the consciousness to decompose into the subtle elements that make it up.
Karma exists

Interactions between the vedantic elements [1] accumulate a force like the concept of feedback in cybernetics. This force is karma. Our bodies are made of these elements. What makes each form or phenomena distinct is gunaha [2]. There is also a distinction to be made between the fineness of matter; there is the gross and the subtle. The latter is what your personal consciousness is made of. In Sanskrit it is called Sukshma Pancha Bhutani and it exists until its action or karma runs out leaving your gross body to decompose by means of karma. [1] Ākāshaha or space - Vāyu or air - Agni or fire - Jalam or waters - Pruthvi or the earth http://introductiontovedanta.blogspot.com... [2] http://spokensanskrit.de... The "Ha" makes it plural and is referring to the traditional Vedanta.
Religion should be taught in public school extensively.

Happy New Year!!! You do make a good point in Round 2, but unfortunately I think that proves my side of the argument to be correct. Here is the summary of my argument. We should teach religion because: 1) It helps us understand our complex society. 2) It allows our student to academically challenge the constructs of reality. And I think that it should also be pointed out that the education of certain subjects has been suppressed in the past and this suppression of information has never been good. We should never keep knowledge a secret-- especially in a free society. Our schools should teach our students all that is important and possible to give our students a good grasp of the world around them. Once they have that information-- it is their choice to whatever they want with it. I would argue that the more educated person is usually the one that contributes the most to society. It is hard to make an argument with no rebuttal to what I said...I hope the former parts of my argument are good enough.
Religion should be taught in public school extensively.

I do appreciate this and hope that we will both enjoy the debate process. Now, I am going to go ahead and quote you. You say, "you can't just choose to teach christianity and evolution, there are dozens of other types of religions out there. .. " And I agree with that statement. I do want to disagree with the implication that I was saying that we should only teach Christianity. .. and discuss evolution or something or other. I did talk about the desire to be politically correct, and that does often relate to Christianity, but when it comes to teaching religion, I believe we should teach it and others. I did not say we should only teach Christianity. The second part of your rebuttal is, "do you think we should pay billions of dollars and waste years of some ones life to teach them everything about every type of religion there is and ever was? " I find that kind of funny because I look at our current system and see ton of waste because of our federalized education, but this isn't about that, so I will save that discussion for another time. In the first part of that statement you talk about wasting resources in teaching religion. I do not think that educating our students on a subject would be "a waste of resources. " We spend so much testing our students (and teaching for the test sadly) I do not think improving our student's social studies skills would be a waste at all. The second part of that statement you talk about teaching every religion around and that causing some sort of mess. Previously I said, "We [should] teach our students in-depth the ins-and-outs of the major religions in fashion a Preacher, Priest, Rabbi, etc. " The key word there is major. We should teach to our students the prevailing religions of society. And that wouldn't be hard to do. Our schools do it already in other areas. We don't teach everything thing that happened in history. Or every theory in science or math. Our schools determine what is the most noteworthy thing to teach and setup a curriculum. As for teaching religion, they would only need to keep doing what they are doing. Academically sit down and determine what should be taught in regards to what will best benefit the student in his educational process. I think that answers your questions, and I wait for your rebuttal.
Dog Man is awesome.

I would like to redo this, as for the confusion. In your first argument, you said, "Dog Man is not awesome!" Due to confusion, I must redo this argument. Dog Man is idiotic, and your "logical" sources are just a photo of the cover and some words that don't even relate to the debate itself. You obviously don't even know what Sabbath Day is. Is doesn't even get close to relating to the topic.
God exists.

I will use the same numbering as I used in my last speech for the arguments. 1. Recall the definition of God from round 1: "an omnipotent, omniscient, all good person." Pro has not provided a shred of evidence or reasoning in support of the claim that a being with these three attributes exists. Even if all of his arguments were successful (which they certainly are not), the most that would be established is that there is a supernatural being, which falls far short of the resolution he is supposed to be defending. This is sufficient by itself to warrant a vote for Con. 2. Pro concedes that his claim that the universe is finite is "just a theory" and that its only support is "common sense." This is not sufficient to establish the premise - he must show that an infinite temporal regress entails a contradiction, not just that it sounds wrong according to "common sense." Thus the premise is arbitrary and unsupported. 3. Pro says that God and the universe are not contingent but rather "axioms." I don't know what that means, and he provides no explanation. In any event, this statement directly contradicts Pro's premise in round 1 that the universe is contingent. 4. Pro says, "an infinite regress is not possible as the universe cannot go backward." But an infinite temporal regress does not require the universe to go backward in time - that is a clear misunderstanding. It only requires that, no matter how far back in the history of the universe we look, there always be more past before it. Finally, Pro says that the O/circle argument shows that there is a high probablility of God existing, but again, it does not show that unless it also shows that there is a high probability of unicorns existing, which it certainly does not.
God exists.

"So, sum up the problems with the argument: 1. No evidence is given for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, all good God, which is the resolution. 2. No evidence is given that the universe is finite. 3. There is no reason why all contingent things need a cause, and in any event, God seems just as contingent as the universe. 4. No evidence is given that an infinite regress is impossible." 1a. Make the causer your definition of God. It really doesn't matter. I hope we both agree the God we speak of is a supernatural being. 2a. There is no groundbreaking evidence to suggest an infinite or finite universe. They are both just theories. However, I do believe the universe is finite as an infinite universe would suggest a flat Earth. Also, common sense tells you that everything has a limit. Everything ends/dies/parishes/etc. at some point somewhere. 3a. God nor the universe before and after the Big Bang are contingent they are axioms, 4a. An infinite regress is not possible as the universe cannot go backward. Or as the definition states go back to a less developed state. As for the O/circle thing. Being Con for God exists, is the same thing as being Pro for God doesn't exist. God doesn't exist suggests you believe there is a 0% of God existing. This )/circle shows that there quite s high chance of a God existing.
God exists.

Pro starts out by saying that he only has to establish a supernatural being, not a specific God. This is not true. The definition of "God" given in the first round is an omnipotent, omniscient, all good being. Pro has to establish that an omnipotent, omniscient, all good being exists, not just that there is a supernatural being. He has not even attempted to do this. The first premise of Pro's argument is "everything finite and contingent has a cause." He then applies this to the universe in order to conclude that the universe has a cause. From there, he appeals to the principle that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes to arrive at a first cause. There are many problems with this argument. First, he has not established that the universe is "finite," or even defined what "finite" means. If he means that the universe has a finite spatial extension, then his premise may well be false. If he means that it has a finite temporal extension, then he needs to prove that. Second, he argues that the universe must have a cause because it is contingent, but God seems just as contingent as the universe. God is a mind, and minds seem just as contingent as physical things. Third, it is false that everything contingent needs a cause. The fundamental material constituents of the universe seem contingent, but there is no apparent reason why they would be in need of a cause - maybe they were just always there. Fourth, Pro has not shown that an infinite regress is impossible. An infinite temporal regress does not strike me as impossible. The appearance of impossibility comes from the assumption that such a series would have to have a starting point, but this is false. In an infinite temporal regress, no matter how far back you go, there is always more time - the universe didn't start existing at some specific point and travel forward to the future through an infinite series of events, it was just always there. We have no problem accepting this kind of regress with regard to the future, so we should have no problem accepting it with regard to the past. So, sum up the problems with the argument: 1. No evidence is given for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, all good God, which is the resolution. 2. No evidence is given that the universe is finite. 3. There is no reason why all contingent things need a cause, and in any event God seems just as contingent as the universe. 4. No evidence is given that an infinite regress is impossible. Finally, I'll comment on Pro's second (short) argument, which goes as follows: "On a piece of paper draw a big O (circle). That circle represents all knowledge that can possibly be known or learned. Shade in the amount of the circle you know (it should be under 1/2 of the circle). Are you telling me that in half or less of the circle shaded, ther is a 0% chance of a God existing?" This could be used as an argument for fairies, unicorns, or any imaginary creature. A unicorn believer could say that there might be evidence for unicorns hiding in the half or less of the circle that represents our lack of knowledge. This argument has no probative value in deciding whether or not there is a God.
God exists.

My understanding of the statement is that God (as in any supernatural being) does not exist. I will not be attempting to prove the existence of a specific God, but merely a requisite being. Cosmological Argument: >Everything finite and contingent has a cause >The caused entity cannot cause itself >A caused entity must have a causer An infinite regress is not possible. This can be extrapolated to the natural, observable world. >The natural world is finite and has a cause >The natural world cannot cause itself >The natural world must have a causer The natural world is bound by physical laws. An entity outside the physical laws that bind the natural world would be necessary to cause it. The natural world cannot cause itself and must have a causer, so an entity that is not limited to the physical laws that the natural world is must exist. The necessity of being caused is a physical law of the natural world. Since such an entity is not bound by the physical law of the natural world, it does not have to have a causer nor be caused. The definition of a god: A being not bound by the laws that limit the natural world. Using the transitive property of equality, the entity needed to cause the universe is by definition the same as a god(s). There must be evidence of a god(s) The natural world exists The existence of the natural world is dependent on the existence of an uncaused causer. A god(s) is an uncaused causer. Therefore, a god(s) must exist in order for the natural world to exist. Here's another thing. On a piece of paper draw a big O (circle). That circle represents all knowledge that can possibly be known or learned. Shade in the amount of the circle you know (it should be under 1/2 of the circle). Are you telling me that in half or less of the circle shaded, ther is a 0% chance of a God existing?
America is now, and has historically been, imperialist.

RESOLUTION America is now, and has historically been, imperialist. RULES Acceptance of rules/definitions and any relevant clarifications will be offered in Round 1. Arguments will continue from there. Excessive use of semantics is forfeiture, I'll let the readers decide what is excessive. CLARIFICATIONS http://www.merriam-webster.com... Imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" America refers to the United States of America from the beginnings of the American Revolution to the present day. It refers to the nation as a whole, including culture, government, and/or people. By historically I mean how the U.S. has been during this time. I look forward to the debate.