BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overpopulation is a stupid, damaging myth.

1. You lamblast me for stating things without proving them. What are the actual growth rates in these countries. I've heard of studies that say the world population is going to level off and then sink within the next 50 years. I'm really curious about this population boom in Africa. The life expectancy over there is like 45 years. 2. Again, do you have statistics to prove that production is going down? 4. Horse hockey. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas. That was the case in 1999 anyway. Are we really so much worse off today? 5. Loss of economic desirability? Seriously? Do you know what that means? It means we're making so much of whatever they were growing that it is no longer profitable for them to make it. Thank you for proving my point. 6. What about China? They're the most overpopulated, so shouldn't they have the most starvation too? It's funny you talk about the demise of farming in Africa. You see, I take policy debate, and this year's topic happened to be Africa. Did you know that Africa works about 10%-50% of its usable farmland. I work in a restaurant. Forget other countries feeding themselves, I'd be willing to bet we could feed most of the starving people with just the things Americans throw away. And when you add in the food that we over eat, you've probably taken care of the rest of the starving people. Like I said, we could feed all the starving people, we're just to stupid or lazy to get it done. 7. Again where are YOUR statistics? Imagine what a growing aging population would do to a country with an infrastructure already ravaged by AIDS and poverty. This argument does not just apply to the US. 8. On behalf of all of the old people in the world, I would just like to officially apologize for them not dieing off fast enough. Sorry 45 is too old of a life expectancy for you. (I feel kind of bad about this last point, but you have to admit you asked for it. "Not dieing off fast enough," seriously).
Overpopulation is a stupid, damaging myth.

I will answer each of your arguments based off of your numbering. 1. Even if you are correct that growth rates are low in developed countries, the problem is in the developing nations of the world. Population growth rates are through the roof in under-developed countries and continents. Look at studies, rates are through the roof in india, china, and the entire African continent. India, and portions of africa alone, the largest population spots in the world are continuing to boom. 2. You are now conflating overpopulation and population density. You may be correct that the population lives on less than 97% of the earth's surface. However in looking at population growth rates it is a question of access to resources and the effect we have on the planet we use. Things like booming industrial rates is poisoning the rest of the planet. Destruction of the ozone, clear-cutting of forests etc. is killing our access of resources, we have way too many people consuming what is left on the planet to maintain a habitable planet. 3. See above, you conflate theories of overpopulation and population density. 4. There is no statistic that proves this. Also there are other conditions that effect what can be used for agriculture. Loss of rainfall or low precipitation rates in Missouri for the last couple of years has effected their ability to grow crops and hay stocks to maintain enough to support large livestock populations for cold winters. Also, due to poorer agricultural practices of the past have left some areas of land un-arable due to low soil quality or land that will not be productive for more than 3 seasons. This means it is impossible to have a form of sustainable agriculture. 5. Again strikingly similar to above. Also this is untrue. Being a kansan, I can see fields around my house that have stopped production due to poor quality of land or the loss of economic desirability. Kansas has also brought their production of crops like winter wheat to a staggering halt that hurts the ability of the state to feed more than even their own population. 6. Starvation and poverty has been on the rise when people have come to control resouces, which you call "bad distribution." It is this lack of access to resources in areas that could have susainability that proves overpopulation. Look to the demise of farming in Africa and India. Farming has no longer been able to keep up with their populations because of the booms over the last several decades. 7. See number 1, you focus only on overpopulation in the US. While you may win that overpopulation does not exist in the united states, boosted growth in other areas of the world have proved that birth rates our blowing death rates out of the water. So even if we shrink, other more problematic areas in the world get worse. 8. Even if babies are good, the elderly are not dieing off fast enough to sustain more babies. Widen your scopes, the world is bigger than america.
Overpopulation is a stupid, damaging myth.

1). Almost every developed country in the world has a below replacement fertility rate. 2). Humans occupy 1-3% of the world's surface. 3). Every person on Earth could go to Texas, and we'd still all have 1000 square feet of living space. This is slightly more living space than in San Fransico. 4). Farmers use less than half the land that could be used for agriculture. 5). Kansas alone could provide enough wheat to feed the world. 6). Starvation and poverty have always existed, even when the population was considerably less. It is a result of bad distribution and economic policy. 7). Witness the problems caused by the baby boomer generation. A shrinking aging population places a burden upon the coming generations. 8). Babies are good. Seriously.
Overpopulation is a stupid, damaging myth.

A concession? Thats no fun. I am very disappointed, however, that you concider research, more arguments, and persuading/educating the readers..a waste of time. Debate is all about education and persuasion. Even if you dont want to spend all of that time researching, you could have still made arguments. Thats all this is about, not bragging about winning, or getting mad about losses, its about discourse. Next you talk about the credibility of my evidence. If scientific studies and statistical analysis isnt credible, then nothing is. Actually nothing is probably credible anyway. You say that this is a presentation of one side or half truths, but that is true of anything that anyone ever writes. The real question is do you believe what they are saying. Even if you think everything I posted is a bunch of lies, you are probably right, but so is everything on the other side of this debate. Its all speculation. If you challenged me again to a debate on this topic, I would willingly take the other side. Why? I would get to spend the time researching the other side of this debate, more education, the potential for more discourse. We should find another topic to have a debate about, but only if you promise not to conceede the debate, I agree it was fun. Now, to answer the comment that Solarman left. You may think that this is a dumb and evil argument, and you may be right, however it is fun to talk about and research. If you are willing to have a debate about alternatives to overpopulation theory, I would be willing to toe the line. You say that people are duped and that the earth doesnt have feelings. That is not my argument, I never talked about any of the extremists who talk about the connection with Gaia or any of that, however, I do believe that if we destroy our environment, we only begin to harm ourselves. Thanks for the both of your insight, again, I am ready and willing to have a debate with either of you. Have a good evening.
Politics and Current Events should be a mandatory class in middle school

I believe that these should be mandatory classes, as it will avoid confusion in the future. Current events is eye opening, and it is a good subject for class discussion and controlled debate; exposing kids to real life situations that are going on in everyday life will prevent them from being naive in the future. Politics on the other hand, would focus on what makes a good politician, and what qualities meet your needs. It will allow kids in the future to make a wise vote, for them and their country. In politics you will also be taught the art of persuasion, and the basic wants and needs of an entire nation. They will research politicians, who they prefer, and unbiased thoughts from the teachers perspective. If these were mandatory through middle school, I feel that kids would be less naive, and know a lot more about the world around them.
The Confederate flag is not racist

I believe the Confederate flag is not a symbol of hate but as a symbol of history and proud heritage. If you would like to debate of this and a kind fashion setting I hope to be able to take anyoneon, it all states please have your facts in normal chronological order if not decide on a topic and I'll try to debunk it. Bring on your debates I will please ask nicely of no racism or hatred to anyone this is a fair equal grounds. This is my first time on the site in this is my first debate. I would like to be fair honest and take everyone's opinions into facts not to just stay with one's own personal beliefs.
Resolution: A creator of the universe exists.

Hello I am Sterling Contreras and I will debating the issue of whether a God exists. I would thank my opponent ahead of time for accepting. 16kadams is a conservative and I would like to thank him for coming here today. Definitions(as per Oxford):creator(as per definition 2):Goduniverse:the whole of space and everything in it, including the earth, the planets and the starsThis is the argument that is being made:Pro:Must maintain that a supernatural being(ie God) existsCon:Must maintain that a supernatural being is unlikely to exist.
Ps4 is better than the Xbox One

The PS4 offers free to play games along with it standard set of games. Also PSN's free game program offers far more current games than Xbox's Games with Gold. In a poll done by IGN the PS4 won in every category. The exclusives for Playstation consoles are far better. For example the Last of Us got onto all, but one of the Game Informer's Editors top ten list. Also unlike the Xbox One and Kinect, Playstation doesn't force you to buy the Playstation eye. Plus PS4 uses newer hardware, for example the PS4 employs DDR5 memory as opposed to DDR3 on the Xbox One. This means faster computations on PS4 which means more throughput.
English premier league vs Spanish la liga.

On my previous debate for this subject my opponent forfeited all the debating rounds, so I thought I would do it again. I will likely copy and paste my argument on that debate for this debate. I set the requirement as only a member ranked as good as or better than me as I want to have a good debate without forfeits unlike the previous one. I trust my opponent will have substantial knowledge of this subject before accepting this debate. Each of us will be trying to prove that their league is better. Pro will be attempting to give convincing evidence that the EPL (English Premier League) is better than the Spanish la liga. Con in the same way will be attempting to give convincing evidence that the la liga is better than the EPL. As each of us are doing the same thing only vise versa we each hold the burden of proof. Wikipedia may be used but only for definitions such as the following: Definitions: Spanish la liga: http://en.wikipedia.org... English Premier league: http://en.wikipedia.org... My arguments will be based on how good the teams in the leagues are, and how many good teams their are, how good the players are and how many their are in each league, how strong an attraction each league has to foreign players, how tough the leagues are. etc.... 1st round for acceptance. Debating starts in round two.
War can sometimes be justified

In my conclusion, I believe that war cannot be encouraged by our society or justified for the reason that war causes so many deaths, that it places our youth in chaos and provides them a horrid message, that it destroys our country's good name, and that the negative effects outweigh the positive. War is romanticized in movies and stories of fantastic and victorious battles that influence us greatly; it convinces us that war is alright and well. But the reality, is that our soldiers are being trained to murder the enemy. Large businesses use it as a means of profit while the remainder of us are losing grasp of the money that we would need for ourselves. When war occurs, we lose a great bundle of our sole rights for the reason that it is a time of crisis and apparently to the government, it is better to be safe and oppressed than to be free and in risk. When war occurs, nothing else matters in our society. We are putting our children in a difficult position for the fact that they will grow up amongst death, amongst weapons, amongst destruction and a rumpus of desperate and fearful citizens. They will believe that in order to solve our problems in life, we must murder every living being that is causing it, and that negotiation is not even considered. They would have to see their fathers go away to war without knowledge of whether or not he will ever return. If you are reading about it in a textbook, it does not sound so bad. But when you actually experience it for yourself, it almost does nothing positive for any one of us. War is, without a doubt, a most awful and destructive part of our history that, at rare moments has a couple positive effects. But for the most part, it is something you would sincerely wish to avoid as much as possible. I'm afraid that war would never truly cease for the fact that it is a simple option; we should learn it will be incredibly difficult to maintain peace. But that does not mean that it is impossible.
War can sometimes be justified

Since this is the last round I am only allowed to state my conclusion and no longer debate. Even though I'd really like to. I thank my opponent for debating with me on this topic. :D So in my conclusion, I believe that "some" wars can be justified. It would be extremely ridiculous to say that every single war in history is "unjustified." If we would have never defended ourselves in war, we have never had the freedoms we have now. A war such as the American Revolutionary war are "just" because we never would have shaped our country to the way it is otherwise. We would have been able to have the freedoms we have now such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and so on and so forth. We never would have developed our country to the way it is today. We never would of had immigrants who flocked to this country for opportunity who flocked here to have the freedoms in America that they couldn't express in their own countries. We never would have established a democracy, inspired France to establish a democracy, have all the rights that we have in the Constitution. We never would have progressed half as much as we have now. We have definitely made mistakes in the past, in wars, but we learn from our mistakes and that makes up who we are as a nation.
War can sometimes be justified

I do not feel that there is anything wrong with aiding our country as citizens, but how much is enough? We already assist our government with our income taxes and every other tax that they can think of imposing on us. 30% of our hard earned income goes to our government, and we never have a choice and are unaware of where are money is going. We are owing money just for being paid because every dollar we earn is that dollar plus interest. War affects us in so many ways, but do you really think we would be pleased if the money we work for goes to destruction of others instead of education? We already have enough weapons to supply us for a lifetime, and there is no country insane enough to even think of attacking us because of the quantity of weapons we own. Plenty other countries buy their weapons from us. So there is not even much of a likelihood of any other country aiming to attack us. We are much too powerful. You also said that we are penalized our rights and freedoms if we simply let a country attack us, which is not much of probability if we have not done anything to provoke the need to, but what really penalizes our rights and freedoms is when a nation is much too cautious about preventing attack. Recently, there has been a bill proposed in Congress that allows the U.S. military to operate as our police and that even citizens may be arrested without due process because of terrorists. This means we are not told why we are being arrested, given any rights, thrown in jail without a proper trial, and remain there for as long as they feel they should keep us. We really should avoid being extreme in situations such as this. This is when we are REALLY having our rights as human beings destroyed. By avoiding war, we are protecting our liberty because war causes suppression all of the time. When I said that war does nothing for our people, I had meant nothing positive. The Holocaust was incredibly significant to our people but a negative significance. If war had been avoided, the six million Jews would have never suffered through the starvation, the work, the constant sleepless nights, the torturous death walks and sickening experiments, and being separated from their loved ones forever. I find this most appalling and tragic; this was a most inhumane occurrence that occurred from what? War. I am not saying that war always has awful outcomes, because once in a blue moon it does have a few positive ones, but that it should never be justified or encouraged by our society.
War can sometimes be justified

If we are battling for our country to protect our people, and we believe we need to defend ourselves, then there is nothing wrong with the citizens helping out and providing resources to help out in the war. If our lives, country, and liberty are at stake, are we just going to sit there and let them attack our country helplessly because we believe that defending ourselves using violence isn't "just?" If our country is in danger then we will by all means pay higher taxes and help as much as we can to protect our liberty. Because war affects all of us and we as citizens have a job to ensure to that our liberty is still in tact. If we let a country attack us and take over our country, then we are all penalized our rights and freedoms. No violence isn't the right way to solve all of our issues but is that really significant when we are faced with the peril of our rights and liberty? Yes, violence is a last resort. But it still should be a resort. Do you seriously think that it is more important to be non violent that to protect our liberties? What about the American Revolutionary War? Was that war "unjust?" Would you honestly prefer to be under control of a country with no freedoms all because you vowed to be "non violent" and attempted to negotiate (Though negotiation would have probably not worked.) Or would you prefer to be an independent nation through the sacrifice of peace? We definitely have things dying for and that should be our country. What do you mean war does nothing for our people? What about the Holocaust? Did that not count? What about the American Revolutionary war? Yes war can be a means of profit but that isn't always the case. Don't forget, when wars are won, the economy improves significantly for the nation's people
War can sometimes be justified

You said how you believe that in cases of self-defense, war can be justified. These kinds of wars however, shatter the land you are attempting to protect. Need clarification? If we are battling for our country to protect our people, we are constantly taking their resources as a means to build machinery for the war, causing a tremendous amount of hypocrisy to our nation's democratic name by enforcing martial laws, internment camps and conscription. We are defending our peaceful society, and ruining it by spreading the message across that it is alright to use violence to solve our issues. What kind of a message are we sending to the children? They would grow up scarred for life from the constant fear of what would become of them from the war, unknowing whether their fathers would ever return, surrounded by death and gun shots rattling their ears as they fall asleep amongst the chaos. http://www.critic.co.nz... War always violates people's rights. You also said that war can be justifiable because negotiation does not always solve issues. Are you saying that it is alright to solve them by causing great havoc to our soldiers and to our people, to traumatize our children and to demolish our country's name? We are a democracy, and we have gone through war after war constantly. We are yet in wars with other countries, and evidently, these wars are not solving anything. If our issues were to be solved from such a hideous thing such as war, we would not still be in it. Furthermore, war's cons far outweigh the pros. War is mostly a means of profit to large businesses and does nothing for the soldiers whom have died in vain, and our nation's people.
War can sometimes be justified

I'll will be arguing that war can sometimes be justified while con will try to argue that war can never be justified 1) First of all, the idea that we can negotiate with every leader and prevent every war by simply negotiating, is simply naive Who can negotiate with people like Hitler? Neville Chamberlain has attempted negotiation with Hitler and created the Munich Agreement with him. But of course he broke the pact, because he simply couldn't be trusted http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...... It would be fine and dandy if everyone was peaceful, honest and had great intentions at heart. But honestly, that isn't true at all. Not everyone is going to cooperate in negotiation. That is just the way it is. The Civil War had caused plenty of destruction and carnage, but all in the name to stop slavery. That was a cause worth dying for. There was no stopping the Civil war. The South was definitely not up for negotiation. They wanted slaves and that was final. http://www.newsinhistory.com...... 2) Self Defense is "just" If a country attacks you, obviously you can't defend yourself by "negotiating" with the country. You have to take action, or that nation will take over and attack your country. It isn't being paranoid. It's just being realistic. Just like when somebody tries to attack you in the street. If you know how to defend yourself physically, then you will instinctively attack back. What if someone picks a fight with you after you've had some problems with them and you say, "Let's negotiate."? What if they continue punching you and ignore what you are saying? Are you just going to let them beat you up? You may think that is all they are going to do, but soon if you don't do anything they are going to start hunting down your family and destroying their homes. Are you just going to let them do that to your family? That is like war. You have to stand your ground if you want to live in peace That rests my opening arguments. :D
Lesbians cannot call there "mates" wives due to the fact that marriage is a religious concept

The Inuit argument still doesnt prove that in that cultural religion Homosexual marriage is allowed. I asked my Inuit Friend about the point you made, and that you are correct about the origin Story, but that you interpreted it totally wrong. The moral of that story was simply not to be homosexual because it is nonfunctional and has no purpose. So my argument is neither wrong or right, because neither me or you have solid global historical evidence. This is quite unsettling.