BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Power is Safe, and Should be Used Until Fusion Power is Mastered

Currently in the world there are 438 active nuclear power plants, with 67 new ones under construction in 15 different countries around the world. [1] Of those, not a single one is currently in danger of malfunction, or capable of harming the local populace. I understand this means next to nothing, so take this bit of data; there have only ever been 33 recorded incidents of problems at a nuclear power plant. The overwhelming majority of which are fires caused by things other than the nuclear reactions, or minor explosions that damaged only a few fuel cells. [2] Also, just because I found this interesting, "Using historical electricity production data and mortality and emission factors from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, we found that despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced " at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima " nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009." [3] Now that we have established that nuclear power plants rarely go haywire, let's move on to environmental impact. Coal-fired electric power plants emit massive amounts of greenhouse gases and other harmful pollutants to the atmosphere on a daily basis. Among the worst offenders are sulfur dioxide, which contributes to the formation of acid rain; nitrogen oxides, which combine with VOCs to form smog; and toxic compounds of mercury. That's beyond the tonnage of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute directly to climate change. Burning coal releases over two pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for every kilowatt-hour of electricity it creates. [4,5] Nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, or other toxic gases. A properly managed facility does not directly contribute to atmospheric climate change; the broad cooling towers characteristic of nuclear plants emit water vapor. Some coastal plants, however, discharge heated water back to lakes and seas, and this heat eventually radiates into surface warming. Raising water temperature in this way may also alter the way carbon dioxide is exchanged with the air by ocean bodies, leading to major shifts in weather patterns such as hurricanes. [4,6,7] Nuclear power is better for the environment as a whole. Not only that, but it produces more energy, much more efficiently, than traditional fossil fuels. [8] [1] http://www.nei.org... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu... [4] http://www2.epa.gov... [5] http://www.eia.gov... [6] http://www.koshland-science-museum.org... [7] http://www.ucsusa.org... [8] http://www.eia.gov...
guns should be aloud on school grounds

In regards to Con: "we have a school paper and we need opinions on should guns be aloud on school grounds please comment your [opinion]" I don't believe you understand how this works. You have created a debate topic. If you did not intend to complete a debate, there is an 'Opinions' area dedicated to things such as these (http://www.debate.org...) ... In the meantime, I'll continue with providing my argument: (ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Public Relations The professional maintenance of a favourable public image by a company or other organization or a famous person." (ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Safety The condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger, risk, or injury" (ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "A weapon incorporating a tube from which bullets [...] are propelled [...] for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage" The presence of weaponry in a public, federal facility threatens the safety of students (even when no immediate threat is observable). The weight carried with their presence can violate a student's sense of safety and inherently concern the guardians and/or associations of these students. If this weaponry is mismanaged, it can also fall into the wrong hands and threaten the facility and its surrounding area. A resolution to any sense of inadequate security would be the enlisting of the local police department to monitor arrivals and departures (and potentially perimeter enforcement if a reliable threat is identified). The hiring of a daytime patrol (or some form of hallway administration) to identify unusual behaviours amongst the facility in-between and during classes is also recommended.
vote stuff

I had a good time debating with you. What i am trying to say is that you cannot take away someones rights to vote. What you are saying is that anyone who shares the same view as the topic is not allowed to vote. Doees that mean democrats cant vote for a democratic candidate? Non-smokers are not reasonable too. They are against it. So there is really no way to be in the middle. Well, its too sad that there are only 3 rounds but thank you and peace out.
vote stuff

Why should religious people get rid of the right to vote. Doesn't your statement contradict the 1st amendment of the freedom of religion. Your support ideas are invalid. You are saying that churches should not vote for religion because kids don't vote for playgrounds. Children are not fully matured people. Their brains are still childish. You are comparing a mature religious person to an immature child. That is wrong. It is the same as comparing juice to a dog. Two different things. If non-smokers are the only ones that vote for or against cigarettes, do you not think that it is unfair? Same with religion. You are basically saying that atheists are the only ones who should vote for or against religion. And just so you don't forget: The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant all around

I accept; don't send your arguement till sometime this weekend for I'll be gone tomorrow and this weekend and won't be back till Monday. Kobe has won 5 titles and LeBron has won how many... Now say it with me none... you didn't say it with me http://wiki.answers.com... Kobe has gone over 30 points a game in 3 different seasons compared to LeBron's 1 Kobe's a beter 3-point shooter .337 to LeBron's .331 Kobe has less Turnovers 2.9 to LeBron's 3.4 Kobe has more all-star games 13-7 Kobe has more awards 14-10 So in here Kobe has bested LeBron in all of the major cattigories and since the resolution is that LeBron is better all around I should win by prooving Kobe is better in Just one but as you can see I've gone far beyond that. Here are my sources for both of these players http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.basketball-reference.com...
LeBron James is better than Kobe Bryant all around

We all argue who is a better player Kobe Bryant or LeBron James. In my opinion it is LeBron James. If we look at both of these players' stats from high school to the NBA, accomplishments, and endorsements we can see who is better overall. LeBron started as a freshman at Saint Vincent Saint Mary High School averaging twenty one points and six rebounds per game. He led his team to the state title two years in a row and another one two years later. He was named Ohio's Mr. Basketball three times in a row and was the first sophomore ever to be picked for the All USA First Team. He got a spot on the All USA First Team three times, and named Gatorade National Player of the Year of 2001-2002. He appeared in many magazines SLAM, Sports Illustrated and ESPN. He played in the McDonald's All American, EA Sports Round Classics and Jordan Capital Classics game and also was awarded for the MVP for all of them. He wasn't only a star in basketball but also in football where he was named as a wide receiver, first team all-state and lead his team to state semis. So he could of signed to the NFL or the NBA it was his pick and he choose basketball of course. Now that's just high school now if we talk about his professional career. LeBron was first round first overall pick for the NBA where he was selected by the Cleveland Cavaliers, where he averaged twenty five points, nine assist, six rebounds, and four steals. He had a season high forty points as a rookie and was as named NBA Rookie of Year. He has thirty four triple doubles in his career and last season he averaged 28 points, seven assist, and seven rebounds per game. Since he's been in the NBA has been award MVP twice, rookie of the year, appeared in the all-star game seven times, NBA scoring champion, awarded Naismith Prep player of the year, MVP in the all-star games twice, honored all defensive first team three times, All NBA second team, and All NBA first team five times. Now if you look at Kobe's stats and achievements from high school to the NBA you will see that LeBron James leads in every catoregy. In high school Kobe Bryant played all five positions on the court and started varsity as a freshman. As a junior he averaged thirty one points, ten rebounds, and five assists. He was named player of the year in Pennsylvania. In his senior year he led his team their first state championship in fifty three years. He was awarded MVP at the Adidas ABCD camp, Naismith High School Player of the Year, McDonald's All American, Gatorade Men's National Basketball Player of the Year, and All USA First Team player for USA today. In the NBA Kobe was chosen as the thirteenth overall draft pick by the Charlotte Hornets in 1996 and was traded to the Lakers. He was not a starter and only has about fifteen minutes a game. He averaged seven points per game. He was selected for All-star weekend slam dunk contest in 1997. His second season his points doubled and so did his time on the court.
God exists

Ok, let's summarize the debate. Pro's main argument was some weird line of reasoning of which the sole purpose was to drive AROUND the fact that he has no evidence God exists. Continuing your baseball analogy. If your friend keeps searching and keeps searching but can't find it, it would be pretty safe to assume he doesn't have it in his garage. I would proceed to say: "Stop wasting your time, Jim, it's not there". Jim would respond: "But you can't prove it's not there because we haven't searched all of the garage!". And remember, it's a huge garage and searching through all of its stuff would take days. "I've said the glove was there, so it's true until we look at every square inch of the garage and can't find it!" Pro has sort of proved that either God exists or he doesn't, but can't prove that he does. So the two statements remain in the middle.
God exists

As I have mentioned in my previous posts, there are two conclusions that can be derived from this argument: C1: God must exist i.e., God does exist C2: God can't exist Now, I would like to take a moment to give an example. -------------------------------- Suppose you and a friend were discussing your childhood love for baseball. You fondly recall your favorite memories of games you both played together. After discussing this at great length, your friend, remembering his old baseball glove, exclaims that he still has it somewhere in his garage. He tells you that, it could be nowhere but there; the glove must be in the garage. You, at hearing this, scoff at the possibility of your friend still having his old baseball glove since it was so long ago. Your friend, convinced that the baseball glove is still in his garage insists that you come over to his place to look for it. You agree to go with him. Upon arriving, your friend enters the garage and begins to search for the glove. He mutters to himself, "it must be here". You stand by and watch him as he looks. ------------------- Now, would it be more logical to assume that the ball is in the garage or to provide reasons for every way in which it could not possibly be there still. Because, for every reason you give, you realize that there is still a possibility that the glove is in the garage. Instead of continuing to stand by and watch, would it not be better to join him in searching for the glove knowing that it must be here if anywhere at all, rather than spending hours upon hours providing reasons for why it could not be in the garage. I understand that this example derails from a syllogistic approach to more of an appeal to experience, but I maintain that this is the best way to find God. We know that God must exist, unless it is absolutely impossible in every way for God to exist. Analogous to my little story, it would be in the best interest of the person searching for God to look for evidence in life, and experience the beauty in life, maybe realizing through experience that God exists rather than to sit and suggest a myriad of reasons for which God could not possibly exist. I provide this response since I simply do not have the time or the will to attempt to exhaustively provide refutations for every existing insistence against God's existence. So I leave my argument at this: is it better to live a life in search of the greatest possible being, or to live life looking for reasons that show that this being cannot possibly exist. It's up to you.
God exists

You're right, 2 is a greater number than 1. But how does this translate to necessity and contigency? It's like saying red is greater than blue. It's like saying inside is greater than outside. It's like saying up is greater than down. They are two separate concepts, subjectively ranking them would be illogical.And how does universal imply infinite? Do you think the universe is infinite?Moving on, you still have the burden of proof. Disproving every theory explaining God is impossible would be indeed exhausting. How about proving one theory of God existing? You only need to prove one to prove God exists.
God exists

Firstly, I would like to address your remark on the essence of "greatness". You would be a fool to deny that 2 is not greater than 1 insofar as what they represent objectively is twice that which is in 1 as is in 2. Therefore, 2 is greater than 1. Evidently you have misinterpreted the term "greatness" into what often refers to beauty or some sort of subjective response. By this I only mean that necessity is prior to contingency and therefore is more universal. Universal implies infinity which is obviously greater than finite as it is with finite numbers (actually infinity is infinitely greater than anything finite). So therefore that which is more universal is greater than that which is less universal. So in this way, necessity and contingency are both able to be qualified in terms of greatness, which is their relation to how universal each one is. Secondly, you must understand that I have not defined God as the greatest possible being, but rather I have defined the greatest possible being as God. If you wish you may refer to this being as whatever you would like but that is only nominal since I have defined the nature of the being which I intend to prove. By defining this being I am not assuming it exists (obviously) but demonstrating the nature of the being of which I intend to prove. Finally, since I have shown that my logic to which you objected is sound, the second syllogism remains true. And as for the burden of proof, I have sufficiently demonstrated that there are two possible conclusions the first of the two I accept, since the second conclusion would require me to exhaustively disprove every possible theory that explains God to be impossible. And if I would argue both points, why are you debating? I would have no need for an opponent. Therefore you ought to defend your position and argue mine. I will do the same.
God exists

Let's deconstruct your reasoning here.It is greater to be necessary than contingent.God is the greatest possible being.Therefore, God is necessary.Your logic is valid, but not sound. First off you assume that necessary is greater than contigency. "Greater" is an artificial concept which does not apply to natural laws. "Necessary" and "contingent" are two concepts that are not comparable by "greatness".You continue to assume God is the greatest possible being. You have not proven that God exists, therefore the premise is wrong. If I say the spaghetti monster is the greatest possible being, then your logic would still apply. But the spaghetti monster doesn't exist until proven, as is God.We conceive of a necessary being, ie. the greatest possible being.All things properly conceived are possible.God must exist.God can't exist.It's possible that God can either exist or not exist.You again rely on the premise that God is necessary, allegedly deduced in your previous argument but it was faulty. Therefore this new reasoning is based on a false premise, which makes it gain faulty.I would also like to remind you that you -the instigator- make a positive claim which means you have the burden of proof and I don't have to prove God doesn't exist. You have to prove he does.Good luck with it.
God exists

It is clear, based on reason alone, that God exists, that is, the being-greater-than-which-cannot-be-conceived, id est. the greatest possible being. But for simplicity's sake, I will refer to this being as God. I also define the following as such in order to avoid confusion: A) Necessity: could not have been different. B) Contingency: could have been different. We must assume the following in this argument: it is greater to be necessary than contingent; one cannot conceive of something that is impossible i.e. a triangle with four angles. These assumptions, I believe are quite obvious, and I only suggest that they are assumed so that I don't have to spend the whole argument proving them. I am taking my content from St. Anselm's "Proslogium III" and "Proslogium II" in which is found the ontological argument. I will now commence the argument: 1) God is Necessary (i.e. by nature). A: It is greater to be necessary than contingent. B: God is the greatest possible being. Conclusion 1: God is necessary (i.e. by nature). 2) Regarding God's actual existence. A: We conceive of a necessary being i.e., the greatest possible being. B: All things properly conceived are possible. Conclusion 2: (this has been broken up into 3 parts) C-1: God must exist. C-2: God can't exist. C-3: It's possible that God can either exist or not exist. ...It is apparent, however, that "C-3" is false because by necessity, a necessary being cannot contain possibility since possibility is a property proper to contingency i.e., if X could be Z if Y, then X is contingent upon Y. Therefore the only possible final solutions are as follows: C-1: God must exist. C-2: God can't exist. Now the opponent must attempt to either: a) point out a mistake in the argument, or b) prove C-2 in which case they assume the burden of proof. Please, no insults, subjective references, banter etc. Essentially, be polite.
Donald Trump is a better candidate than Hillary in everyway

Hello first off I would like to address in a polite manner your somewhat "broken" English. It's hard for me to discern what your meaning is exactly but I do my best but I just think there is a language barrier between us. I firstly identify as a Libertarian, I'm quiet right wing. However I am capable of looking at the facts, while I think Gary Johnson the Libertarian Candidate is a very fine pick, he's my 2nd pick after Trump. Trump is something special, he has proven himself in the last year. Look back on his comments on politics from the 80's, he's been saying the same things since way back when. A Countries GDP is not necessarily an indicator of a countries wealth and it's important to realize that. Illegal Immigration is a problem at the moment when it's costing tax payers around 100 million a year. As Milton Friedman said, "People vote with their feet,". Meaning that people will move to places for specific reasons. Before the welfare state Immigrants immigrated to places for employment and couldn't avail of any welfare. Now look at the case, they flock to the USA and receive benefits and no longer have to work. It is a problem, why can't they come here legally is my question to you. I'm not sure what you mean by the terrorist attack comment but will i assume you mean the correlation between immigration from known hotspots and the attacks committed? I live in Europe and look at the problems we are having, huge amounts of attacks being committed by refugees. We have no clear way of verifying these people at all. 100 boxes and 10 are traps? Does this mean that out of a hundred immigrants only 10 might be bad? I'm not sure please clarify. But if that's your argument then I have to say that 10% is far too much. It puts a lot of people at risk of these 10. Just look at what single individuals have done. A single man can kill dozens of people. The Great Wall of China was a failure? I'm pretty sure it was created to keep the Mongols out of China and for the most part the Wall Succeeded. And now it generates revenue from tourists going to visit it. Great Wall, best wall. Also here is a link to the Israel Wall statistics. https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...
Donald Trump is a better candidate than Hillary in everyway

NO! wrong you think you choose him because of the republican position? well but he doesn't act like a republican it lowers a country GDP you think refugee is a hard problem? those are hard working citizen and social programs is only in effect if they pay taxes that's just like a person they vote a president? no why? as long as they don't have enough knowledge it's not but they're hard working a terrorist attack? they're already coming in but you can't reject 100 treasure boxes if 10 are trap you should use treasures in 20 boxes to fix or prevent bad things caused by these boxes and take another 70 boxes and the Chinese did a great wall? that was one of the biggest failure in a history from now on the Chinese start falling in economic growth just like what trump is going to do on America by stopping an economic growth for security
no fear

Fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm. Looking at this definition we can also tell that fear is not necessarily based on knowledge. Fear is primarily based on the fear of danger. All I need to do to win this debate is to provide an example of when no fear can be equal to someone not being certain. An example of this is: a boy is doing an exam, he does not know the answer to many of the questions. He is not scared like his friends are, he had no fear. This example shows that the boy was not certain about anything (as my opponent claims that he has to). Since there is no 2nd round to this debate I have won since I can refute what my opponent staes and my opponent cannot refute my arguments. Vote Con! Sourcehttps://www.google.co.uk...