BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming exists

Yes, I have said "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that"and the CO2 emission is nowhere the same now as they were back in 1945. However, what I was trying to prove was that even though there was a huge increase in the CO2 emission in 1945, the climate didn't increase which suggests to me that greenhouse effect might not be the case which proves global warming. I wouldn't call global warming the cause of the melting of the glaciers. I would use the term climate change. And yes you are right, that is not the only explanation.I have given you evidences in the next paragraph about the Inconvenient Truth and ClimateGate. In this argument, you have failed to give me another reason why you believe that global warming exists. In the next argument you make, please do include why you think global warming exists rather than just pointing out the mistakes I have made.
Global warming exists

You said: "After the Second World War, their was a huge increase in co2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for decades after that" Over this period, global CO2 emissions were a fraction of current levels. Currently we are emitting over 8000 million tonnes per year. 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. Last year beat the previous record holder 1998, by a full 1F. And while 2012 certainly stood out for its high temperatures, it was hardly unusual. The last decade globally has been the hottest in recorded history. (U.S. temperature records go back to 1895.) And the heat has been above average for some time. You talked about how glaciers are melting from pollution not global warming. Well, you may be correct. But does all of the Glaciers that are melting melt from pollution, or is some of it global Warming? You say it's possible that pollution caused them to melt, but that is not saying it's the only explanation. Now your final point, is Global Warming alarmists are liars, because you have disproved their evidence. But did you really? You didn't say: We'll this is how it have happened. You said : this is how it MAY have happened. I may say: The reason is because people are destroying the ice with ice picks. Well that's possible, but yet still not a solid explanation. Thanks.
Global warming exists

Thank you for the response Pro, I will now go against the evidences you have presented. Firstly, you have said that the glaciers are melting, and yes this is very true, but is this because of global warming? According to NPR (National Public Radio) which is based in USA, explains that human pollution might have caused the rapid decline in the glaciers. Another source, engineeringnews, proves why glacier melting is not caused by the global warming. Scientists have proved, or established a fact, that the total global warming over the past century has been less than 1'C. As you know, water freezes at 0'C and to melt it, the temperature has to go above 0'C. So let's say the air temperature around the glaciers is -10'C. Just because of a 1'C change in the so called global warming, the glaciers won't melt. You have also mentioned the greenhouse effect. "humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth." It is true, deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, electrical appliances and population growth increase the greenhouse gases, but does the greenhouse effect really affect the global warming? The answer to that, I think, is no. After the Second World War, there was a huge increase in CO2 emission, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after that. This disapproves the greenhouse effect theory that is used to prove that global warming exists. I will present you now with one more evidence that global warming doesn't exist, as there are 5 rounds in total. One more reason that global warming is unreal is because that global warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another since the 1980's. Some of the examples follow:An inconvenient truth is a movie made by Al Gore (45th Vice President of America) under President Bill Clinton. His movie was about the polar bears drowning, ice caps melting which I have already proved wrong. Another example is the ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.And to conclude, I would like to point out that global warming and climate change is completely different things. Global warming, as defined, is the process of earth receiving more energy than it loses and climate change describes the effects the heating has on the earth such as changes in precipitation, droughts, floods, and etc. I look forward to your next argument. Sources: http://www.npr.org... http://www.engineeringnews.co.za... http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://answers.yahoo.com... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...
Global warming exists

From National Geographic: Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years. We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon. What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it"coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountains"hangs in the balance. Greenhouse effect The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse. First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, "greenhouse" gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped. Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming. Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth. Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.
Global warming exists

Hello Pro, I'm glad you accepted my debate, and I hope this ends up as great. First of all, I would like to re-point out my point - Global Warming doesn't exist. Global warming: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect. Evidences show that the temperatures are not rising but falling, and that the Earth was hotter 1000 years ago. Now this goes against the stereotype of the Earth's temperature rising. One famous example of the apparent 'global warming' is the ice caps melting. However, satellite photos show that the ice caps increased by 533,000 square miles from August 2012 to August 2013. Sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Global warming exists

I never told Con that because their are more greenhouse gases global warming exists. I told him how they warm up the earth, and we agreed on the fact that their are more greenhouse gases. If we have more green house gases on the earth, and they are heating the earth up, then that means global warming. Con has not disproved anything the website states, meaning he cannot do so. If he could have dis proven them, then he would have done so. I don't believe it's a ridiculous statement, because Con has still not disproven how the greenhouse gases warm the earth.
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WORLD WAR II.

D-Day The great battle of Stalingrad with over 2 million deaths on both the Soviet and the Nazi's army. This battle went on for about 5 months. From August 23, 1942- February 2, 1943 fierce fighting went on with the Soviets and Nazis. On the other hand the battle of Normandy had about 21,000 casualties, lasting from 6 June " 25 August 1944. No wonder Stalingrad had so many deaths! Battles or wars should not be measured by how many died or casualties happened but the significance of that battle or war. Ill admit the battle of Stalingrad was significant to world war II. D-Day was too. The Battle of Stalingrad took place in the city of now Volgograd. This battle had rodent like scurrying from hole to hole. The battle of Normandy took place on a beach with a hill looking over the English Channel in France. The beach was heavily fortified thanks to the Atlantic wall. The Atlantic wall was built in 1942 as a coastal fortification for an attack like D-Day. The battle of Stalingrad happened because the Nazi saw Stalingrad as an essential to their campaign in Southern Russia. Joseph Stalin was determined to defend this city as a vital Industrial and transportation center. Both Joseph Stalin And Adolf Hitler understood the symbolic importance of the only city to bear Joseph's name. I would also like to admit that the battle of Stalingrad was an extreme humiliation for Adolf Hitler. He elevated the battles importance to the Germans. It was also the turning point of the war on the Eastern Front. D-Day on the other hand began to turn the tide against the Nazi. This Invasion stopped Hitler from sending extra Garrisons of men to the Eastern front to fight the Soviets. Now, the Nazi were fighting from the east and the west. Thanks to the D-Day invasion France was liberated from Nazi Occupation. http://www.army.mil... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... http://www.pbs.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WORLD WAR II.

The Normandy landings, also known as D-Day is usually viewed by the west as one of the most important events of WWII. However what is not understood, is that D-Day took place in 1944 when it was clear that Germany would lose. Germany was heavily outnumbered on all fronts and had no sufficient reserves of planes and armor. During D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. Germany had relatively few troops in France because most of those soldiers were fighting on other fronts. D-Day enabled the allies to later invade France, however besides shortening the war by perhaps a couple months, the allied invasion of France did nothing. Germany would have lose, sooner or later. [1]The Battle of Stalingrad however can be considered as the most important battle of WWIIReasons that Stalingrad was important:-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [2]-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [2]-This was the largest defeat for Germany-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axisWhat was more important, a battle that resulted in 20,000 casualties, or a battle that resulted in 2,000,000 dead? At D-Day, Germany suffered some 6,000 casualties. At Stalingrad the axis suffered 850,000 casualties. Before Stalingrad, Germany had a chance to win. After Stalingrad the chances of a Germany victory were almost nonexistent. D-Day shortened the war by a couple months but had no effect on the outcome of WWII. I would like to also state that Con picked a weak battle to support in this debate. The Battles of Moscow,the Battle of Britain, or even the Battle of Kursk might have been debatable in importance to Stalingrad, however D-Day is not. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...;
CSGO is better than its counterparts eg:Call Of Duty, Battlefield

"Compared to other games csgo is relatively cheap:14USD for a good game" An unnecessary loss of money would cause one to suffer, which is inherently good thing. "it has a wider community" This speaks nothing of the community's quality. "allows any ordinary... buy and sell there skin. Do you see." Not only was it not explained how anything here could be seen as "good", but the possibility of other games having it was completely ignored.
CSGO is better than its counterparts eg:Call Of Duty, Battlefield

Compared to other games csgo is relatively cheap:14USD for a good game CodAw:70USD+More Expenses for dlc Battlefield 4:80USD+(so far) 60USD dlc Csgo:14USD+0USD Automatic free updates Its the best game of its genre price wise, it has a wider community, allows any ordinary Joe to upload a map or Gun Skin and they get recognised in "operations" eg:(current) Vanguard, Breakout, Phonies etc where they take maps and skins from the workshop into the game making free money for everyone because the person who makes the skin they get 50% of the money made when people buy and sell there skin. Do you see.
CSGO is better than its counterparts eg:Call Of Duty, Battlefield

"In Csgo you do not need to pay 30USD for a DLC, you are all the same it comes to skill" Pro starts the debate by assuming that these things he views are bad necessarily are. In fact, contrary to his probable beliefs, most of eastern society (and even some followers of western Abrahamic religions [1]) views suffering as a good thing. So, even if having an unfair disadvantage causes personal suffering, you have yet to show how this is anything but good. "And the game play is better" What constitutes as "better" in terms of gameplay? There is no evidence to point to this assumption, and due to this is a worthless point. "but the graphics aren't the best compared to Advanced Warfare or Battlefield Hardline" I'll consider this a point in my favor. 1. http://www.ucg.org...
Prostitution should be legalized

Prostitution should not be legalized because it is immoral and, aside from that, harms the fabric of society. There is no established right, in any culture aside from libertarian academic circles, to do whatever a person wants with their body such as prostitution. The state can and should prevent activities like prostitution that are detrimental to normal relationships, lead to the spread of disease, and cause additional crime. In the United States, the roles and purposes of government are spelled out by the Constitution, which through the Tenth Amendment allows the states to regulate any activity not reserved for the federal government or protected through the Bill of Rights. Clearly, prostitution is not protected by the Constitution. The only remaining question is whether it is good public policy to legalize prostitution. The answer is no. I do not see any difference between what my opponent characterizes as "subjective" and "objective" immorality. If whether something is moral is determined by one's own "personal moral code", then why could "rape, murder [and] stealing" not be moral simply if a person considered it to be so?The distinction of whether an action directly harms others is not valid because other people can be harmed by actions which are not directly targeted at them. See speeding for example. It is illegal to speed because of the potential that SOMEONE could be injured in an accident. Speeding is not a direct infringement of a specific person's rights like murder or stealing, but it is illegal because of the aggregate negative effect that it has by causing increased traffic injuries and fatalities. The same is true about many other laws, including laws against prostitution. I did not say that theocracy is the best form of government. I used the fact that the Bible obviously opposes prostitution to refute my opponent's claim that anything which is consensual is moral, and that this principle is the "universal moral rule." Of course, if the most influential faith in human history opposes something, it obviously is not universally held. That is not to say that there are not SOME people who believe as my opponent does. But it is not a universal, or even a majority, position. (Not that it would matter for the purposes of this debate.) Ultimately, it does not matter if you consider prostitution to be immoral (it is). But if you truly want a secular society where laws are based solely on their social impact, then prostitution should still be illegal. Many prostitutes *are* victims because they end up in a situation where it is the only thing they can do to make enough money to survive. Aside from that, prostitution has negative effects on society such as damage to relationships and spread of crime/diseases. Prostitution should remain illegal.
Prostitution should be legalized

We need some basis to our law. Otherwise, we're spending billions of dollars and energy locking incarcerating without purpose. If an activity does not bring any to harm another person nor the country, then it is not the business of the state's. It is not the business of the state's to dictates one's personal boundaries and moralities when the only thing at stake is that person's perception of themselves, which can vary quite a bit, culturally/religiously. Morals are subjective in some cases, but universally, harming someone (including yourself) is wrong. But it is up to the person being affected to decide whether the action brings harm to them, and in many cases, sex workers don't view their work as harmful to themselves. As long as this is the case, there is no breach of ethics. Law should never be based on subjective immorality, (sex work, eating meat, being modest) but instead cold, hard irrefutable immorality (rape, murder, stealing). Law should also not be dictated by the bible, as you implied. We are a free country, not a theocracy, and separation of church and public state is a necessity. And when you say prostitutes are victims, you're not thinking of prostitutes, but of sex trafficking victims. As long as it's 100% consensual and complys with their personal moral code, they are not vicitms. Anti-prostitution laws do not prevent prostitution. They prevent sex workers from getting help in abusive situations, they prevent sex workers from changing to a more socially-acceptable career, they cause worker suicides (The Star, Politifact) and contribute to mass incarceration and the wasting of tax payer money. Also, in cases of virtually every law that is not prevented by criminalization, increasing punishment has never affected rates, just placed the ethics of law enforcement in question. Severity of punishment should be based on severity of crime, not high statistics. And, again, prostitution is not inherently wrong unless in a cultural or religious context.
Prostitution should be legalized

Thanks to my opponent for proposing this topic and I look forward to debating this resolution. I negate the resolution, "Prostitution should be legalized." My opponent's argument begins with the assertion that "no victim, no crime" is a "universal moral principle." However, he has cited no sources to back up that assertion; people of his persuasions generally hold that moral principles are subjective and personal. So what right does a minority of society have a right to impose libertarian ethics on the majority of a society? His argument makes no sense regardless of what religious beliefs he subscribes to -- if there is no God, then ethics are subjective, personal, and/or based on what is best for society/majority rule, and prostitution is opposed by the majority of society and is detrimental to society. If there is a God, then His commands should be followed, and prostitution obviously does not comply with the sexual morality that the Bible teaches. To conclude, a majority of the world does NOT hold to libertarian ethical principles, and there is nothing to support the claim that his view of ethics are even close to “universal.” Even assuming that without a “victim” there is no crime, prostitution has many victims, from the prostitutes themselves who are placed in an exploitative market, to the relationships which are destroyed by it, to the victims crime that it brings, to the moral principles that it flounts. To respond to the assertion that “stigma” causes the suicide of “sex workers”, there have been no sources cited for that claim except for the “Prostitution Act of 1996” which is apparently a proposed law on a pro-prostitution website. Even if so, prostitution, as an act which contradicts the fundamental moral values of essentially all cultures not to mention the objective moral values, ought to have “stigma” attached to it, just like adultery and many other sexual acts of misconduct. The fact that anti-prostitution laws have not prevented all prostitution is not an argument to repeal those laws, in fact, it may be an argument to increase the penalties. Again, the only source cited is a “Prostitution Act of 1996” which links to a biased website advocating for legal prostitution. While there is always going to be “shady” enterprise operating under the shadows, that is not an argument for legalizing that activity, which would make the situation even worse.
Prostitution should be legalized

There is no crime without a victim. That's the universal moral rule. And in the United States, our laws are made to comply with indisputable morality- not religious/cultural morality (if the Amish made law, we'd have quite a different dress code) not subjective morality (vegans would have banned meat). Prostitution, however, is not inherently wrong except religiously, culturally, or individually. If one is forced or coerced into it, of course it is a heinous crime but that's not sex work- that's sexual trafficking. As long as there's no gray area, the worker gives clear consent, it is not the governments job to police his/her moral code or his/her body. It's a private matter, inapplicable to others. It's illogical to permit both commerce and sex but give jailtime when the two collide. On top of that, the criminalization of sex work can be dangerous to the workers- it can make it much more difficult to get out of the business if they choose to, as the cycle of jailtime, court, and recidivism creates financial trouble and vulnerability. Sex worker suicides are incredibly high, especially in situations of arrest, and the stigma of sex work caused by lawmakers makes it hard to reach out. Lastly, according to the Prostitution Act of 1996, no law has ever prevented or at all significantly manipulated statistics of sex work. Anti-prostitution laws are outdated, authoritarian, dangerous, and illogical in any form.