BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the U.s government expand its exploration and/or development of space

P1. Although your claims logical they are far from being practical in today's economy. If the United States federal government contemplated increasing its exploration in developing space beyond the Earth's mesosphere then who would be financially responsible for funding such a program? P2. The disadvantage of such a program involves the need to reserve billions of dollars in order to follow through with a vast plan of this capacity. P3. It is not fair that the taxpayers should fund such a program when most are barely making it financially with their everyday responsibilities paying a mortgage, rent, buying groceries, child care expenses, education and the list goes on. P4. It is not a secret that the United States always loans out monies to other countries who secure their own wealth and are not in any need for the resources. . . . No the United States should not increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere due to the foreseen financial burden. Citation: Publications relating to the 1984-85 college debate topic : resolved, that the U.S. federal government should significantly increase the exploration and/or development of space beyond earth's mesosphere. n.p.: Washington, D.C. : U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., [1984- ], 1984. Government Printing Office Catalog, EBSCOhost (accessed May 11, 2014).
Should the U.s government expand its exploration and/or development of space

z88;z88; z88;z88;Premise 1 : One of the many promising benefits of the expansion of space is that it helped create many technological advances. It has led to the creation to things such as the Ground Processing Scheduling System , laser surveying, aircraft control,,cellphone cameras, weather forecasting, microcomputers, among a few other things. In order for more technological advances to be made, the U.S government needs to keep investing in the development of space exploration. https://www.sac.edu... z88;z88; Premise 2 : Another benefits that would arise if the U.S government increase space exploration is because in the past, new innovative ideas that have helped the environment. Ideas such as water purification, solar cells, and pollution remediation. Since we have a limited amount of resources on earth, expanding the exploration of space might lead to new discoveries that will help our environment. C: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration of space beyond the Earths mesosphere.
The flat Earth

I would like to back up my facts with the fact that the moon is a hologram created by the Chinese to bankrupt the U. S. A recent poll from Buzzfeed shows that 2/3 people believe in this theory. Breitbart also showed that 7/8 people believe in this. If we are ignorant enough to believe the moon is actually real, I can not help you. You guys talk about all of the "evidence" that you guys supposedly have, but I have seen any of it. I have done the research and all the numbers add up. The Earth is flat. Saying that the Earth i s round is also like saying that global warming is real. All of this is a hoax. We have to open our eyes people. Many politicians have hinted at the Earth being flat also. Why do you think we are not allowed to travel to Antarctica? They don't want us to find the truth.
The flat Earth

People still argue that the Earth is round even with the overwhelming evidence that it is flat. The Earth has been proven flat multiple times. Just like the moon landing that the U.S government had faked, this is just another example of fake news. The physics that we are shown growing up is all manipulated math to lie to us. This entire hoax was made by the reptilian shapeshifters that make up the Clinton foundation. The illuminati has passed down this for years. Why else are people not allowed to travel to Antarctica? The shape shifting reptilian have gotten their instruction from the aliens to tell us lies to scare us from learning. This is why the Earth is flat.
The Christian God is immoral

I will be arguing that the Christian God is moral. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is immoral. I will be defending the Christian God. I feel that the bulk of this debate will be me refuting arguments from Pro. I feel that i generally will be defending Bible verses. 4 rounds, 72 hours response, 8000 characters. My opponent is welcome to start arguing in round 1, or use it just for acceptance. It is 4 rounds, so if someone is too busy, 1 round can be passed, however if someone needs to pass a round, type something in, don't let it go to "forfeit". If you let it go to "forfeit" you should lose points.
The Christian God is immoral

Good luck man. The Bible describes God as good and loving. Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is GOOD; for His loving kindness is everlasting (Psalms 107:1) Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His GOODness in the last days (Hosea 3:5). John 4:8-10 (God is love; and how God showed His love)The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good. The churches describe God as all good. [1] Also, he is all powerful and all knowing. God does good things for mankindGod gave men enternal life. Giving people enternal life is a nice thing to do. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " John 3-16God created men. It is good that God created us. He also created us because he loves us. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. " Genesis 1:26-27ConclusionBy definition, the Christian God is all good. The churches and the Bible claim God loves mankind and is all Good. God have humans an afterlife and created us. The Christian God is a good moral God. [1] . http://www.sbc.net...
The problem of incidental pride

"Pride of your sexual orientation and other things is good, be proud of who and what you are." So I should be proud that I am a heterosexual like 95% of the human population? I should wear t-shirts, "hetero and proud," so I gain all this attention? See, pride tends to invariably do something that was not intended. Its pretentious. Its braggadocios. It often acts boisterous and feigns confidence to mask a very deep insecurity. A thinly-veiled disguise... "If your the most famous singer in the world, i believe you are allowed to hav some pride do you not?" Pride is our downfall as people. Let others be proud of us. Let them lift us up. Pride for the self is vanity, and vanity leadeth to destruction my friend. But at least a world-famous singer has two things: One is natural ability (incidental) and the other is hard training (intentional) in order to be hailed a great singer. Should I believe in "white pride?" Should I be proud for having been born white, and obnoxiously walk around touting to everyone just how proud I am, even at the risk of alienating other people? Should I tout "brown pride" because I'm not ashamed of my mestizo heritage. Should I tout "black pride," heck, just to counter white pride? Should I happy that I was born a black man? Does it really matter if you were born any specific race? What about gender? Should you be proud that you were born a woman, especially when the odds of you having developed either an double X chromosome or an Y chromosome was about 48% XY, 52% XX? I mean, any of us could have come out as a different sex. Would either of us had not accepted the fact that we were of the opposite sex? It wouldn't matter, and it certainly shouldn't elicit any kind of pride. Its all incidental. Pride is junk. Pride is racism. Pride is sexism. Pride is vanity, and it leadeth to destruction. In essence, pride is nothing to be proud about.
The problem of incidental pride

I am in favor of the notion that there is a specific kind of pride that I believe is less beneficial than it is beneficial. This specific pride is one of incidental pride. What do I mean by "incidental pride?" I call incidental pride the kind of pride one has for their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Why would I not view this positively? Its very simple: It tends to be more divisive than helpful. For instance, lets look at racial pride. What about being incidentally born a certain race elicits pride? Nothing was accomplished. You simply exist. Generally people are proud about accomplishments, which is something not incidental, but earned through strenuous effort. As far as pride goes, this seems at least somewhat reasonable and rationally justifiable, though one could certainly make the argument that all pride is a problem. I might just be inclined to agree with those sentiments. But being proud of one's race has time and time again proved to be more divisive than beneficial. Gay pride is no different. I understand the premise of gay pride, that it is because of the hardships endured by homosexuals. And these parades are a way of celebrating the shift in societies non-acceptance to acceptance. However, where does pride factor in to that, especially if the claim is that homosexuals were born with their predilections? I therefore implore my prospective opponent, CON, to make a persuasive argument about why pride in incidental things like race, gender, or sexual orientation is more beneficial than it is divisive.
The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

As my opponent forfeited the last round, I will use this final round to summarize my points. Persons who are economically disadvantaged -- primarily minorities who do not have significant inheritances and persons with expensive medical problems -- have disproportionate difficulty paying debts. The wanton over-use of credit scores exascerbates the problem, making a few missed payments on one bill cause all others to drastically increase, so someone who was struggling and barely managing will have little chance of catching up. A significant percentage of debts afflicting credit scores are the result of student loans -- which most persons not born into wealth or lucky enough to win a scholarship need for a post-secondary education which we are all taught to believe is necessary to have any chance at a decent income -- and medical debt. Denying someone with difficulty paying bills the opportunity for a job assures they will never have a chance to catch up. It creates an artificial hurdle to people who start out economically disadvantaged to be able to overcome poverty by getting a better job, a better place to rent, affordable car insurance, etc. This unintentional conspiracy between credit bureaus, billing departments, employers and other businesses wreaks havoc in peoples' lives by making it difficult for the disadvantaged to have a fair opportunity to overcome those difficulties. A record of a person's debt and their ability to pay them off has no bearing on their work ethic; someone with a bad credit score can be an excellent worker whilst someone with a high credit score can be a poor worker. There is no valid reason to discriminate against prospective employees because they had problems paying bills; it is simply unfair and unjust. The same rings true for leasing or paying for insurance -- since you pay for the month ahead, you have already paid for service and there is no risk of your not paying what you already paid. This is especially true for people who pre-pay six months or more; they should be billed no differently than a person with the highest possible credit rating since, paying ahead, there is zero chance a bill will not be paid in that time. Using a credit score as a determinant is then purely punitive, a sort of corporate vigilantism against poor people. Credit scores should only be used to determine a person's suitability in obtaining a loan. Anything else is discriminatory. If you agree there are any circumstances where refusing employment or service to a person because of their credit score is unfair and uncalled for, I urge you to vote in favor of curtailing credit scores. Thank you, voters, for reading, and participating in my debate, I hope you have enjoyed it and I hope it has been informative for you.
The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

In the United States, just about anything you need or want -- getting a higher education, getting hired for a job or renting a place to stay -- is hinged on your credit score. I believe this is abusive, that it unjustly penalizes people for having medical problems or those who attempt higher education (especially if the institution of higher learning fails to provide anything beneficial to a person) and that the use of a credit score for hiring for a job, obtaining a utility service such as a mobile phone, or entering into a rental or lease agreement should be banned because they cause unjust harm and prevent good people from being able to live above the poverty line. Con will need to establish that the use of credit scores as a determinant in hiring an employee, in at least a majority of cases, is justified, as well as being a determinant for leasing/renting or obtaining a utility service (mobile phone service as an example). I will let CON make the opening argument, and use this round solely to define the argument. Thank you for accepting my challenge and participating in this debate!
The Self-Driving Car

I thank Con for his timely response. "If the onboard computer were to fail, where would you go?" Con failed to provide any evidence that supports this even being a concern. There are no statistics shown that would identify how and how often the computer system in a driverless car would simply "fail". "Regular cars are controlled by an axle and a steering wheel, which are unhackable. The hacker only pushed the brakes and turned off the engine, they didn't actually drive it. However, since self-driving cars are piloted by the main computer, that would mean that the computer has control over virtually everything, from lights to GPS to the gas and the wheel. It would be like driving an RC car." Some driverless cars do still have steering wheels built into them, meaning there's probably an override function that lets you control the car on your own when you need to. They would also most likely be equipped with an emergency stop button. Also, cars already rely heavily on their onboard computers to function. At the end of the day, driverless cars are safer than having a human behind the wheel [1]. "[They] are better at maintaining a safe distance and breaking sharply than human drivers." Source: [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
The Self-Driving Car

Good argument Pro, but some flaws."Virtually all cars on the road today run on gasoline. You run out of gas, and you have no way of getting anywhere. This could be a problem if, for example, (for some incredibly strange reason) you were in the middle of the desert. We should all just ride horses." I agree. We should ride horses :). Anyway, my point still stands. Sure, it's similar to running out of gas. However, running out of gas can be prevented with gas stations. If the onboard computer were to fail, where would you go?"every statement made by Con is hypothetical." Indeed it is. But only because there is nothing for you or me to base anything off of, since self-driving cars have not been released yet. This whole debate is just a theory. But if nobody asks questions, if nobody has any concerns, someone will get hurt. What I'm doing is questioning things that may happen, so that they could be prevented."a hacker was recently able to, from 10 miles away, take control of a Jeep and drive it off the road into a ditch [1]. It was not a driverless car" Of course all things can be hacked. But self driving-cars are completly different. Your source stated that the jeep went into a ditch. That would have been because current cars cannot be controlled remotely, only overridden. Regular cars are controlled by an axle and a steering wheel, which are unhackable. The hacker only pushed the brakes and turned off the engine, they didn't actually drive it. However, since self-driving cars are piloted by the main computer, that would mean that the computer has control over virtually everything, from lights to GPS to the gas and the wheel. It would be like driving an RC car.And yes, there are awesome reasons for why we should all get a self-driving car. I love them. They have huge potential. But a small part of me is sceptical about if it is really worth it. If the risk is worth the reward.Oh, by the way. If I didn't make it clear, I'm talking about the first few models of self-driving cars. Over time, all of these points would be cleared up with newer models. Sorry if I didn't say so.
The Self-Driving Car

I thank Con for starting this debate. I will begin by rebutting some of his statements made in his Round 1 post. Virtually every argument made against self-driving cars Con made can also be made against all cars. "the whole entire car is controlled by one main computer. The computer breaks, and you have no way of getting anywhere. This could be a problem, if, for example, you were in the middle of the desert." As stated, I will make the same argument against all cars by changing a couple words around... Virtually all cars on the road today run on gasoline. You run out of gas, and you have no way of getting anywhere. This could be a problem if, for example, (for some incredibly strange reason) you were in the middle of the desert. We should all just ride horses. On a more serious note, every statement made by Con is hypothetical. How often do the computers malfunction on driverless cars? Is there even enough data that says one way or the other? Is this a realistic concern? "Not only could [ISIS] hack into the main computer, but they could do whatever they want with it. ISIS wouldn't have to send their men off to drive a bus into a group of people, but instead they could do it from halfway around the world." Again, you could say the same thing about any car made recently, since they all use computers to function. In fact, a hacker was recently able to, from 10 miles away, take control of a Jeep and drive it off the road into a ditch [1]. It was not a driverless car. Self-driving cars have plenty of benefits that outweigh potential drawbacks. For example, every year, over 1.3 million people die as a result of a car accident, and there are more than 50 million reported injuries annually. Approximately 90% of these accidents are a result of driver error [2]. Driverless cars would severely reduce the amount of accidents caused by distracted drivers. Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://channel.staging.alertdriving.com...
The Self-Driving Car

Since Google led the introduction of self driving cars, there have always been concerns about the safety of these cars. I believe that the risks outweigh the rewards on this. For starters, a self driving car would be piloted by a GPS system, which, in the past, has led daydreaming people off the road, or even worse. And that was with the people in control. Now imagine if the GPS made a mistake, and you were powerless to stop the vehicle from plunging into the ocean, or ramming into a group of people, or other similar cases. As well as that, you have the fact that the whole entire car is controlled by one main computer. The computer breaks, and you have no way of getting anywhere. This could be a problem, if, for example, you were in the middle of the desert. And lastly, cyber-terrorists. Not only could they hack into the main computer, but they could do whatever they want with it. ISIS wouldn't have to send their men off to drive a bus into a group of people, but instead they could do it from halfway around the world. I won't be getting a self driving car anytime soon anyway...
The Self-Driving Car

I apologize for the late response. "Pro failed to provide any evidence that says so otherwise." I would think the BoP is shared in this case. The Google driverless cars are actually relatively safe when compared to other self-driving car manufacturers like VW [1]. As this article points out, the number of instances where the driver would have to disengage the auto-driving function and drive manually was 272 between September 2014 and November 2015. This proves two things: 1. A computer failure, though still quite rare, is not in the least bit as dangerous as Con is claiming, and 2. Drivers have the ability to manually control the car should there be a technical glitch that prevents the car from driving itself. "NASA has had several mislaunch incidents." Yes, and some resulted in tragic deaths. However, I doubt anyone would say that because of those accidents, we should cease all future shuttle launches. Technology will always bear risk, that doesn't mean they aren't incredibly useful. Same can be said for driverless cars. "And this is a totally reliable source [that shows driverless cars are safe], right? Not really." Yes? I'm not sure what you're implying. How is Telegraph not a reliable source? Source: http://www.pcmag.com...
The Self-Driving Car

Where do I start?"Con failed to provide any evidence that supports this even being a concern." Pro failed to provide any evidence that says so otherwise. Technology is not perfect. Samsung's phones had a faulty battery, and NASA has had several mislaunch incidents. Both of these were new tech that malfunctioned. Same could soon be said for the computer on the car."Some driverless cars do still have steering wheels built into them, meaning there's probably an override function that lets you control the car on your own when you need to." By the time you realize that you are being remotely controlled, it might be too late to override the computer. And even if you do, the hacker can still controll the steering wheel in a way. Think of it like this: If the steering wheel is the main way to control the car, then the computer will have access to it. Even if you override, you won't have full control, since the hacker would simply counnter the override."At the end of the day, driverless cars are safer than having a human behind the wheel" And this is a totally reliable source, right? Not really.:)
Without Jesus Christ life is ultimately futile.

It is only by entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that our lives may acquire meaning. Without the Grace, ( unwarranted mercy ) atonement ( reconciliation with God ) and the promise of eternal Life that Christ alone can offer, we have only the futility of temporal pleasures and diversions. I assert that nothing in this earthly life, if it is apart from Christ, holds any value in and of itself. I therefore challenge my opponent to justify 'life without Christ'.