BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Electric cars should be a priority in plans to fight global warming

Thanks to Pro for offering the challenge and presenting the arguments for electric cars as a solution to global warming.Pro claims he answered my question as to what he would do, by mandate or subsidy, to make electric cars a priority. I don't see any sign of that. He also claims to have said how much it would cost. I don't see any sign of that either. Pro provided no analysis of costs and benefits.I calculated the cost of replacing the fleet of cars with electrics and of converting fossil fuel power plants to wind and solar. CO2 is only saved if the power plants are converted, otherwise the CO2 generation is just moved from the cars to the power plant. Optimistically $25 trillion would save about 0.01 degree in global warming. Pro did not contest my calculations or provide an alternative claim. The estimate is optimistic, because electric cars have a short range and many people will be unwilling to accept that severe limitation.I'm not opposed to electric vehicles. They may be useful in lowering the concentration of pollution in central cities, although right now the economics are not favorable even for that. However, as a means of stemming global warming the high cost and low benefit rules them out as being an sort of a priority. Electric cars might also provide a reduction in foreign oil dependence, again if the economics of the vehicles can be improved.What should be a priority is research on climate engineering. Pro did not rebut my claim that climate engineering offers a much greater payoff at much lower cost. Climate engineering might yield a degree or more of cooling for under $1 trillion.Pro did not meet the burden of proof. The resolution is negated.
Chess should be recognized as a sport!

"You've only further proven how unsportsman-like and..." In what way have I been unsportsman-like? I accepted an OPEN CHALLENGE, then when you backed out graciously offered a draw, then when you resorted to adolescent insults I tried to respond with logic and rational thought, to which you have once again responded with insults. "..hostile you really are". That one I'll cop to. I am hostile. For the reason, see previous paragraph. "I hope Con will exercise his right to read". I hope Pro will exercise his right to think before he posts. " utilize some common sense while debating on this website in the future." Don't be the Instigator for a debate you don't want!! There's some common sense!! "shouldn't reward behavior that promotes trolling and rudeness". Let's start with rudeness. I have not fired a single insult at you, despite you calling me a troll and "a dick". And somehow you suggest I'VE been the rude one?! As for trolling, let's see. You posted something online to provoke a response, had no intent of actually carrying an honest discussion of the topic you originally posted about, and when simple logic was pointed out you responded with sophomoric insults and STILL refuse to discuss your own original premise. That's right down the checklist for Hall of Fame Internet Troll, First Ballot Inductee. "And I again encourage any prospective voters to ignore this debate". At least there's one thing we agree on. To be honest I'm embarrassed to be a part of this debacle. And quite honestly highly disappointed. I was looking forward to a fun discussion of a game I suspect we both love. Why you had to send it so insanely off the track is beyond me. "I wish con luck in his future debates." And I you. Perhaps you should stick to being the Contender rather than the Instigator however, just so this situation isn't repeated with someone else. Just looking out for everyone's well-being. If you ever want to have an actual debate on this topic let me know.
Chess should be recognized as a sport!

You resort to immature name-calling (seriously, "being a dick"?) and in the same breath accuse ME of poor sportsmanship? Unbelievable. And "I have no time to debate right now"? THEN DON'T POST THE DEBATE IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And not to nitpick, but I never suggested you "blundered a checkmate". I suggested you blundered into a checkmate. The person actually executing the checkmate in my hypothetical did so flawlessly.
Chess should be recognized as a sport!

It's definitely not the equivalent of blundering a checkmate. It's called common decency and common sense on this website. Accepting when you know your opponent doesn't intend to debate yet is called a being a dick, which Nobody on this site respects. If you want to have a 'draw' which is the same thing then that's fine with me, either way I have no time to debate right now and no interest in debating someone with poor sportsmanship. however, If con wants to play a game of chess, sure, I'd whip you in a game for shittles and giggles.
Chess should be recognized as a sport!

Why would you instigate a debate if you weren't prepared for someone to accept it? And if you intended only to have the debate accepted on your terms, why not make the qualifications to accept the debate impossible, requiring your approval? That said, I offer the following options: 1. We use Round 3/4 to make this a 2 round debate regarding your thesis "Chess should be recognized as a sport" OR 2. We mutually agree this "debate" will be a draw. And maybe next time don't instigate a debate then complain because someone accepted it. If you want to debate something but don't have the details worked out don't instigate the debate yet. Or at least make it so you have to approve an acceptance. You can't blame me for simply accepting a challenge. I'm being nice BTW by offering that second option. This seems to me to be the debate equivalent of 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nc6 3. Qh5 Nf6...o darn!! 4. Too late, you took your hand off it.
A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion.

This is basically Pro's entire argument:"PRO is simply stating that in considering the purchase of a shoe, she SHOULD consider its utility before its fashion. Other women might take fashion first, and that is their right. However I have seen shoes that are outright ridiculous and some women buy them anyway."Notice this part: "otheir women might take fashion first, and that is their right."Pro essentially conceded the debate right here. While some women might choose utility over style, others don't. Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should their opinion be forced on all women? Maybe to you, women should choose utility, but for others, they want to choose style, and are ok with a little discomfort. But let's assume Pro does speak for all women. Their point is that some shoes are bad for health, therefore women shouldn't wear them. I concede that wearing shoes such as stilettos or thin flip flops aren't good for feet, but like most things, in moderation, they are ok. No one wears stilettos all the time. Even at formal events, people often take them off. As a high school sophomore, I recently attended homecoming for the second time. Keep in mind that as sophomores, this is the only dance we can go to. One of the tables was set aside just for the girls' shoes. The entire table was covered in them. And every girl in my group took off their high heels at the dance. Or, take offices, the other place where high heels and other "uncomfortable" shoes may be worn. No one stands up at offices; everyone sits. The point of the above paragraph is to show no one actually wears high heels and other similar shoes regularly, and even when women do wear heels, they rarely actually stand on them.
A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion.

My argument is simple: FreedomAccording to the US Declaration of Independence, all men have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The most important of these is liberty.Liberty is definined as: "The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views"Although it may sound silly to compare the freedom of wearing shoes to important civil rights, the basic principle behind giving black Americans the same rights as White Americans is the same as allowing people to choose the type of shoes they want to wear.Now while you may personally value utility over style, some women may not feel the same as you. Thus, they have the right to choose whatever they want to wear.Next, the shoe industry is a 52 billion dollar industry, employing 164,000 people. Women's dress shoes make up 13% of that market, meaning it is a 7 billion dollar industry, employing 21,000 people. Can you justify destroying this just because you personally dislike dress shoes?Finally, you state: "Her foot health is important" This implies you believe dress shoes or flip flops negatively affect women's health. I would like you to provide a source for this claim.
A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion.

Rebuttals:"PRO then takes this statement and substitutes " safety" for "their opinion" and " caution" for utility" and "recklessness" for "style" and "death" for "discomfort"Con is then saying. .. . "Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should safety be forced on all women ( in crossing the street) ? Maybe to you, women should choose caution ( in crossing the street) , but for others, they want to choose recklessness ( in crossing the street) , and are ok with a little death. "This is a ridiculous comparison. You are comparing wearing high heels to doing an extremely dangerous activity likely to result in death or serious injuries. Wearing heels a few times a month won't do any harm, much like a cigar every once in a while or a few beers a week won't do damage. But walking across the street once, even once, will likely result in you being in the hospital or morgue. "Con then essentially concedes the debate by stating " I concede that wearing shoes such as stilettos or thin flip flops aren't good for feet," which is why PRO ADVISES women to consider utility. "In extended periods of time, sure. "Con then states "Even at formal events, people often take them off. " which supports PRO's position"No, it really doesn't. Your argument is that high heels hurt women's health, so they shouldn't wear them, but these effects only show if women wear heels for extended periods of time. If they don't, there are no negatives. The positives, looking pretty, formal, and elegant, outweigh the nonexistent downsides. ConclusionI hope that all voters vote Con. Pro's argument is that wearing this type of footwear will hurt women's health, therefore they shouldn't wear this type of footwear. Con counters this by stating negative health effects only show after extended and frequent periods of time on high heels. Few people actually wear heels for periods of time long enough to do damage to their feet, making Pro's argument mute. Furthermore, Con contends that since there are no downsides to wearing heels for short periods of time, women should wear them if they want to. If a lady looks good in heels, why should she not wear them? Heels are elegant, formal, and can be good for self esteem. Why not wear them to formal events? Finally, why should Pro's personal objection to wearing heels be forced on women? They should have the right to choose what they want to wear.
A woman should pick shoes based on utility before fashion.

CON is again making several unwarranted assumptions. Con assumes that PRO's advising rather than commanding is a concession. WRONG. Con is erring in not understanding the difference between "should" and "must". PRO is essentially saying that one SHOULD look both ways before crossing a street. PRO is advising and with good foundation. PRO is not commanding vigilance in neither street crossing nor footwear. Con says "Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should their opinion be forced on all women? Maybe to you, women should choose utility, but for others, they want to choose style, and are ok with a little discomfort. " PRO then takes this statement and substitutes " safety" for "their opinion" and " caution" for utility" and "recklessness" for "style" and "death" for "discomfort" Con is then saying...."Who is Pro to speak for all women, and why should safety be forced on all women ( in crossing the street) ? Maybe to you, women should choose caution ( in crossing the street) , but for others, they want to choose recklessness ( in crossing the street) , and are ok with a little death. " Con then essentially concedes the debate by stating " I concede that wearing shoes such as stilettos or thin flip flops aren't good for feet," which is why PRO ADVISES women to consider utility. Con then states "Even at formal events, people often take them off." which supports PRO's position Con then says " Or, take offices, the other place where high heels and other "uncomfortable" shoes may be worn. No one stands up at offices; everyone sits. " Con's assertion that these shoes are "uncomfortable" supports PRO's argument. Also in many offices there is much standing. Along those same lines, nurses and waitresses certainly have already taken PRO's advise. Here is further source material to support PRO.... "A new study by researchers in the department of epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, published last month in The Journal Of Foot And Ankle Surgery, shows that injuries from high heels doubled over a period of 11 years " from an estimated 7,097 injuries in 2002 to an estimated 14,140 injuries in 2012. The researchers projected the number of total injuries based on how many were treated in emergency rooms each year. One might guess that such injuries would happen most often at a party, or, say, walking down a cobblestone street. But as Mashable reports, the study reveals that almost half of high heel injuries happen inside the home. In other words, you now have yet another excuse to be as comfortable as possible when you"re hanging out at home."(1) (1)https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

My oponent states: "It's a shame that so many atheists feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of bringing serious logical argument to the table. " He thinks that an all mighty all powerful all knowing "being" which created the entire universe, yet never has been created himself, is "logical". Which of course he cant prove his own "logic" (nor can anyone) becuase, he cannot be felt, nor he can be seen. My oponent states: "Nothing about you, or me, or anyone could possibly be stronger than God, as we depend on Him for our very existence. " I dont depend on him, I never did. He has nothing to do with my existence, nor he has anything to do with yours. My oponent states: "Your theories are aliens and time travel (which I haven't said I disagree with) are not the subject of this debate" They bring an entirely new perspective to any debate. E. g: travel back in time, ask jesus performs a miracle, save the humanity when he cant. About aliens: they can be our creators yet they dont have to be so "spiritual" like the god you described with using your own/someonelse's imagination. Conclusion: Pro uses his own plus everyonelse's imagination to make his statement, yet he wont allow me to use my own. Which is unfair.
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

"I think my opponent is on to something here. It seems that he recognizes that God is the only rational explanation for the existence of our universe (time, space, etc.)" statement of my oponent. What my oponent did not understand here is I stated god exists only in his imagination. The only reason he is not locked up deep inside an asylum is because there is an ancient book written on skins of animals. Considering he thinks god (assuming there is one) is all powerful, I can assure you he is not stronger than my free will. You have quite an imagination to believe in some all-powerful thing, yet you just choose not to believe time travel can be possible (it is only because you have never seen someone who can do it, yet you have never seen god either). Its fine you dont want to believe in my theories, then again, you cant expect me to believe in yours.
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

My oponent has changed his statement to: "a maximally great being must necessarily not exist solely within time." So now I have to deal with the statemet: god can be within time and be "outside" of time at the same time. marvelous. Conclusion: It appears to me only another imaginary all-powerful being can fight to this kind of imaginary being. The commanding officers of templars did a great job. An imaginary, all-powerful creature which exists everywhere and nowhere at the same time, created everything, yet never been created. Big bang? god made it (even if science prooves it happened). Time? God created it. Dimensions? god has been in all of them at once. While creating them. We need to work on time travel in order to sort this out. Or make contact with alien life forms who might have a clue if they exist somewhere within the universe. Untill one of these two events occur, noone on this planet can fight such powerful imaginary concept. As we know, even without the religious books, human imagination has not limits. Peace, stay cool bro :)
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

1. Rebuttal"According to my opponent's conclusion god cannot exist within time."By this I mean to say that God cannot exist solely within time. My apologies if this was unclear. I thought the concept of God's transcendence was self-apparent when looking at my argument as a whole. I see no conflict between the concept of a maximally great being and the concept of a transcendent being. It seems to me that a maximally great being must necessarily be transcendent (in other words, a maximally great being must necessarily not exist solely within time). As such, there is nothing contradictory about the definition I have provided for God."What my opponent doesnt understand here is, if i can manage to refute his definition of god, i dont have to refute his proposals about why is the "god" best explanation of etc."What an incredibly unfounded assumption. Even if my opponent was able to show that my definition (a maximally great being) was somehow incoherent or contradictory, which he so far has not been able to do, this would only count as evidence against the third argument I presented. The first two arguments I provided do not need a maximally great being, only a creator of the universe and a moral law-giver. As such, even if my opponent were to show an incoherence or contradiction in my definition (a maximally great being) he would still be left with two arguments to deal with. That being said, I would like to make it clear that my opponent has not in any way shown that there is anything wrong with God being a maximally great being. 2. Summary I addressed my opponent's objection to the concept of a maximally great being (which attacks only my third argument) and showed that there is no inconsistency between the argument itself and the concept of a maximally great being. If I am correct, then my third argument remains standing for now.My opponent has continually failed to even attempt to address the other two arguments I presented at the beginning of the debate. Furthermore, he has yet to put forward a single argument in favor of his own position that atheism is true. We can conclude for now that there are 3 sound arguments in favor of theism and 0 sound arguments in favor of atheism. I urge my opponent to attempt to address each of my arguments and put forward his own arguments to defend his position.
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

My opponent stated such: "The problem with this objection is that God transcends space and time. So, God is not constrained by temporal events. Rather, God exists outside of time. This is a characteristic that can be derived from His maximal greatness: P1) It is greater to transcend time than to be constrained by time. P2) If God exists, He must be maximally great (i.e. hold all maximally great-making properties). C1) God cannot exist within time." According to my opponent's conclusion god cannot exist within time. If god cannot exist within time (we may also consider he is not allowed within time, he does not hold the power to get out of time once he is in etc.), yet we can, this makes us superior from god in a way. If we are superior than god, god cant be all maximally great. If god cant maximally be great, then my opponents definition would be wrong. As we know, a wrong definition cant be used in a debate. What my opponent doesnt understand here is, if i can manage to refute his definition of god, i dont have to refute his proposals about why is the "god" best explanation of etc.
Which position has better supporting arguments? Theism vs. Atheism

Thanks, Neoman.1. RebuttalMy opponent attempts to show that if God is not infinite, then He must not exist:"Coming into conclusion that god cannot be infinite, we have to assume that he must have a period of existence, and his existence will have to end as we know he cannot be an infinite being."My opponent's rebuttal to God's existence can be organized in this way:P1) If God exists, then He must have experienced an infinite amount of past events.P2) An infinite amount of past events is incoherent.C1) Therefore, God does not exist.The problem with this objection is that God transcends space and time. So, God is not constrained by temporal events. He does not have a beginning point or an end point, nor does He exist within an infinite amount of time (as my opponent points out, this is problematic). Rather, God exists outside of time. This is a characteristic that can be derived from His maximal greatness:P1) It is greater to transcend time than to be constrained by time.P2) If God exists, He must be maximally great (i.e. hold all maximally great-making properties).C1) God cannot exist within time.We can see from this that God, if He exists, exists necessarily outside of space and time. As such, my opponent's objection has no standing and the first argument holds sound, for now at least.2. Summary The objection posed by my opponent seems to attempt to discredit the third argument I presented. As we saw, this objection has no ground due to God's existing outside of space and time as opposed to being constrained by time (therefore not needing to exist through an infinite number of past events, as my opponent seemed to suggest).My opponent had nothing to say about the first two arguments I gave with respect to the origin of the universe and the existence of objective moral values and duties. I would remind my opponent that in order to win this debate, he must not only refute each of the arguments I've presented, but also present his own arguments in favor of his position that atheism is true. In other words, even if my opponent is able to knock down all three of my arguments, he has only pushed the debate to a draw. I invite my opponent to bring forward arguments supporting his own position.For now, then, all three of my arguments hold sound whereas my opponent has 0 sound arguments in support of his position.