BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Enviromental protection will inevitably fail, therefore it is futile.

//At any rate, your example of the car being repaired is a bad one since it basically doesn't prove anything. // Of course it doesn't. It does make your assertion look pretty silly though, by putting it in retrospect. It is not, after all, my duty to prove environmental protection is NOT futile, as I have pointed out. The only burden I have is to attempt negation at any argument steered towards proving that environmental protection IS futile, provided by you. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to make much negations since you haven't offered any evidence. Please, go take a look at some debates between top members and learn how to actually do one. //2)I quote: "that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment. "// This does nothing to advance your case. Also, you won't be able to do any of that human development for long without a sustainable environment. //If a preservation provides us with resources then it is considered to be worthwhile. // Uuhhh. .. yeah. .. .that's right. That seems a whole lot like you just conceded to my side of the debate. //If it is for merely preserving a landscape or saving a few whales, I fail to see how that benefits mankind since the landscape and animals are ultimately expendable will eventually be wiped out by a solar expansion. // That isn't the majority of environmental protection. You are also basing your entire mentality in this debate upon the assumption that we should only be concerned with human interests. You give no argument for why we should have no care for animals. Personally, I think we should. Another mentality of your you propagate in this debate is a lack of care for the present, which was the whole point my example was making. There is a certain level of value for benefiting the present. Also, you didn't answer any of my questions. //Environmental protection, even if it brings us resources and sustainability, is destined to fail anyway and efforts to preserve the environment are futile. // You're like a broken record. Restating your assertion over and over again does not constitute an argument for it.
Enviromental protection will inevitably fail, therefore it is futile.

1) A car and a planet are not the same. A car can keep being repaired, but we know for a fact that the Earth will be destroyed one day. So repairing the Earth in spite of the fact makes our attempts at preserving it futile, since it will be destroyed one day. At any rate, your example of the car being repaired is a bad one since it basically doesn't prove anything. 2)I quote: "that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment." If a preservation provides us with resources then it is considered to be worthwhile. If it is for merely preserving a landscape or saving a few whales, I fail to see how that benefits mankind since the landscape and animals are ultimately expendable will eventually be wiped out by a solar expansion. Environmental protection, even if it brings us resources and sustainability, is destined to fail anyway and efforts to preserve the environment are futile.
Enviromental protection will inevitably fail, therefore it is futile.

//--- Since the car has been compared to environmental decay, then both are considered to be futile attempts at preservation, it does not prove environmental preservation is worthwhile, and so the original contention stands. OR --- Since the car serves a purpose in aiding human progress it indirectly helps humanity provide an answer to life after the planet Earth, and therefore is worthy of repair.// It might just be me but I don't see much coherency in these statements, neither do I see how they refute mine. Rephrase. //I was merely making the suggestion that since the Earth is impermanent, and human life does not necessarily depend upon an Earth IN THE FUTURE, that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment. Environmental preservation tends to put a hamper on technological science, and so hampers humanity's progress.// Your claim is unsubstantiated. You have the burden to prove that environmental protections hampers scientific progress. Indeed, how are you supposed to have scientific advancements without resources? Indeed, how are you supposed to have resources without sustainability? Indeed, how are you supposed to have sustainability without environmental protection? These are all questions Pro must answer. //Con has failed to prove environmental protection is not futile in this round// You do realize that you're the one making the assertion here? You are Instigator and are making a positive claim; the burden rests on you. May I also remind Pro that the debate he instigated is about whether environmental protection is futile BECAUSE the Earth will eventually die, not simply about whether environmental protection is futile in of itself which is a whole other debate entirely.
Enviromental protection will inevitably fail, therefore it is futile.

Thanks for accepting Con, this can will be a fun little debate. 1)"Using the same logic, it would be futile to get car maintenance since your car will eventually break down" This can be refuted in two ways: --- Since the car has been compared to environmental decay, then both are considered to be futile attempts at preservation, it does not prove environmental preservation is worthwhile, and so the original contention stands. OR --- Since the car serves a purpose in aiding human progress it indirectly helps humanity provide an answer to life after the planet Earth, and therefore is worthy of repair. In either case, environmental protection is nullified. 2)By saying "also" this point is made as a further conclusion from "Since the planet will inevitably be destroyed", which is obviously a non sequitur. --- I was merely making the suggestion that since the Earth is impermanent, and human life does not necessarily depend upon an Earth IN THE FUTURE, that any means that furthers human development is greater than anything that preserves the environment. Environmental preservation tends to put a hamper on technological science, and so hampers humanity's progress. Con has failed to prove environmental protection is not futile in this round
Enviromental protection will inevitably fail, therefore it is futile.

My opponent argues that protecting the environment is futile since it will eventually be destroyed. So put this in perspective: Using the same logic, it would be futile to get car maintenance since your car will eventually break down. The flaw is obvious. Also, my opponent makes a second point: "....but also damaging to human progress." By saying "also" this point is made as a further conclusion from "Since the planet will inevitably be destroyed", which is obviously a non sequitur. That is all for now.
Man City Are Better Than Man United

Again a forfeited round by my opponent, unfortunately.Due to illness I will not be able to post a full summary in time for the end of the challenge period. Please read on for a simplistic summary of my points.Con's only source is a video game, which is biased by the FIFA whom are bribed money to improve a teams standard.I say that Man City are better because they have more money, better players (and more of them), more support staff (physio-therapists for example) and better support (by corporate means and public means). If you wish to see a source, please Google; Barclay's Premier League, and from there you can click your way into their own sites. The choice is simple, I have presented the only legitimate argument. The only reasonable vote is Pro.Thank you for your time.
Man City Are Better Than Man United

CON Appears to be against the statement that Manchester City football club is better than Manchester United football club, despite saying in his argument that he agrees with it.His only source is a video game, which is obviously biased, as FIFA is the international football association which is often (and was for the games they make) bribed to better or advertise a team more than another. Man City bribed FIFA with more money and has clearly been shown to be a better team. But as CON is against the statement, I will let him/her fight against it. CON has failed to provide definitions so here are mine:Better: In this case, better will be one team having more of something or less of something than the other.Well, to be honest, that is all I have. But before I continue, I am not a noob snipe, I just saw this argument and as I support Man City, thought I would join it and be PRO. But I then noticed that CON actually supports the above statement, and so to not avoid a 7point forfeit, here I go..... Man City is obviously better than Man Utd, they have more players, more money and better support by the public and private companies who advertise with/for them.I think I will call it a day, I will let CON reconsider his arguments, and make this debate a bit fairer.Thank you all!
Science v. Politics

I accept the argument and understand its terms. Science is in no way shape or form affiliated with political events, and politics should not be replaced. Politics is the main factor of keeping America in a controlled state, science on the other hand is purely informative research and inventions to better our daily lives. It is in no position of being able to replace politics due to majorly differentiated subjects. I look forward to the argument and thank you for choosing me, I shall keep the debate civil and give factual reasons to my claims.
Science v. Politics

Scientific method has proved invaluable to humanity during its climb from the dark ages to the height of digital evolution. The time has come now for Science to further serve humanity as we face crisis on multiple fronts. Politics presents no answers. I will contend as con that Political system is obsolete and no longer adequate to serve 21st century needs. Pro will take the counter position, that our democratic systems of government is still the best system of government we can have.
Science v. Politics

I displayed Atleast 3 links that told you how Scientific method could form the basis of a new government system that was not political in nature. Its called a Technocracy, http://en.wikipedia.org... But The System described by Jaque Fresco in The Venus project ( links in rnd.2 ) Details the transition to a Type-1 Civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org... I Have already established that Scientific based government can replace a Political based government. I have addressed how such a system will deal with poverty, access to resources, generation of power and more. Resource Based Economy (RBE) Is the Scientific based replacement for for a Political system. You have several times brought up the Debt but I don't think you really understand what our money is or how it works.This video produces a reasonable summary:http://www.youtube.com... http://lisgi1.engr.ccny.cuny.edu... <- PDF format booklet. Once you Understand that the money does not represent anything... the Debt is just... and Literally just.. a number. Its only importance comes from the necessity to the price system to maintain meaning.I have provided suitable resources to prove my case in the Primary argument. You have one last round to come up with a solid argument against Resource Based economics ( Science based governmental system).
Science v. Politics

You're argument did not fall when you stated Science can take over a completely different system? And you say i'm rambling on about nonsense. I did not know the manners of this debate would fall to the stone age, I am only fifteen and decided to take on the debate due to curiosity on taking on a new subject. Please state to me in ANY WAY that Science can take over a political system, decide how to run the country, deal with debt, and all of the world's problems. I am just sure that if it's so superior then we'd replace Politics with Science long ago. You seem to be the apitimy of arrogance, you lost your proffesionality in the debate you just posted. Instead of keeping your composure you decide to go on the offensive because apparently your offended by someone pointing out how stupid and impossible of a question you've brought up. And I bet that you are with the public on this one right? Because surely this question has been asked more than enough to bring it to the President's attention correct? I was trying to do rushed research on the manner of the subject because I have a busy life, and I apologize if I have offended you in anyway possible. But this argument is just the apitimy of stupidity, who would think that the field of Science would take over Politics? Two completely different fields can just take over one another correct? I am sure that Mitt Romney would be able to conjure up a cure for cancer since these two subjects are SO related. Or Obama can just whip up some kind of medical breakthrough for the disaled. I normally do not lose my composure like this but you need to learn manners and gain a common sense.
Christianity vs Islam

I agree to this debate. However, it should be noted that despite I am Certain about the existence of the Abrahamic God (since there are tons of argument and scientific evidence exclusively for him), I am still deciding on which of the three religions I should choose even though Sikhism is also within the range of the possibilities since their concept of God is not too far off. I will be defending Islam and I would appreciate it if Pro could discuss the evidence for the reliability of the new testament and the evidence for the ressurection of Christ.Since Pro does not establish a framework, I will create one :Round one : acceptance R2: arguments R3 : Rebuttals / argument sR4: RebuttalsR5: RebuttalsRules :- No forfeits- No semantics - No trolling BOP will be shared by both I hand back to Pro who should provide his evidence and arguments for Christianity maintaining with the established framework.Happy debating.
know=physical experience

Okay. Let's go through the rules of engagement one last time. 1. You write statement that can be true or false. 2. Write your thoughts on this statement and whether you agree or disagree. 3. Someone responds your statement with a counter-argument. 4. You keep responding back and forth until the maximum number of statements. 5. People vote on the best argument. You accuse me of making fragmented responses. But can't you see that your first response lacks almost everything an argument should have: It does not respond to my arguments at all, it lacks grammatical correctness and does not explain how it relates to the original question. If you are having problems with my response think of it this way -3 paragraphs in response to 3 statements you made How can anyone respond to that in a coherent way if it isn't even an argument? This is the worst debate I have ever found myself in because there is no argument. You are just stating some ideals at me and hoping I know what I should respond with. The three statement you made mean nothing to me at all because they have no context. Physical is real, metaphysical is unknowable, truth can't be found. Do you see how confusing that was??? WHY WOULD YOU WISH THIS ON ANYONE??? As a final point in a debate you are in fact meant to disprove the other person. Just saying you have made 100 mistakes does not really open up to debating. I mean as a young adult I have definitely messed up alot in order to learn from experience but, I think it must be like a million mistakes or so.
know=physical experience

This is difficult to respond as a person who debates often, I find that debates are the most effective when your respond with a counter argument. However... I will do my best. "physical experience is cause and effect" I assume you are saying that in order to physically experience anything there must be cause and effect. This statement cannot be proved or disproved as everything in the universe has cause and effect. When you add the word "logic" to the end the statement all coherency. There doesn't have to be logic in physical experience. Most living things don't know or practice logic. Only advanced animals do such as humans, monkeys, dolphins etc. Only death is certain. Life has too great a deal of uncertainty to us as to what it actually is to make that statement and there in oncoming heat death of the universe that will end life completely. Where there is life things die therefore death is certain. know is true is not a grammatically correct statement therefore I will change it to "knowledge is truth". Which is obvious to some extent however, this is still a thousand miles away from the original argument. Please explain your points for a small minded fellow such as myself and get back onto the topic.
know=physical experience

It is true that you may have learnt things such as a hot lamp will burn you from physical experience. However, it should surely be apparent that we learn from things besides physical experience. The most basic examples of this is death. You don't need to physically experience being shot to know that it could kill you. As a less extreme example, water short circuiting electronics has not necessarily been experienced by everyone but, we rely on the information of others in order to know it is a bad idea. To summarise - knowing is a level of belief given from 2 types of feedback : experience and information from others.
republicans tend to lack critical thinking

sure, there might be some bias, given they often rely on funding from more progressive types. and a 'group think' mentality, to some extent. but given their positions and abilities, surely they overcome most of those biases and think objectively. these are some of the most intelligent people we have, and at the very least, the most valued in terms of their critical thinking. shouldn't their meager support of the republican party tell us something?
It is preferred to live in a zombie apocalypse then an alien invasion apocalypse

1. We need to ask ourselves why these aliens are attacking us in the first place. Because they want us dead? For aliens at the technological level of the canon aliens you mentioned, that kind of makes them idiots, since only an idiot goes after people who are theoretically capable of fighting back just to kill them.Most resouces are present on other planets as well--the only exception is, bluntly, us. There is nothing we exclusively produce, aside from our own flesh, that aliens cannot acquire peacefully or someplace else. The only two reasons for an alien invasion where they want to kill us all are either because they want to eat us, or because they just really hate us.Oh, and if the zombie virus mutates we could end up with smart zombies.2. But zombies tend to have greater numbers--they infest the entire planet, is the point. Aliens tend to have a much harder time finding people, especially when you consider that aliens could be hid from underwater, or in densely forested areas that couldn't be penetrated by infrared scans and such.3. You try getting hit in the head with a baseball bat. Bet'll destroy the brain. I'll wait. And in the episode summary on the wiki it says that Jim was left under a tree, alive, not that he died from a car ride.5. Except that they are kind of overrelying on their technology, which ends up in some cases turning against them. Not exactly a testament to alien intelligence.6. What about societies underground, or in the rainforst, or underwater? Aliens would have a hard time finding these societies. Since zombies happen wehenver someone dies, the same can't really be said for zombies. A mistake in zombie disposal can result in the fortress becoming a trap, and being overrun with zombies. This is also a reason to save the rainforest: It is a defense against the aliens.7. Well, apparently some zombies in The Walking Dead end up floating around. Ships could also crash into an area and introduce zombies.8. And humans could spread diseases to aliens. Given that an invasio nwould fragment society, it would be harder to infect most huma than it would be to infect most aliens.========================================================================1. We do have the ability to see massive asteroids coming though, at least usually. Now imagine a massive alien fleet with mile long ships with heat signatures. We are going to notice!3. If a species manages to repel you the first time, it might be a good idea to cut your losses and move on rather than engage in another war, after they have presumably scavenged your technology, fortified, gotten over internal differences, etc.4. Well, you are drawing your examples from a single TV series. I get one TV series, one book, and one movie. Unless we can draw examples from other canons.
Modern Christian beliefs are mostly false

I wish this debate had more rounds this is an interesting topic to discuss with you, I did research it I plan on looking into it more thoroughly at a later date, and as I previously stated I will NEVER condone 'getting rid of' historical text or information because it angers us, actually that is the data I normally prefer to view because I love different points of view, I love different arguments and critical analyzation, though just because a book was taken out does not indicate ALL the biblical text is invalid in modern society. the bible was written as a guide book for life, just like the constetution for our country, it's the building block to tell us how to run our lives, though unlike the constitution this is more important (though I support the amamdments escpecially the bill of rights, the constitution is important, just not as important as the bible) and just because times change doesn't mean the building blocks of society change, if you build a house then you remodel it the foundation underneith is still the same, you just build more and utilize what was already given to you to be as effective and efficient as possible, and what's the bible if not the foundation for a beleiver's life? unless the book you are referring too directly says "everything else becomes null after so and so years" than the Christian beliefs still hold strong to this day, regardless of the missing book. thank you for the debate, I would love to discuss this more with you later if this site has a chat feature or something (I'm new)
Modern Christian beliefs are mostly false

1. well, the content and amount of information in your religious guidelines vary based on your religion like you said the Catholics have many different books, though we are not arguing about Catholics we are arguing Christian beliefs, 2. It is not all surprising to me they are not formatted the same way as we currently see it, why there are several translations of the Christian Bible used today, though the core message stays the same, it's simply the wording that is changed and the organization of words to make it easier to understand for people 3. that is something I do not condone, we should not take out information because we disagree with it, that's likely one of the reasons this site was formed, so we CAN learn from it and use it to better ourselves 4. actually, a few years ago they uncovered original texts of the Bible hidden away underground, and when experts analized them they found it to be almost exactly like the current bible (except you know formatting) 5. christian beleifs actually not only are still relevant but are the model of how most people aim to live life, they try to do good things and be good people, adultry and murder are frowned upon, those are only a few excamples but what is to be noted is how christians attempt to live life is still mostly the standered