BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The voting age should be reduced to 16

Same argument, same answer: I agree with you when you said that is unconstitutional be paying taxes without representation, but this situation must be resolved since a reform of the quantity or kind of taxes that the under 16 should pay. The average teenagers has not showed to be enough rational or knower about politics and how does the world work. If you suggest something to change the status quo you should show some objetive evidence that support your argument. And I repeat, the main point to set the age to be able to vote are not the taxes, is the maturity of people. Regards.
The voting age should be reduced to 16

I agree that there are adults who have little knowledge about politics, but the majority, are more analytical and have more experience to take a decisi"n. And also, there are 16 years old guys with an extraordinary political sense, but those are the minority. But, you can not determine case by case who is able to make an intelligent choice. So you have to appeal to well defined segmentations, in this case, by age, and by majorities or average.
Bad Company 2 is better in multiplayer than Modern Warfare 2

I'm very glad to have the chance to debate with you. firstly, nothing touches the multiplayer that CODMW2 has. When you play you have a sort of the euphoric state in which you submit yourself to for the duration of the game. This is evident when you are able to call in Air strikes, EMPs, and most notably the AC 130, which is the epitome of domination and greatness alike. secondly, I would like to ask my opponent if they have ever REALLY played CODMW before? Obviously you either haven't, or you're one of those anti-conformist who simply say it's not as good just so you feel good about yourself in the fact that everyone else in the world is against you. thirdly, the MW2 stimulus that was added just the other day that MW2 is a more topical, more interactive MP that refreshes itself and doesn't get old. Thank you
Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

(OK so now this is the fourth and final debating round, first of all good luck to my opponent, you have done really well and your information has been really well researched. :) Now I will move away from the whole 'cancer and tumour' subheading as we have discussed that a bit too much. In my fourth and last point I will be talking about additional health risks (no, not cancer) cell phone radiation causes the body in both genders. These are sleep quality, baby development and pacemaker functioning. I will start by explaining how it affects sleep quality. It doesn't just harm your eyes from the powerful light phones emit but can also cause insomnia, headaches and confusion. The radiation may also disrupt production of the hormone melatonin, which controls your body"s internal rhythms. Baby Development: How it is affected. The national public awareness campaign, called the BabySafe Project, is being coordinated by Grassroots Environmental Education and Environmental Health Trust, and is based on independent scientific research linking exposure to wireless radiation from cell phones during pregnancy to neurological and behavioral problems in offspring that resemble Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children. Finally, how cell phone radiation affects pacemakers. For those of you who don't know what a pacemaker is, it is a small machine that helps people with heart conditions like irregular heartbeat and heart block. A pacemaker is a device that gives off electrical impulses to your heart. These make your heart beat more regularly. It consists of a battery, a tiny computer and a generator in a thin metal box, along with wires that connect the pacemaker to your heart. Now for a cell phone's radiation to affect this is a gigantic danger to the person. If it makes the pacemaker suddenly stop working by the cell phone's radiation interfering with the pacemaker's signal it can have even fatal results. The ways they interfere are; -Stopping the pacemaker from delivering the stimulating pulses that regulate the heart's rhythm -Causing the pacemaker to deliver the pulses irregularly -Causing the pacemaker to ignore the heart's own rhythm and deliver pulses at a fixed rate Like I said, this can have even FATAL impacts on the user. So now after all the reasons I have given about how cell phone radiation affects humans, you must be on my side by believing that cell phone radiation is not good for humans. My reasons were, that cell phone radiation can have an impact on brain cancer and tumours, it affects baby development, it affects sleep quality and interferes with pacemakers. These are my reasons why I STRONGLY believe that cell phone radiation is a big NO. Thank you :)
Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Your whole entire argument on round 3 is based of that article. I'll be telling you why it's not enough information to support your claim. "I derived this information from a reliable website." Just saying that doesn't make it reliable. You have to look on more than one site, and the things you want to look for is ".org" or ".gov"! Anyone can just get a ".com", so you have to be careful. Your site is something I never heard of, and here is another site mentioning the study conducted, and why it isn't conclusive: "A recent small study in people has shown that cell phones may also have some other effects on the brain, although it"s not clear if they"re harmful. The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain"s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown." https://www.cancer.org... Notice how it is a ".org" In one study that followed more than 420,000 cellphone users over a 20-year period, researchers found no evidence of a link between cellphones and brain tumors. Another study found an association between cellphones and cancer of the salivary glands. However, only a small number of study participants had malignant tumors. Another study suggested a possible increased risk of glioma " a specific type of brain tumor " for the heaviest cellphone users, but no increase in brain tumor risk overall." https://www.mayoclinic.org... It is also a ".org" Bring me more than an article. When official sites call out that study made and why it's not conclusive, your argument then becomes not conclusive.
Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Yes, scientists might say that the radio frequency the user receives is not enough to cause any harm to them, but the average person uses their mobile phone for more than 5 hours per day. Think about how much radio frequency your body absorbs during those 5 hours! But it's not just that, majority of people sleep with their phones on their nightstand, turned on and receiving wifi, those are another minimum 7 hours of your body receiving more radio frequency plus carrying it around in your purse or pocket all day. Basically you could be with your phone for the whole 24 hours of a day. I derived this information from a reliable website. Even if you don't use a cell phone for hours each day, research by leading brain imaging researcher Nora D. Volkow, MD of the National Institutes of Health, revealed that after just 50 minutes of cell phone exposure, the emitted radiation increases brain cell activity in the region closest to the cell phone antenna. From: https://articles.mercola.com... We keep on hearing that cell phone radiation has NOTHING to do with brain tumours, cancers, etc. but people think and say this because the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, taking for example smoking causing lung cancer, it takes about three to six months for most lung cancers to double their size. Therefore, it could take several years for a typical lung cancer to reach a size at which it could be diagnosed on a chest X-ray. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

That is like trying to overdose on weed. It will take around 100,000 puffs in less than a half an hour to be dangerous. The amounts are so small, no effects really is going to be done. I recieved this from an official website. "The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy. It has been suggested that radiofrequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but two small studies that examined brain glucose metabolism after use of a cell phone showed inconsistent results. Whereas one study showed increased glucose metabolism in the region of the brain close to the antenna compared with tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2), the other study (3) found reduced glucose metabolism on the side of the brain where the phone was used. Another study investigated whether exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cell phones affects the flow of blood in the brain and found no evidence of such an effect (4). The authors of these studies noted that the results are preliminary and that possible health outcomes from changes in glucose metabolism are still unknown. Such inconsistent findings are not uncommon in experimental studies of the biological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (5). Some contributing factors include assumptions used to estimate doses, failure to consider temperature effects, and lack of blinding of investigators to exposure status." Source: https://www.cancer.gov...
Cell Phone Radiation is Safe for Humans

Hello, I hope you have fun debating this topic with me!This first round is just about putting your idea forward and stating what you're going to be talking about, so it's basically an introduction. Don't comment any facts or data or your arguments in general. This is just to give an opinion about the topic then in rounds 2, 3 and 4 you can do your reasons.I strongly believe that cell phone radiation is not safe for humans of any age. So cell phone usage should be reduced.I hope you enjoy debating this important topic with me, future opponent, and may the debate begin!
We are too dependent on computers

Your argument is illogical in a number of ways. You say that we use computers in a variety of things such as airplanes, but doesn't that mean that we are dependent on them? Secondly, the question is not asking whether computers are beneficial for mankind, but rather if w are dependent on them or not. Preceding with my argument, I believe that we are dependent on computers because ever since they have been invented, we are constantly relying on them for everyday use. Almost every teenager has some sort of computer whether it is a cellphone, laptop, or tablet. They do not know how to do schoolwork or fight their boredom without it. With Google, Microsoft word, and social media, people are constantly relying on computers and do not know how to fend without it. If a student was told to write an essay without a computer, they would discover that it is extremely difficult because of their dependency on google for research. With technology advancing, computers are evolving almost everywhere, and if suddenly that disappeared, all hell would break loose and nobody would know what to do.
Creationist is true

1. Darwin's finches wasn't my point it was just in the video. 2. I don't know about you but I would rather go to heaven than hell because the bibles says "hell is a lake of fire, and as you lay there burning for eternity you'll scream out and satan the deciever will laugh and spit in your face." It also says in the bible " As Satan is laughing at you you will have a swarm of maggots crawling through your body and laying eggs in your entrils." Heaven on the other hand is described as paradise with streets of gold and buildings made of jasper. People who go to heavens will also get to spend eternity with their loved ones. Second Video: 1.So if creationism isn't the only alternative what do you suppose are the other alternitives 2.Here's your proof the big bang is false again please watch this video http://www.youtube.com... 3.watch his earlier videos he does actually show a text book
Creationist is true

-Counterarguments- 1. So you say God wasn't created. So explain to me, why can't this be the same for the universe? 2. My opponent seems to pass by his dismissal of big bang. Seeing as he gave no evidence against the validity of the big bang, I'll just give one reason why the big bang should be supported. According to Hubble's law, distant galaxies are redshifted; galaxies are moving father apart. From this, there are two possible explanations. Either we are the center of the universe, or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. The first explanation is false due to the Copernican principle, so therefore we can conclude that the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. Go back in time and it should have all started from a singularity, its kinda like reverse engineering. [1] 3. Wow, talk about a BIG generalization of how Darwin started on his path to confirming evolution. First of all, when Darwin came upon the famous finches, he did not even realize that they were evidence for a common ancestor. He just took many samples, and wrote some notes about how his suspicions are increasing about the possibility of a common ancestor, but he didn't realize the importance of the finches. When he brought samples back, John Gould identified them to be entirely new species of finches, about twelve of them. Yeah that's right, Darwin didn't even KNOW the finches he brought back were finches, he thought they were different types of birds. [2] So no, evolution isn't "based off beaks". This realization just led Darwin to help discover the process of natural selection; something fundamental to evolution which sparked support for it in the scientific community. Since then, we have found TONS of evidence, ranging from comparative anatomy to the fossil record. You have nothing so far against evolution, and it's only your personal bias that is preventing you from seeing the truth. -Contentions- 1. Creationism isn't true for many fundamental reasons. People argue that there's evidence for creationism BECAUSE they claim to disprove or punch holes into evolution. Obviously, this is committing the false dilemma fallacy. My opponent has yet to address this point. ---Reference--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Creationist is true

"I beg of you sir, who or what created the big bad bearded man in the sky who supposedly made the universe?" - God created the universe and everything in it. I did make a mistake not believing the world started with nothing. It says in the bible " In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". And you asked who created the Creator. No one it also says in the bible that "God was always, is always, and will always be." "Ay, caramba! So now you attack evolution, of course. Evolution is not a linear line of progression, it's more like a branching tree. We did not evolve from monkeys, but both monkeys and us humans came from the same common ancestor; this is the basic underlying of evolution. As of now, I won't touch this statement since you haven't argued anything against evolution, instead you have us a nice example of the argument from personal incredulity (it's a logical fallacy if you didn't know). You fail to give any reason or evidence of why evolution is false, so as of now I don't find it necessary to even defend it." - You want me to give you evidence? ok I will. Obviously you know who Charles Darwin is. Well he founded the concept of evolution when traveling. He saw a flock of the same species of bird he noticed that each one had a different beak size so he concluded that all things must have a common ancestor. So evolution is based off beaks.
Creationist is true

"The concept of earth being created is true because everything couldnt have just appeared out of nowhere in the universe it had to be created by something." -I beg of you sir, who or what created the big bad bearded man in the sky who supposedly made the universe? "What scientists believe is that there was a whole bunch of atoms clumped together and all of a sudden they just exploded creating the universe." Ouch, some fundamental mistakes there my friend. -The big bang does not attempt to explain what created the universe, what started the creation of the universe, or even what is outside the universe, etc. -Rather, it is a model describing the evolution of the universe. -It expanded, not exploded. -Eh, more like matter and energy were inseparable, as where the four primary forces of the universe: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak nuclear force. "This theory or myth is called the big bang, but what happened before the big bang?" -Two things I have to say about this statement. First of all, who created the Creator, and the big bang never tried to explain what caused the expansion. Asking this kind of question is asking what "came before time", kinda like saying what is "north of the North pole". Frankly, scientists don't agree on what caused the big bang, but this doesn't mean that it validates Creationism. -The second point is quite a pet peeve of mine, because it's such a fundamental mistake people so commonly make. I'm pretty positive that in your thinking, science kinda goes in like this: Hypothesis< Theory< Law. Obviously, such thinking is false. -A scientific theory is a model based on a collection of facts that can make predictions and explain natural phenomena. The THEORY of gravity explains why objects of mass attract each other. Scientific laws are analytic statements and are universal facts of the world. In fact, a theory can contain a SET of laws in it. "And how can humans be fish then anphibians then monkeys then us. Unless something's gone wrong in the animal kingdom that's not possible." -Ay, caramba! So now you attack evolution, of course. Evolution is not a linear line of progression, it's more like a branching tree. We did not evolve from monkeys, but both monkeys and us humans came from the same common ancestor; this is the basic underlying of evolution. As of now, I won't touch this statement since you haven't argued anything against evolution, instead you have us a nice example of the argument from personal incredulity (it's a logical fallacy if you didn't know). You fail to give any reason or evidence of why evolution is false, so as of now I don't find it necessary to even defend it. And so, you are committing the informal fallacy of a false dilemma. Even if evolution AND the big bang failed to explain their respective fields, this doesn't give Creationism any merit.
Creationist is true

The concept of earth being created is true because everything couldnt have just appeared out of nowhere in the universe it had to be created by something. What scientists believe is that there was a whole bunch of atoms clumped together and all of a sudden they just exploded creating the universe. This theory or myth is called the big bang, but what happened before the big bang? The universe was blank? No. And there was no big bang. The universe Was created. And how can humans be fish then anphibians then monkeys then us. Unless something's gone wrong in the animal kingdom that's not possible.
Creationist is true

*Counterarguments* Since he forgot how to count, I'll number mine relative to his order. 1. Obviously you haven't a good argument, seeing that your creationist myth has been thoroughly debunked. 2. Or other means, such as dimensions, etc. I never said it had to be a WHO, it can be a WHAT. 3. Thus you have no valid argument. *Kent Hovind Section* 1. For millions of reasons no. First, you would probably die, but for the sake of argument let's say you don't. Humans are unique from every other species on this planet because we bend the rules. While animals adapt to nature, as is the core of evolution, humans make nature adapt to us. We have tools and technology, so evolution is hardly a factor. But assuming that you and your generations after you had no knowledge of science or technology and can not discover science or technology, which is VERY VERY unlikely given human intelligence, then yes you could evolve into some other kind of creature with perhaps amphibian like details. If rational arguments don't daunt your belief, then nothing will. As is the nature of blind faith. PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES. *Conclusion* In the progress of this 5 round debate, my opponent has supplied nothing. He drops all his initial points, fails to refute any of mine, and switches the topic in every round.
Creationist is true

*counter arguments* 2. obviously you would rather go to hell because you constantly reject Jesus. 3. So your saying it's possible aliens could have created the universe, that would still be creationism. 4. thus the big bang isn't real *Kent Hovind Section* 1. I have a question, if you were to put me in Antartica for 100000000 years with a girl would I become some new species of ice fish? NO. If this doesn't save you then theres nothing else I can do but watch get thrown into the hell on judgement day. PLEASE GET SAVED.
Taxing Corporate Emissions

With the ever mounting concerns surrounding the global warming crisis, it is in the best interest of humanity that the next leader of the free world prioritizes effective policy making to cope with this. Obviously, our current administration has been useless in this regard. It is past time for a change. Our next leader must have a proactive approach in dealing with the environment, most notably carbon emissions. In short, I believe the Obama plan you speak of is a step in the right direction. I'm not sure why you're against this, so I will await your stance.