BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Value Based AI Pro's & Cons

I think that AI has very promising aspects. It will allow us to analyze tons of information at a time to help advance other forms of science including medicinal science. We could save so many lives with advancements made available with AI. A computer can analyze information so much faster saving lives. We should do as much as we can to help save other people as long as it does not pose a danger to the person. We should always have a human performing any procedures and making the final call but AI could help us make this decision more informed and quickly saving lives. We could also analyze scientific papers much quicker to make advancements in science and technology. We could also analyze raw data much quicker to help us make discoveries to help us advance in our world. I think that AI should purely be used to 1) Help make discoveries quicker and more informed and 2) Help automate tasks to make our world better for ourselves.
Value Based AI Pro's & Cons

Value Based AI Pro's & Cons Pro's Artificial intelligence (AI) is all about designing thinking machines. Researchers also claim to be able to introduce an emotional aspect into them. With artificial intelligence, they tell us the chances of error are almost nil and greater speed, precision and accuracy is achieved. They suggest sending AI Robots into space to explore, and into environments inhospitable to humans Cons True Intelligent human thought is abstract, and regardless the AI's fast data access to literally everything, it is still linear. Important concerns regarding AI are about ethics and moral values, not emotions. Is it ethically correct to create replicas of human beings? Do our own moral values allow us to create machine intelligence? And exactly who's morals and ethics would be used to model AI, considering bias data in equals bias data out A value based AI model will only function efficiently with the ethics of banksters. For sure, AI Robots will do certain laborious tasks and many menial activities carried out by humans, but what about creative and vocational works?. As is now, a Value based AI will deem many Humans to be non productive, a burden on society and therefore obsolete
are pancakes better then waffles

You need a special pan to cook waffles and it's a booger to clean! It's hard to roll a waffle around a sausage and eat it, but it's easy with a pancake. Pancakes make better frisbees in a food fight. Pancakes take less syrup, so save money. You can watch pancakes cooking but have to trust the waffles to cook properly. Waffles have hard edges.
are pancakes better then waffles

Pancakes are made from a batter and cooked on a skillet or griddle. Pancakes typically are thin and flat. Pancakes need to be flipped to ensure both sides are cooked properly.The batter of pancakes contains milk, which provides protein and calcium. Eggs provide additional protein. If pancakes are made with whole wheat or buckwheat flour, their health benefits will increase. When using these whole grains, pancakes present numerous health benefits, including rich in fiber, vitamins, antioxidants and minerals. Due to the additional fiber, whole wheat pancakes will help you feel fuller longer than white flour pancakes. Make pancakes even healthier and more satisfying by adding flax-seed, which increases the overall fiber content of the pancake. Your average 6 inch pancake has approximately 175 calories.
Treaty of Versailles

You are avoiding every single one of my points, which is in my opinion an automatic forfeit! A debate is supposed to be consistent of rebuttals , and counterclaims, and right now I just see you spewing your own argument , and completely ignoring mine. Also , I already saw your argument coming , because you previously wrote an opinion piece on this , so I knew your entire argument on the subject beforehand.Rebuttals: You provide no evidence for your claims.Rebuttal#1 and finally the United States of America attacked Germany for attacking Great Britain. All of that could have just been a small border war between Serbia,but because of the alliances it brought all of Europe and the United States into War. While it is true that alliances between Austria - Hungary , Germany, and other countries did extensively bring WW1 to a large scale war. The US did not attack the Germans, the Germans attacked American merchant ships causing economic damage to the United States, so that statement is false.Rebuttal #2The Treaty of Versailles isn't fair. Germany shouldn't take full blame for the war. Although the murder of Arch Duke Ferdinand was the spark of the war,Germany officially started the war with the Schlieffen Plan. It also delivered the Zimmerman telegram. They caused a lot of damage to other countries, so a harsh punishment is fair. You do the crime you do the time.
Treaty of Versailles

Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia and because of the alliances. the Russia attacked Austria-Hungary for attacking Serbia, the Ottoman Empire attacked Russia for attacking Austria-Hungary, France attacked the Ottoman Empire for attacking Russia, Bulgaria attacked France for attacking the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain attacked Bulgaria for attacking France, Germany attacked Great Britain for attacking Bulgaria, and finally the United States of America attacked Germany for attacking Great Britain. All of that could have just been a small border war between Serbia,but because of the alliances it brought all of Europe and the United States into War.
Treaty of Versailles

I figured you would say that. You avoided addressing all except one of my claims, so I assume that you have no counterargument against them. It was fair because Germany started the war with the Schlieffen Plan. The war caused millions of people to die so because of that they should not have had a say in what the Treaty of Versailles said. The loss of life on both sides was an unpayable debt and the terms of the treaty were fair. Not only was there a great loss of life, but the damage to the European infrastructure was also impacted. The destruction in Europe was extensive and Germany was to was very lenient and he was trying to punish Germany, but not as harshly as the others. Wilson was trying to bring peace in a friendly way. Wilson wasn't seeking revenge.The provision that was fair was the decrease to Germany’s army. If Germany’s army was decreased then they were most likely not going to start any more wars because they simply would not have enough man power to help them succeed. All of the provision had there place and had a purpose to serve.Germany was given harsh requirements but sometimes you need to set those harsh requirements to prove a point. The Treaty of VersaillesGeorges Clemenceau of France had one very simple belief – Germany should be brought to its knees so that she could never start a war again, and this belief was not initiated in the Treaty of Versailles , so Germany should have been grateful for that , considering the French lost 1.4 million soldiers in the war.Sources http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...APUSH America Past and Present Pearson
Treaty of Versailles

Thesis: The Treaty of Versailles was fair and reasonable To start the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 , imposed by the Supreme Court was in fair to Germany. The Germans were involved in the war, and lost fair and square. Now , Woodrow Wilson practiced moral diplomacy , and to him it was a fair treaty. Now to look back at other situations in history. Throughout history it has been common practice for the victor to impose sanctions on the losers. Have you ever heard the saying "To the victor go the spoils". Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Napoleon, the Vatican, Ferdinand of Spain, and many others have long practiced this belief. The treaty did not erase the German nation and split it up among the victors. It did not diminish its national identity, nor did it enslave the people of Germany. Sources:America Past and Present APUSH Book
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

This is the last response of the debate, so I will wrap things up and explain why I have won this debate. First, Pro says that millions of people sit in the front seat everyday and are fine, this is true, but many sit in the front seat everyday and die. This is proven by the statistic I brought up in Round 1, this part of Pro's argument is negated. Pro concedes that the front seat is the most dangerous seat in the car, this proves my initial argument true, that therefore if a parent values their childrens' lives, then they should not have them sit in the front seat of the car. I negate the resolution and win the debate. Pro says that just because it is dangerous doesn't mean it should be eliminated. I disagree, in order to save lives we must minimize harm, and saving lives outweighs any arguments that Pro can bring up. Pro also says that sitting in the front seat is not dangerous in general, only dangerous in comparison to sitting in the backseat. Exactly! Therefore the children should sit in the backseat, the less dangerous spot, in order to maintain their well-being. Pro's last argument is that if cars were to be eliminated, my argument that children should sit in the backseat would be negated as well. I agree, but I would still win the debate, because I would only lose an argument, while Pro would lose the resolution, and I would win the debate. Pro then says that my statistic is irrelevant. The statistic of 12 and under is, but the rest of it isn't, and therefore the rest still stands. The front seat is still the most dangerous place for children, thus parents should put the children in the backseat, this is something Pro concedes, thus the impact (that parents should put all the children in the backseat, not the front seat) still stands, which effectively negates the resolution, and I win the debate.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

My argument was not that "If the front seat is really that dangerous, then it should be eliminated". Actually it was "If the front seat was really that dangerous, it would not be in existence at all". Millions of people sit in the front seat every day and are fine. I do concede, the front seat is the most dangerous seat in the car, but that does not mean that it should be eliminated. That is a false and void argument. For instance, it is more dangerous to ride a bicycle than it is to read a book while sitting on a couch. Does that mean that nobody should ride bicycles? Of course not! Just because something is more dangerous in comparison with another activity (or position in the car) does not make it dangerous in general. You say that I need cars not to be eliminated for my argument to be valid, and that I concede. However, you also need cars for your argument to be valid. As you said in argument one, "The government program of The Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows how paramount the problem of car safety is, and how to best prevent it, sitting in the back-seat." Your argument is that teens should sit in the back seat. If cars were to be eliminated then your argument would be negated as well. Also, I noticed that your statistic (also in round 1) said nothing about teens 13 and up, only children 12 and under. Let me remind you again, the premise of this debate was that "The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age." Your statistic regards children who have not yet come of age, and is therefore irrelevant to this debate.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

Pro argues that if the front seat is really that dangerous, then it should be eliminated. I agree! If the front seat of the car is eliminated, then I negate the resolution and win the debate. Pro then says that just because it is the most dangerous seat in the car (<=== a concession that it is the most dangerous seat in the car), doesn’t mean it's unsafe to sit in it. See my Round 1 statistics to see how dangerous it is. Pro admits that his entire case would be negated if we eliminated cars, but that mine would as well, and then it would be a tie. If we are to eliminate cars, no one would be able to sit in the front seat, and I would negate the resolution and win. In order to affirm the resolution, Pro needs cars to not be eliminated (or how else would you sit in the front seat). I concede my first point, Pro correctly pointed out that it is irrelevant, as it was “when they come of age”, my apologies. I had a typo in my second argument XD. Its should have read, 2) The front seat is still more dangerous than the backseat, no matter the age, thus the argument has no impact.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

Your argument is that no one at all should sit in the front seat. This is completely ridiculous- if the front seat was really that unsafe then it would have been eliminated. There are forms of protection in place that are tailored to adults, and though it is the most "dangerous" seat in the car does not mean that it is unsafe to sit in it. You brought my argument up about eliminating cars, and stated that the elimination of cars negates my entire case. That may very well be true, but it also negates your case, so the result would be a tie, not a victory for you. However, as you well know, that argument was simply an assertion of how ridiculous the obsession with safety is here. You then give me two points that "negate" my previous argument about the front seat being optimized for older people. Both are completely ridiculous. 1) You say that it assumes that the eldest sibling is over 13 years. Did you not read the title of this debate? The title was "The oldest sibling should get the front seat WHEN THEY COME OF AGE." In your example, you said there were three children, the eldest being 8. Of course the 8 year old would sit in the back, because he/she has not come of age yet. 2) You then state that the front seat is safer than the back seat, completely voiding your entire argument. Asserting that you are winning the debate is a faulty argument and, in my opinion, conceited.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

Pro's response is in questioning where to draw the line. What the judge must realize is that none of this negates my argument.The answer to my opponent's question is, no one should sit in the front seat. The only person to sit in the front should be the driver, this way, safety is optimal. Pro then suggests that we eliminate cars because they are dangerous, I accept this proposal, because it negates Pro's entire case, thus me winning the debate. Pro then says that the front seat is made to protect adults during car crashes, and therefore the eldest sibling should get the front seat since they are optimized for it. This is false for the following reasons. 1) This assumes that the eldest sibling is over 13 years. If there are three children in the family, one 2, one 5, and one 8, the 8 year old is not eligible to sit in the front seat by Pro's reasoning. But, Pro needs to argue that the eldest sibling (the 8 year old), should be able to sit in the front seat, the contradiction cancels out Pro's argument, and it is negated. 2) The front seat is still safer than the backseat, no matter the age, thus the argument has no impact. Pro's entire case has been negated and Pro has failed to negate my case, thus I am winning this debate.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

So where do you draw the line here? Should nobody ever sit in the front seat at all? Is the life of a 16 year old more important than the life of a 30 year old? Unless the answer is yes, this means that nobody should ever sit in the front seat, regardless of age. While we're at it, let's eliminate cars altogether- they are dangerous too. This is ridiculous. The reason why children (12 and under) should not sit in the front seat is because they are small and their skeletal system is not fully developed. The front seat was made to protect adults during a car crash with airbags and seat belts. Once a person comes of age (usually 13) they are old enough to sit in the front seat, and old enough to properly benefit from the protective measures previously stated. Therefore they are old enough to sit in the front seat. However, this debate was not solely about whether teens are allowed to sit in the front seat, it is about whether the eldest sibling has the right to the front seat. Please provide your arguments against this statement.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

Pro concedes the fact that sitting in the front seat is dangerous. Pro responsesby saying that 16 year olds should sit in the front since they are the legal driving age. So? Sitting in the front seat is still dangerous, whether or not you are 16.Is a 16 year olds life more important than someone below 16?The answer is no, all lives are equal, and this priniciple is protected under the Constitution. Until the answer is yes, Pro's response is negated. Pro also says that it is embarrassing for a 16 year old to be in the backseat. The person's life outweighs their social embarrassment by far.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

The title of this debate was "The oldest sibling should get the front seat WHEN THEY COME OF AGE," not "should kids get to sit in the front seat at all." You can not keep children in the backseat forever. As you said, in most states, the legal age for kids to sit in the front seat is 12, or 13 to be safe. Say you have a 14 year old and a 16 year old. Obviously the 16 year old should sit in the front. In most states, the legal driving age is 16. If a kid is old enough to drive a car, then they are obviously old enough to simply sit in the passenger seat of the car. Over sheltering your kids is never a good thing. On top of it not making sense, it is simply mean. Driving around with your 16 year old in the back seat is embarrassing for the kid, and ridiculously unfair.
The oldest sibling should get the front seat when they come of age

I argue that the eldest sibling should not get the front seat. SafetyThe well-being of a parent's child is their first priority, and chief concern. For this reason, the safety argument outweighs all other arguments. The government program of The Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows how paramount the problem of car safety is, and how to best prevent it, sitting in the back-seat. "In the United States, motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among children. In 2013, 638 children ages 12 years and younger died in motor vehicle crashes, and more than 127,250 were injured. But parents and caregivers can make a lifesaving difference. Whenever you're on the road, make sure your child passengers are buckled in age- and size-appropriate car seats, booster seats, or seat belts. The safest place for children of any age to ride is properly buckled in the back seat."[http://www.cdc.gov...] Since sitting in the backseat is the backseat in vital to the safety of children, all children should sit in the backseat. The eldest sibling is included in "all children", thus I negate the resolution.
Spain is the worst colonizer.

Section 1: Either way, they were still heavily taxed. The Spanish did no such thing. Section 2: The British didn't support abolishing slavery until the early 1800's. It was officially abolished in 1833. This was a good while after the colonial era. The Spanish abolished slavery and the slave trade between the years of 1817-1820, which is obviously before the British did. Either way it happened after the colonial era. The British tried to pay them. The Portuguese never accepted their money. The Portuguese abolished slavery on their own, they had some outside influences, but not enough to consider the Portuguese being bribed. Section 3: That is incorrect. The last people to abolish slavery were Great Britain, the United States, and France (not necessarily in that order). Though France was also one of the first to abolish slavery, thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte, who brought back slavery, they are considered one of the last to abolish it. In this case, Spain would be considered the second person to abolish slavery. Of course Spain was uncooperative. They had already abolished slavery, and if they hadn't, they still would not have cooperated because the Spanish and the British have hated each other for hundreds of years. Section 4: The information about Spain has a lot to do with this. How the country runs tends to be the way the colonies run. Spain no longer has hold over any of its old colonies. The British have a hold over most of it now, namely the Bahamas, but the South is almost completely free, they're poor because they broke off from the main country. When the colonies were part of Spain, they had funding and most of their economy came from exporting goods from their location to Spain. Once they revolted and broke off, or were at least granted freedom, they were alone. They had to fend for themselves. Unlike America, they probably weren't completely prepared for what came when they succeeded, either that or their leaders weren't as good as ours were, and started fighting each other within their new government(s). The reasons are numerous. Section 5: My opponent has failed to post resources to support a lot of his claims, so I'd like to claim that he could have been making up some information. In this case some of them may be considered invalid. . http://spartacus-educational.com... . http://abolition.nypl.org... . http://www.jstor.org... . http://history.stackexchange.com... . http://www.quora.com...
Spain is the worst colonizer.

1. The British only taxed them heavily after war. The British only created the Townshend Acts and the Stamp Act cause they lost money on war and 10 years isn't that long. 2. The British was a great supporter of abolishing slavery. The British even paid Portugal "750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator 3. I'm aware of that. 4.Spain was also the one of the last countries to abolish slavery. After the Napoleonic Wars when Britain began a campaign to end the slave trade, the Spanish were not cooperative. Spain continued to maintain slavery on Cuba and Puerto Rico into the late-19th century after slavery had been abolished elsewhere in the Caribbean. http://histclo.com... 5. The point of this debate. Your missing the point, most of your arguments are about Spain itself not how they colonized. I'd like to ask why the Spanish colonies are poor today.