BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Should Drop Out for America's Sake.

I do not agree that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul should drop out. Why? How will they cause John McCain to win the election? If people prefer Mitt Romney to John McCain and/or they're THAT worried about a McCain victory, then they are free to vote for Romney whether or not Huckabee or Paul are on the ballot. No one is going to be forced to vote for Huckabee or Paul -- they will do so freely. Romney does not OWN the votes of people who don't vote for McCain. There are plenty of Huckabee/Paul supporters (such as myself) who do not see any significant difference between McCain and Romney, and/or who may actually prefer McCain to Romney. McCain is certainly more honest and has stuck to his guns -- he is deserving of at least SOME respect for that. Romney, on the other hand, is a pompous elitist who switches his positions to appeal to the electorate. He is trying to buy the election, and people aren't interested. Why should conservatives vote for a liberal Massachusetts governor who has a health care plan to the left of Obama's? What is Romney's position on the IRS or the Federal Reserve? It's the same as Hillary Clinton's. The Republican Party is as good as dead. Perhaps from its ruins it can re-emerge as a TRULY conservative party, wherein neither McCain nor Romney would ever possibly have a chance of winning its nomination.
Global warming should not be taught as a fact in schools

97 percent scientist DO NOT AGREE on global warming. If they did, I wouldn't have a reason to instigate this debate. You can read my sources that provide evidence for this point. Arctic ice has improved by 50 percent since 2012 despite the so called "global warming" effect. Moreover, when even today's weather instruments and predictions are flawed, how can we rely on the data of the instruments of 1900's to detect climate change? Damage to the ozone layer only brings in more radiation, not heat. The Ozone layer is not a solid net that cools the Earth. The most common greenhouse gas is not co2, but water vapour. If global warming really was that serious, then why winters haven't been shortened? Why the heat doesn't stay after the Sun goes down? Greenhouse gases are supposed to trap heat, aren't they? Furthermore, I would like to quote from my source friends of science "CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result." Lastly, when we breath out, why does our breath cools so fast as the distance increases? Isn't co2 expelled supposed to be trap heat and I be breathing out steam on a summer's day? Furthermore, students should have the right to express and moreover form their opinions themselves based on the data they find trustworthy, not because the teacher says so. Sources http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... http://www.friendsofscience.org... http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.forbes.com...
Global warming should not be taught as a fact in schools

A vast majority of climate scientists (97% in fact) agree that Global Warming is an ongoing threat to humanity. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as the damage being done to the ozone layer makes our planet prone to warming up. Although 1 or 2 degrees Celsius does not sound like much, do remember that any type of warming can be enough to doom an entire ecosystem. Flooding in some areas and desertification in others is a danger to people and infrastructure all over the world. All evidence points towards Global Warming being a fact, and teaching it within schools that it is so enables us to discuss the extent of peril that humanity has found itself in as a result of massive, inexorable industrialization of North America, Europe and Asia. Raising awareness regarding Global Warming within educational communities may just be enough to persuade students that preventative action is necessary to secure the survival and thrift of humanity.
One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

Hmmm. .. .. .. .. Nope, nothing new and no refutations in PRO R3. With that, VOTERS: 1) He has bad grammar. This makes things more difficult for everyone reading the debate. 2) He says that I have a "potty mouth". Straight turn this on him; the "potty mouth" words that I use are much more high quality than what he uses. 3) The topic does not say "One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in ABSOLUTE control of their existence", so everything he's said is nontopical. 4) Even if it's nontopical, his warrants and impacts are nonsequitur and nonspecified. 5) He fails to show that I have zero control whatsoever on my life, therefore failing the burden of proof placed on him by the resolution he put forth.
One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

"One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence." My burden,... to prove the above topic is true. No more no less. My opponenent has given me enough to argue this and prove it. "the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence" >my opponents chosen definition of existence. "to exercise restraining or directing influence over"> my opponents chosen definition of control. >opponents definition of influence= "the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways" OK! This is the proof,.. if my opponent is claiming one has absolute control of their own existence,.. than they must be in a state or have been in a state or will be in a state or fact of being especially independent of human consciousness,.. Since his existence has already depended on the outside human consciousness of his parents,... that proves he in past has NOT been in control of his existence. Really since his entire existence currently, depended on his past and those outside beings and forces,.. he really had not any control and I could extend the argument he does not currently have control SINCE his current existence has already proven to exist due to outside human consciousness, thus ruling he is, was or will ever be in control of his own existence. However, Someone can gain control of ones existence much like one could gain control of a skidding car,... WRONG! The very existence of my opponent depends to heavily on outside forces to give my opponent what would be considered absolute control. He may control his actions, but he does not conrol his existence. He exists in his hometown because of outside forces beyond his control,... he exists as a living person because no one or nothing has killed him. He can not have absolute control because it can be taken to easily for it to even be considered his possession. Even temporary control is void due to the outside forces that are prevent control of his own existence,.. everyday he is alive is due to somethig outside of his choice,.. Even suicide would yes be ultimately his action, but not his ability to control his existence, for everything needed to end his own life was brought about by something other than himself. He could shoot himself, but it requires a gun and a bullet. He could jump from a building but requires the existence of a building. Even air, food, water, prevents you from controlling your own existence, as your control does not exist since your existence ultimately requires air food and water to exist. Hairless cats are freaky, and I feel its impossible to drink a gallon of milk in one hour.
One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

I negate, that "One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence." DEFINITIONS: EXISTENCE: I'd like to point out that my opponent apparently didn't pay attention to what he was talking about at all and just copypasta'd what he found on Merriam-Webster. The entire first set of definitions he provides (from: http://www.merriam-webster.com...) is, as M-W says, obsolete – meaning 1 a: no longer in use or no longer useful b: of a kind or style no longer current (This definition is also from Merriam-Webster) If my opponent meant for me to pick a specific definition, I'll go with "2 a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence ". I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to do by posting all the definitions; we're going to have to go with one of them in the debate anyways. CONTROL: As PRO defines from M-W, I shall define from there as well. But, I'll pick a specific definition: "2 a: to exercise restraining or directing influence over" (from: http://www.merriam-webster.com...) In turn, "influence" is defined as "4: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways" Since the definition of control is "directing influence", however, the definition of "control" can be clarified to be "the power or capacity of causing an effect in a direct or tangible way". So. PRO puts forth the resolution as true. I don't see any arguments that prove it to be as such. If he puts forth no arguments or fails to prove the resolution, then you default vote CON because I have not made any claims to truth. The only arguments I have made thus far are in the definitions, which I have sufficiently warranted with sources or analytics. Think of the resolution as a claim, such as "Flowers look nice". If that person that claims that flowers look nice and fails to show it, then you automatically vote for the other side, as the other side does not have to prove anything at all. That being said, I already default win the debate since PRO's currently nonexistent case fails to prove the resolution as true. I await some evidence or argument to refute.
One is not currently, will, or ever has, been in control of their existence.

My burden,.. I am to show that no one is or ever has been or ever will be in control of their OWN existence. Definition: existence; 1 aobsolete : reality as opposed to appearance b: reality as presented in experience c (1): the totality of existent things (2): a particular being d: sentient or living being : life 2 a: the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b: the manner of being that is common to every mode of being c: being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect 3: actual or present occurrence www.merriam-webster.com I will not limit my opponent to adhere to any conditions,.. I do not believe in calling out fallacy, or playing referee,... I feel the voters are smart enough to judge for themselves. With that I wish my opponent luck, if they so choose to take the debate. Thank you.
Semantics Debate: Sports cars are better than Smart Cars

A sports car is a car designed for high performance that usually seats two people. A street-legal race car, basically. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Smart car" refers to the Smart Fortwo, the compact car made by the Smart automobile brand. http://en.wikipedia.org... Whenever the phrase "Smart car" is used, it will refer to the Smart Fortwo unless stated otherwise. Remember, rebuttal and semantics do not start until Round 3. Now, here are my arguments. 1. Sports Cars are faster than Smart cars An average sports car can go well over 100 mph, while the Smart Fortwo's maximum possible speed is only 70 mph according to the above source. Thus, the Smart Car is clearly not a good choice for racing, high speed pursuits, or bragging. A sports car would be. 2. Sports cars are more luxurious and comfortable than Smart cars Smart cars are extremely compact. They just barely have enough room for the driver and a single passenger. As a result, they can be very cramped and uncomfortable. And to reduce weight as much as possible, they do not have very many features. This makes Smart cars inferior to sports cars when it comes to luxury and comfort. 3. Sports cars are safer than Smart cars As long as you obey the speed limit, driving a sports car would be much safer than driving a Smart car. To help the car run on its small motor, a Smart car is small, and is made of lightweight material. It could easily be flattened by a Hummer. On the other hand, a sports car, although also designed to be lightweight, is bigger and is made of stronger material. Because of its bigger size, a sports car can also contain more safety features. It's also designed to have good control. All of this makes you far less likely to crash, and even if you do, you're more likely to survive an accident in a sports car than a Smart car. These are my three main points, which Con can rebut in Round 3. Right now, Con will make his opening arguments. Go ahead.
Semantics Debate: Sports cars are better than Smart Cars

I have an interesting idea. Instead of the usual "no semantics" rule, let's make it so that you HAVE to use semantics. This debate is mostly for entertainment; vote for whoever used semantics the most awesomely. My stance is that sports cars are better than smart cars, while Con's stance will be that smart cars are better than sports cars. The burden of proof is split between us. Layout: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Both of us open with seemingly normal arguments Round 3: Semantics begins. Use semantics in any way necessary to rebut other arguments and prove your point. Round 4: Final rebuttal and conclusions Good luck.
Semantics Debate: Sports cars are better than Smart Cars

Therefore, Con's definition was illegitimate. Notice that on the Google dictionary source, "smart car" is typed in, and the first definition defines "smart car" as the Smart Fortwo. The words "Smart ForTwo" were not used, but the resulting definition is still of the Smart ForTwo. Therefore, this definition is completely legitimate. Also, Con has failed to rebut any of my opening arguments. All he's done is rebut my rebuttals. My original arguments have remained unrefuted throughout the entire debate. This should of course result in the arguments point to Pro. All I can do now is rebut Con's arguments for the last time. 1. Gas Mileage Most people are not attracted to the looks of the Smart car, and would say that sports cars are more attractive. The word you are looking for is "efficient," which does not mean the same thing as attractive, and therefore does not fit the definition of "better" Honda Civic CRX: You used Wikipedia as your source for Sports Compact, and you yourself said in Round 2 that Wikipedia is questionable. You are contradicting yourself, making this argument illegitimate. Also, it's "Sport compact", not "sports compact", making this entire rebuttal irrelevant. And if what you meant is that the Civic CRX is a Sport compact, so what? Sport compact is a type of sports car. Your own source says that it's high performance car, which fits the definition of sports car that we agreed on. The Honda Civic CRX qualifies as both a sports car and a sport compact. Thus, the Honda Civic CRX is a legitimate sports car, giving sports cars greater mileage than the Smart ForTwo. 2. Affordability We are not discussing the 2012 Audi TTS; it is nowhere near the most fuel efficient sports car of all time. The Honda Civic CRX has now been proven to be a type of sports car, and as shown before, the maximum price found was $5,000. This makes the exact same sports car less expensive than Smart cars. Besides that, "affordable" does not necessarily mean "attractive. " In conclusion, sports cars are without a doubt better than Smart cars. They are faster, safer, and more comfortable than Smart cars, and Con failed to rebut those points. They're also more attractive, and I have managed to turn Con's arguments around, proving that smart cars have better mileage, more affordability, and are more environmentally friendly, even though this has nothing to do with them being more attractive. I ask for the conduct point for Con's contradicting of himself (using Wikipedia) and for his unlawful use of semantics in the first Round. I believe are spelling/grammar is equal. I ask for the convincing arguments point because I have proven that sports cars are better than Smart cars in every way. Con also failed to rebut any of my arguments. I ask for the reliable sources point for Con's contradicting of himself (using Wikipedia). Other than that, I believe our sourcing was fairly equal.
Semantics Debate: Sports cars are better than Smart Cars

Con has failed to follow the rules. Round 1 clearly stated that semantics wouldn't start until Round 3. Con even recognized this in Round 2, and yet he still proceeded to use semantics in the first section of his post. Since he has not followed the rules, this should result in an automatic Pro win. Anyway, I did not post the definitions in Round 1 because I saved such things for Round 2. As I stated in the first post, Round 1 is solely for acceptance, and I never said you could place definitions there. You even broke your own rule by defining the term "better" in Round 2. Also, the Smart Fortwo is the very first definition on Google's web dictionary system. https://www.google.com... Now that it is Round 3, I will proceed to rebut Con's arguments. First, I would like to refute Con's definition of "better." Better does not mean "more advantageous/effective." According to Dictionary.com, the first definition of "better" is "of superior quality or excellence". (1) Even your own source puts "more attractive, favorable, or commendable" before the definition you chose. (2) Therefore, the term "better" will mean "of superior quality or excellence and/or more attractive, favorable, or commendable" 1. The Smart Fortwo has better gas mileage than sports cars Gas mileage is meaningless. It has nothing do do with being more attractive, favorable, etc. Besides that, you are incorrect in saying that the Audi TTS is the most fuel efficient sports car of all time. The correct answer is the Honda Civic CRX HF, which gets a maximum of 57 MPG. (3) That is far more than the Smart Fortwo, and therefore sports cars are more fuel efficient than Smart cars. 2. The Smart Fortwo is more affordable than sports cars. This is also meaningless for the same reason as above, and not only that, it isn't true. According to eBay Motors, you can get the above Honda Civic CRX for as little as $345, or as much as $5,000. (4) Now, take a look at the results for "smart fortwo" on eBay Motors. Even the used ones cost several thousand dollars. (5) Thus, sports cars can easily be more affordable than Smart cars. 3. Once again, being environmentally friendly does not make something "better" according to the definition. Even if it did, ALL cars can be recycled. On top of that, sports cars are bigger than Smart cars. Therefore, there is more material to recycle on sports cars than Smart cars, making them more environmentally friendly during the recycling process. The Smart Fortwo's smaller size does not necessarily mean less smog is produced; it just means you can produce more Smart cars while having just as much smog. I have now proven without a doubt that sports cars are better than Smart cars, in addition to the fact that Con broke the rules (even his own rules). Vote Pro for both of these reasons. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://money.cnn.com... (4) http://motors.shop.ebay.com... (5) http://motors.shop.ebay.com...
Voting should be compulsory

Voting should not be mandatory. In fact, mandatory voting, many interpret, is a violation of the first amendment of the constitution. We have a freedom of speech and the government cannot infringe on that right. Voting is considered part of your speech, and mandatory voting is infringing on that. What we don't say is just as important as what we do say. Many have fought for the freedom of speech. They gave us this freedom to be able to express ourselves, and if we wish to abstain, we should. In a democratic society, the people are the government. That doesn't mean we don't have to do something if we don't want to. It means that you have the ability to choose how the nation is governed. If you force someone to vote, then they cannot express what the wish accurately. Say you want to ban something, doesn't matter what, and I don't care either way, I would abstain. It's not in my interest to see this banned or see it pass because it will not affect me. I agree that everyone should participate, that doesn't mean that everyone has to participate. Some people might not vote because they don't care, which is fine. You can still complain about it because you have that right to speech. If they had voted, it might have turned out differently yes, but that doesn't mean that you should make it mandatory.
Voting should be compulsory

1) Because it's our duty to choose the people who will lead us Usually people who don't vote think like "Ok, there is idiot 1 and idiot 2, so who am I suppose to vote for?", But if we don't vote, then we're just giving up our right to choose, It's up to us to dig deeper and choose the better candidate. We should care about it. Because many and many people fought to have this freedom to vote. Many had lost their lives, but gave us the freedom. 2) The forcing is for better Actually, in democratic society, we don't have to do something if we don't want it. But we can't avoid taxes or choose not to go on recruit training whether we want it or not. Because it's for our natons' sake. And voting is just like that. Everyone should participate to have the right answer. 3) It decides the future Some people might choose not to vote maybe because their candidate is winning so far or they just don't care enough. But then the results might come differently. Then they complain without recalling the time they didn't care. IF those people who didn't care enough had voted, the future would've been different and maybe, better. Considering these, voting should be compulsory
Feminism Does Not Equate to Equality

Feminism was created at a time where women were indisputably discriminated. In the 1800s, women did not have equal rights as compared to men. During youth, they were denied proper education. When they grew up, they could not vote because they were seen as too dense and simple to know the complicated manners of politics. I do not agree with men"s past discriminations towards women. But we now live in a time where society"s views of women have tremendously changed. Women, particularly feminists, do not fight for equal rights (which we already have) but rather for equal treatment and for society to totally change the way they are viewed. Feminists always blabber about equality and how they fight for it, but isn"t equality for everyone? http://thoughtcatalog.com... Feminists always stick to the excuse that when women are raped and abused by men, it"s inequality. Many argue that simple catcalling of a woman is inequality. It is not. It"s injustice. (I"m not saying that I agree with the rapists" immoral actions, I am simply stating that feminists do not strive for equality at all, which is what they say they do.) If women really do want to address these problems, turning towards feminism is their biggest mistake. The abuse of women do not lie in gender discrimination but rather in social hierarchy. It"s the same case as a boy with glasses being bullied by a, say, rich kid (in this case, let"s make her a girl). Both genders are discriminated, not just women. The denotative definition of "feminism" is the "advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." I reiterate that women"s rights are already equal with those of men. I argue that feminism is irrelevant in today"s world in the sense that if women already have equal rights with men, then what is the point of still pursuing feminism? I believe that equality is not exclusive only to women, but to all humans. My rebuttal will be longer than the argument, depending on how well my opponent argues his/her points. Good luck to the future opponent.