BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Euthanasia

Euthanasia should be illegal and more funding should be given to things such as palliative care. Palliative care is a type of care that helps people live their life as comfortably as possible with a "terminal" illness. This provides a painless a nautural death, And doesn't involve things like lethal injections. I believe that instead of Euthanasia this should be the primary focus of funding. The premise of Euthanasia is quite primarily focused on "terminal illness" and is predicated on life expectancy. This I should offer, However, Incorrect or at the least extremely varying. People who were diagnosed to living an extra three months could live for perhaps almost three years. The technology that predicts these things are hardly ever correct. By giving someone a lethal injection because of an unknown diagnosis of perhaps a short life expectancy we are literally endangering their life. If we instead focussed on palliating them we can wait it out, And these people can have more time with their family, And we can make sure that these people's lives aren't being cut short.
Rap battle of awesomeness

.........(bwahahahaha) Dude, I asked for an actually good rapper All you literally gave me was "boing-boing-name-pop" crapper You style is pathetic, weak and lazy The fact that i'm better than you in noob mode is crazy Also, side note, NDECD is my user What "NDCED"? You got the wrong loser Also new and dog poo don't even rhyme This was the easiest battle throughout my time- Here in DDO, quit rapping you have no hope You soon will be kneeling kissing my feet like I am the pope You be surprised if I give you 12 bars nope 16 bars next round, but you don't know what's dope.
Humanity will fail on the environment

I agree on the point tat we will exceed the 2C target but this entire debate mainly revolves around the question, do you have faith in humanity? Proof exists that currently we are not close to saving the environment but the question, will humanity fail the environment, will always have 1 answer and that is no. Humans may fail the environment but humanity will always protect it and we have seen proof of this through artificial photosynthesis, The G7 meeting, and the union of concerned scientists organization. I believe HUMANITY is taking baby steps towards protecting the environment. Humanity is a virtue that brings out compassion in humans towards all things around us. Humanity is only going to lead us towards protecting the environment provided humans listen to this virtue.
Humanity will fail on the environment

I find it interesting how you admit that there's no hope left for keeping global temperatures below 2C At least, I think you did, but maybe not because of "at our current rate". I was hoping for a compelling case that we still have a good shot at it. But you're still arguing that we will succeed, so you clearly do not think failing the 2C mark means failing altogether. James Hansen thinks 2C itself is too much. http://www.livescience.com... The article shown under this paragraph talks about the pledges you mentioned. The IEA is urging the United States and other big polluters to improve their pledges. If they do not, we won't make the 2C target (duh) and temperatures will go up to 2.6C by 2100, and as high as 4.3C in parts of the northern hemisphere. There is no guarantee that humanity can adapt to a 4C world. I love the simple quote "A 4C warmer world can, and must be, avoided." from the world bank president. http://news.discovery.com... From this information it looks like it would be smart to move to the southern hemisphere, but the majority of Earth's land lies in the northern hemisphere. I'm not sure how much vertical farming will bring down carbon emissions. There won't be as many forests and wildlife to destroy, but if the demands for controlled lighting and climate are met by fossil fuels, that will add to greenhouse emissions. About the issue of supplementary light, using solar panels to generate the extra light in a skyscraper would require 20 times more area than what the skyscraper takes up, at least according to Dr. Caplow. I would recommend that the ceilings on each story be entirely covered with mirrors to reflect the light, but I haven't found that suggestion anywhere and I have no evidence on whether or not it would work. http://www.economist.com...
Humanity will fail on the environment

It is true that at our current rate we will definitely extend beyond 2 C limit and not only me but leaders of the world have also recognized reality. The G7 came together in order to curb their carbon emission. The US and China have pledged during the summit that they will halt the growth of carbon emissions by 2030 while the European Union said it would reduce its carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels. http://www.usnews.com... https://www.whitehouse.gov... So you can rest assured that humanity is taking action to tackle the issue of global warming. Coming next to deforestation, many universities are dedicating their environmentalist and geologists to this problem. The permaculture research institute has come up with a strawjet. It is a machine which recycles the agricultural waste and converts them into building materials and fuels. so cutting trees for building materials is off the list. http://permaculturenews.org... Vertical farming is so far the best approach to reducing deforestation. by doing so the land required for farms will be less and there wont be any need to cut down any trees for space. http://www.verticalfarm.com... All of these plans are proof that humanity will not fail the environment. It will take time to implement them on a world stage but they have already begun to receive the recognition they need.
Humanity will fail on the environment

Phycology has proven that extreme weather conditions do not make people more likely to accept global warming. Even if everybody is convinced that global warming is happening, people will still claim that humans are not the cause. http://www.sciencedaily.com... The only major "wake-up call" that may happen any time soon is when arctic ice minimum reaches zero, which is basically any year now. Even then, the fossil fuel industry will benefit from having easier access to arctic oil, and today's young people (which includes me) and future generations really cannot afford us to drill one more drop of arctic oil. We are already seeing how much easier it is to drill for arctic oil with the melting ice caps. Your first link shows that carbon emissions are going down in many countries, especially the developed countries. But these efforts are not holding worldwide (world emissions are going up, not down), and even if they were, emissions would have to be reducing much faster to stay under the 2C limit. And remember, when carbon emissions end, the temperature will continue to rise from positive feedback, and it will take centuries before it goes back down to pre-industrial levels, because that CO2 stays in the atmosphere with nowhere else to go. The artificial photosynthesis news looks good to me. I obviously don't want humanity to fail on the environment, so I would like to hear that artificial photosynthesis can reasonably replace fossil fuels and limit climate change to safe levels, even if it means I lose this debate. Do you know how easy it will be for this to catch on? Right now our economy is very fossil-fuel based, which is why it is difficult to just switch to renewables in a flash. Finally, It looks like you are saying (in general) that things are going to turn around REAL soon. Haven't we been saying this for at least 25 years? And the longer we wait, the more drastic, complex, and unrealistic our actions will have to be. Many are already calling game over on the 2C limit, and that's really not a game we want to lose.
Humanity will fail on the environment

There exist many worldwide organizations dedicated to the decrease of natural destruction such as the UN and OECD. The UN and OECD compile statistics for greenhouse gas emissions and from their graphs we can see that members of the OECD have worked to bring significant results to reduce their emissions. https://stats.oecd.org... The internet contains arguments for and against our topic of discussion so there is no point stating websites as proof. What is truly important is that government, although unable to reach their goal, are taking steps and actions towards saving the planet. What do you think this says about humanity? Many organizations and groups are popping up all over the world to save the environment. Because of the lack of unity between them, the efforts seem negligible, but once all of these organizations unify to save the environment the results will be significant enough to restore faith in humanity. Overpopulation is a huge problem as you stated but as it increases so does the demand for a cleaner environments. Faucet companies and designing their products to reduce water consumption. Water recycling saves hundreds of tonnes of water periodically and so on. Although deforestation is still a growing problem, it wont be before long that governments will place bans of laws on the amount of deforestation. In the near future the amount of emphasis on saving the environment will grow exponentially as people realize the seriousness of the problem. Just recently, the Berkeley Labs have made major advancements in artificial photosynthesis. This research mainly aims to reduce the carbon emissions and convert it into useful chemical products. To be clear this research is not meant to replace trees but rather to aid their workload. We know that with the decline of trees there is only so much the trees can handle. This technology is to help tree population grow by handling the amount of carbon emissions. https://newscenter.lbl.gov... What most people forget is that treating one environmental problem can have a chain reaction in solving other problems. reducing deforestation reduces carbon content in the atmosphere. Reduced carbon leads to an improving stratosphere and that will lead to the regeneration of the ozone layer. 50% of people may not think of global warming as an issue but in a few years 50 will turn 60 and in another few years 60 will turn to 80% as the people will FEEL the effects of climate change and will begin to grow concerned. Those who realize the gravity of this issue have already began to find solutions. Hence it is only a matter of time before humans will save the environment.
Humanity will fail on the environment

Seeing all the eco-friendly products and organizations can give hope, but their efforts will not be enough if the people do not listen. During the early 1990s, scientists set a goal stating that we should keep global temperatures from surpassing 2C above pre-industrial levels. Will it happen? http://www.vox.com... http://www.carbonbrief.org... The evidence says no. The IPCC met in 2007 and stated that we can avoid the 2 degree limit, but emission cuts will have to begin immediately. It has been eight years and emissions have only risen. The IPCC met again in 2013 and said we can still avoid the limit, but emission cuts have to be even more drastic. Now it's 2015 and they're still rising. Maintaining this limit now requires unprecedented worldwide effort, and there is no sign that. Here I have a graph of CO2 emissions from 1965 to 2010: https://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com... The energy demand is going up due to an increasing population, decreasing poverty and hunger levels, and more reliance on electricity from technological advancements, and these demands are being met by fossil fuels, not clean energy. This counters all the clean energy efforts. I think I've said enough about global warming (and ocean acidification, since the cause is nearly exactly the same) for one round's worth. Let's focus on another environmental issue: deforestation. Humans have destroyed a whopping 50% of the world's natural rainforests. Do not be fooled by the statement "There are more trees now than there were at any previous point in recorded history"; that only holds true in the United States. http://www.mnn.com... Worldwide, we have some quite scary facts. Some scientists estimate that ALL of the world's natural rainforests will be gone by 2050. To give you perspective, every six months an area the size of Florida is destroyed. Since these forests produce most of the oxygen we breathe, this is going to cause some awful consequences for us. http://www.rain-tree.com... (The source said rainforests will be gone in 40 years, and 40 years after the statement was made is around 2050) Deforestation is bad, so will we take the appropriate action to stop it? Let's look at what's happening so far in Brazil, at this graph: http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Deforestation rates there are going down, which is good. But that's only in Brazil. What about worldwide? They're going down worldwide. But the "gone by 2050" estimate accounts for the decrease in deforestation. In fact, if previous levels would have been kept, the rainforests would already be gone, so it looks like we should be saying "Those rates better darn well have gone down." rather than "Oh they're going down, yippie!" Lastly, Gallup poll did a survey about issues that worry Americans. "quality of the environment" and "climate change" were rated as third and second least concerning issues; only "racial relations" ranked lower. How are we going to save the environment when 50% of us think it is not an issue at all? http://www.gallup.com...
Humanity will fail on the environment

Despite all the harm humans have done to the environment, there are communities taking initiatives to find solutions to this increasing problem. Having scientists lead the way to the solution is the most we can hope for humans to save the environment. In the United States a group of scientists have come to form the UCSUSA, union of concerned scientists. Not just them but engineers and politicians are doing their part to find fixes for the environment. We have already come up with clean cars and fuels and are working to come up with more clean products. Finding a way to fix the environment is a revolution in the making. Once each and every human realizes the harm they have caused, the demand for clean Eco friendly products will increase drastically. This revolution is possible as many organizations have already taken the first step by preserving what is left of the environment.
Humanity will fail on the environment

With regards to global warming, ocean acidification, deforestation, and a few other environmental issues, I say that humanity will NOT change its behavior in time. I want an opponent arguing that humans will take appropriate action to save the environment. First round is for acceptance only. Also, If you believe that global warming does not exist, is not caused by humans, or is not a bad thing, please do not accept this debate;. Same goes with other environmental issues. I don't want to argue about whether or not we are destroying the planet but whether we will fix it.
I won't break a rule!

I've wanted to do this for a long time.0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted.1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule.2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn.3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses.4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise.5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn.6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit.7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate.9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules.10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON.*End foundation rules*11. CON cannot use the word "rule" in any of his or her rounds12. CON must have at least one source referring to Wikipedia.org in each of his or her rounds13. CON has to mention God at least 5 times in every single round.
I won't break a rule!

35. CON stating "I concede" will not count as a concession36. CON must state that this debate was very fun 37. CON must apologize to PRO.I concedeThis debate was very fun.I'm sorry for the upcoming arguments PRO.God would look down on this debate and say, as God, " I declare the winner of this debate AlexanderOc". However that would be irrelevant because he won anyway. God's input was not needed, but God felt the need to say it anyway. Just so he, as God, could feel powerful."The future rewards those who press on. I don't have time to feel sorry for myself. I don't have time to complain. I'm going to press on." ~ Obamahttp://www.brainyquote.com...http://en.m.wikipedia.org...*RULES Violated*33. PRO may use no more than (six) words in round 427. PRO must only type in English for the rest of his rounds4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make RULES to discuss whether one has broken a RULE, or whether a RULE is null, Unless a future rule requires otherwise.*Reasons For Violation*33 was meant as an attempt to circumvent the base 10,000 rule by not using a number, but a word. 'Six' is not a number, just as 'dog' is not a dog. The word represents a number. Since PRO only stated that any numbers I say are in base 10,000 the word still represents a six. So Pro still had to comply with number 33.27. PRO didn't even refute this. He used the word 'Doublt' in round 3. It's very simple to check. 'Doublt' is not in any reputable dictionary nor used in English as an actual word. Therefore, it is not English but instead gibberish. That alone would be enough to convict Pro, but there's more.4. In Pro's last round he put together a section titles "FINAL WORDS". The majority of the text here does not comply to number 4 and is therefore breaking the rule. Example: "I attacked him quite well" "I WIN. VOTE PRO" *Accusations*Regardless of whether rules is the plural form of that word, it doesn't matter. Pro banned the use of the word in singular form. This is further supported by him putting it in quotations. Also, a plural does not equal a singular. There is a major difference between saying there is a nuclear bomb and there are multiple nuclear bomb(s). Furthermore, it wouldn't matter. Pro said 'Doublt' way before I ever said rules. So his rule-breakage would count first.
I won't break a rule!

FINAL. ROUND. Is rules=rule? Yes, rules is a plural form of rule. Just as run = ran, dog = dogs, and cat = cats. We'll let the voters decide though. My opponent failes to realize that the six words things doesn't work, since you're speaking in base 10,000. Is the new rule contradicting to the old rule? Contradictory means "asserting the contrary or opposite; contradicting; inconsistent; logically opposite" as said by . http://dictionary.reference.com.... However, the flashlight rule does not nessesarily assert the opposite, it merely limits down the rules to make sure it works, but only in one condition. It's like saying "You can go to your cousin's house, but you have to do your homework first". Doing your homework is not necessarily the opposite of going to the cousin's house; it is a requirement for going to your cousin's house. Even if my opponent proved that my new rule is contradictory, my base 10,000 system makes it impossible for his rule to take effect, since I used far less than 6,000 words in any round. Your accusation is wrong, I have never said such a word.20. My opponent may make no further rules regarding round 421. My opponent has to say "I concede" somewhere in the final round22. If my opponent commits any logical fallacy in the final round that is spotted by the voters, he will forfeit all 7 points to meFINAL WORDS This debate was fun. It worked out quite well because if my opponent breaks a rule, he loses the debate, and if I don't break any rules, he loses the resolution. I attacked him quite well, and counter-attacked with my brave 10,000-base-system that made his word-limit rules useless, and he was too occupied trying to spot any errors within my argument or if I had broken any rules. Since I haven't broke any rules, I WIN.
I won't break a rule!

32. PRO cannot use the word "Con" or any variation of the word in any future round33. PRO may use no more than (six) words in round 434. CON's RULES resolve before PRO's Once upon a time, there was a God. He loved everyone. One time, God said "I love you Barack Obama!". Obama turned around and shouted "I love you back!" God was intensely happy that he did. So God decided to go home and read the bible. It was about God.http://www.youtube.com...http://en.m.wikipedia.org...*Accusations*Number 11 does not ban the use of "rules" with an 's' nor capital letters. Number 30 has is not contradictory.*Contradiction* "Doublt contradiction?"Contradicts27. PRO must only type in English for the rest of his rounds'Doublt' is not English.
I won't break a rule!

God is the best God of any God. Boy, I'm glad my God is the only God--FSMContradiction?No--it is not real life, you have to do it inside the debate, it's a virtual break-through using virtual weapons, you can do so by assuming with rules that you have a power multiplier or somethingDoublt contradiction? My later rule does not contradict, only limits it down to working if you have a flashlight. Your rule holds power but not if you have a flashlight. Even if your rule holds power without a flashlight, rule number 17 makes your rules worthless, since you're speaking in base 10,000.Thus I have not broken any rules. NEW RULES17. We will assume that all of CON's numbers, not counting rule numbers, are in base 10,000 (see http://www.purplemath.com... base system information), unless he is virtually standing on his head in this debateThis means I have 17,000 words availible each round, or at least 6,000 words if my opponent virtually obtains this "flashlight"18. CON cannot mimic my rules, I.E., make them apply to me as well (with the excpetion of fundamental rules)19. CON must quote a different Barack Obama quote each round (with sources)RULES BROKEN BY OPPONENTMy opponent has broken rule number 11. He mentioned "rules" in rule 30. Thus I win because Alexander has broken a rule before I have broken a rule--not that I have broken any rules.
I won't break a rule!

29. PRO Cannot use more than 17 English words excluding the numbers 11-25 and periods in round 330. PRO must obey all foundation rules31. PRO must type "God is the best God of any God. Boy, I'm glad my God is the only God" in round 3http://en.m.wiktionary.org...*Contradiction* 15. CON must have to punch through a forcefield with a power measure of 10,000 to get the flashlight.Contradicts7. RULE cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a RULE cannot result in the victory of the RULE-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each RULE, and an opportunity to discuss RULE-breakage. RULES may not require players to do anything outside of this debate.*Double Contradiction*14. CON has to have a flashlight for RULE 26 to take effectContradicts1. RULE created hold power over all RULE posted later, and no later RULE can contradict an earlier RULE.26 will take effect before 14.*RULES Violated*26. PRO cannot use more than 6 English words excluding the numbers 11-25 and periods in round 2*Grounds For Loss*3. A violation of a RULE that is not null and void will result in the RULE-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a RULE, the player that breaks a RULE first loses.