BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sandy hook was a hoax.

1 Focus on the important facts I give you instead of being a coward and hiding behind our less important claims. Tell me why most of the sandy hook village got free houses. Don't spit out Insults like a 6th grader and try to get around it but focusing on other facts that I've pointed out. Tell me why. Than we can talk about "the minds of conspericy theorists". All those people who talk about how crazy we are for pointing out all the inconsistencies and lies involved in the sandy hook story-All of them focus on the easily "debunkible" evidence like the picture of Madeline Parker with Obama (that was not Emilie Parker and I know that) and the "actors". They don't talk about the really weird stuff like how most of sandy hook got free houses or how there was foreknowledge of the event. Why don't you tell me about that instead of hiding behind our lesser claims or facts. 2 Do you believe everything the media tells you? Have you seen any crime scene photos? Have you just heard of them or have you seen them? There are only pictures of "dead kids" wrapped in cloth. In a real situation like that there would be pictires of the dead kids exactly the way Lanza left them. Have you seen the press conference Wayne carver had about the shooting?. What did he mean by "I hope they and the people of Newtown don't have this crash on their heads later". He didn't even know what type of weapon that was used or the calliber of bullet even though he was a pathologist who had autopsied the bodies just a day ago. He said the long weapon was used in the killings (he didn't know what specific type of gun it was) but that was the weapon that was found in the car. 3 The "dead children" sang at the 2013 Super Bowl. Watch the video "sandy hook surprise" by qKultra. You can also watch the official video out on YouTube by the sandy hook promise people. In your next debate tell me why the whole village of sandy hook got free houses.
Sandy hook was a hoax.

I. All Witness Testimonies lined upThe US police had taken testimonies from the couple dozen or so kids at Newtown that day, and they state that every single one matched a somewhat simmalar account of what happened. Not including the people in and around the school. This means that we have a perfect recollection of what happened, or, like a "truther" might tell you, all the witnesses were bribed by the Obama Administration.II. Connection to the ShooterThe police tooks 100's of hours of footage and photos after the shooting had happened, and have uncovered dozens of bullet holes, fingerprints, and physical evidence that points back to a shooter named Adam Lanza. All the bullets and traces came form a gun bought by Lanza's mother, which was found at the scene of the crime.III. Photo EvidenceWe have dozens of photos of dead children as they were wrapped following the shooting. My opponent claims these are photo shopped, but tech experts can and have ran advanced algorithms on the shots and confirmed they are 100% real and unedited. In addition, there are about a 100 or so people who can confirm that they saw the dead bodies.IV. The Impossibility For this to be true, which it is not, my opponent must prove a magnitude of things. All the children are still alive and not dead today. The witnesses and testimonies are all unreliable, even collectively. Finally, that all the collected footage and photos (Which is numerous and taken by different sources) is all fake or hoaxed.http://www.livescience.com...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Sandy hook was a hoax.

Sources- Veterans Today article "Top ten reason why smash hook was a elaborate hoax" "Unraveling sandy hook" a presentation my sofia smallstorm. These are just a few of the articles/videos that prove sandy hook was a hoax. A R.I.P Victoria soto page was created on December 10 (it has been taken it off Facebook but it's still in images) United way sandy hook fund was set up on December 11. United way even made a statement about it. Tweets about the shooting went out says before the event. The sandy hook victim fund was set up on the 10th. Newtown bee interviewed the dead principle dawn hochsprung about the shooting-the article came out a day before event on the 13th. Most of sandy hook got free houses. You can check it out for your self on the assessors data base or watch this video by LogicBeforeAuthority which is called "sandy hook school shooting actors got FREE houses". This is the most important reason that sandy hook was a hoax. Footage taken from above the firehouse of where the kids went after the shooting shows people walking around in circles. Watch the video "the walking dead spotted aimlessly walking in circles at sandy hook" by randomshots174. Also in this video you can see 26 Christmas trees behind the firehouse. Those Christmas trees were supposed to have been donated the day after the event. They were all-ready there because someone knew that there would be "26 victims" (not counting Nancy because she supposedly died in her home) The class photo of Vicky Soto's class was photoshopped. One boys arm is too thin and Vicky's hand as Anne Murphy's hand look like paws. Each sandy hook family who lost a child has been given $281,000 and they're still asking for more. Emile Parker was photoshopped into her family pictures. In one picture you can tell because of a piece of grass that becomes transparent when it comes to her. Madeline and Samantha Parker don't have legs in one picture. The kid on DR oz said that they were having a drill. The kids who survived the shooting say "it sounded like pots and pans". I don't know if you've ever heard a semi automatic rifle but it's very loud and it does not sound like "pots and pans" No tears from any "grieving parents" There was a big sigh saying "everyone must check in" behind Gene Rosen during a CNN interview proving that it was a drill. Read the article and watch the presentation. It was a hoax.
The Fine-Tuning Argument Is Sound

Even if intelligence is required for comprehension; the universe being intelligently designed doesn't follow from this. That is a non-sequitur. Also, I'm sure how coherent the notion of God creating himself is. We will just assume that if God exists, he is factually necessary. Proof 1. Pro claims that only through certain electro-chemical processes can one come to understand the universe. Even if this is true, there is no reason to assume the universe was made by use of these processes based on that fact. This assumes that comprehension of the universe is required for its origination. Pro has given no argument to support that notion.2. Even if there are things we cannot see, that doesn't mean that God is one of them. Pro isn't making any valid arguments.3. Pro argues that life dies, returning all of its atomic makeup back to the universe that is God. However, Pro hasn't shown that proven that to be true; it remains as a bare-assertion. 4. Why should we call this "everything" God? God has to be intelligent. Pro hasn't shown that an intelligent being exists independent of biology that fine-tuned the initial constants. This is what the debate is supposed to be about. ConclusionPro hasn't proven that God exists. His arguments are based on logical fallacies such as bare-assertions and non-sequiturs. We could still ask "why?" about the universe even with no God. Pro hasn't shown why this cannot be the case. Also, this debate was not about a God defined as Pro defined him, but as a God defined as:"[T]he intelligent fine-tuner who tweaked the constants to make life in the universe possible."Pro did not even argue for that God existing. He completely ignored the fine-tuning argument (which this debate was supposed to be about). Since Pro's whole case is lackluster and embarrassing. I think it is clear he hasn't even come close to showing God exists.
Could you be criminally liable for murder if you killed a sentient et in cold blood in our society

.Thanks firstly to con for instigating this contest,I'll be happy to argue pro and look forward to the challenge. mur·der (mûrdr)[1]n.1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. As con has already stated that the human,-"murders the ET in cold blood",then I can safely assume thatthe only sticking point here is the question of "human" in relation to "murder",and in all other aspects,this qualifiesas a case of murder . The next thing we should do is look at the term human.hu·man (hymn)[2]n.1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.2. A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.adj.1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.2. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.3. Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.4. Having the form of a human.5. Made up of humans. I'd think the definition in bold could be argued on.As where dealing with an entity thats discovering planets,that's here on a "scientific mission to study life forms on our planet" that "wishes to pose no threat",A wish that was "recognized" by the human...Are we getting anywhere near human-esque yet?I think it's possible. Another point I'd like to make is that it's not out of the question we could share the same origins.Even today man couldascertain that through some form of testing and perhaps find a common link through ancestry. I may expand on that idea in the next round if I find suitable info as I don't have it for now,although It's Along the lines of humans arrivinghere via some form of vessel,such as a meteorite .Which at some point,may have split from a larger one,possibly sending the same potential for life in two different directions.Even if the ET wasn't accepted as human,I still believe at some point,that a being showing qualities that con alluded toward with his premise,would be offered protection akin to ourselves.Given many humanswould jump out of there skin to hang out with an intelligent ET,thats travelled through space no less,to think all thatpotential knowledge thrown away cause some fool shows our hostile side, when the ET "wishes to pose no threat to him"Doubt humans of the day would be happy with that.The aliens kin might not either but as con made no mention as to whether this is a first contact meeting,or if some form of relationship is established between the two species,one can only speculate on that front. Thats all I have for this round so now over to con.[1][2]-thefreedictionary.comhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Could you be criminally liable for murder if you killed a sentient et in cold blood in our society

Ok I know this topic is probably centuries ahead of it's time and may never see a test in the courts. Let's not consider what an ET may hold a human liable for his actions, but what our modern court system might consider. Now let's say ET landed conducting a scientific mission to study life forms on our planet. A human recognizing the alien wishes to pose no threat to him, the human knows they are sentient, and the ET makes no threatening gestures towards him as understood by humans. Now lets assume the ET has something the human wishes to steal and murders the ET in cold blood. Now let's draw a parallel to animals. Court systems in different time periods have long recognized human life to hold greater value than animal life throughout all time periods and civilizations. In fact, it was only just recently that animal cruelty could attract criminal prosecution. As of right now to be charged with murder you must kill a human being. Since the alien isn't human, the murderer cannot be charged. I look forward to this debate and I hope it will be interesting.
The cause of a zombie apocalypse

Thank you for your acceptance of this debate. This is a fun debate, but it is also the most epic debate on Debate.com.I agree that spelling and grammar should be used for deciding the vote of cause and affect.Humans have had some hard times with lethal pandemics, but they have never cause mayhem and disruption so much as they have death. Anytime there is a pandemic, leadership bodies such as the CDC have issued warnings. I won't claim any governing body will be any more effective than the initial warning. However, in known pandemics there have been people with natural immunities to the viruses. They contain the antibodies needed to fight the virus and pass the genetic mutation on to their children causing this form of Zombie creation to be limited to one generation.Many viruses do mutate to survive, but when they mutate all previous forms of the virus become extinct as according competitive exclusion principle, no to species can occupy the same ecological niche.Because your virus moves through oxygen, it has the ability to affect plants. This causes a distinct identifiable warning of infection long before the infection has a chance to spread. Isolated individuals would not be affected because the virus is exported by breath. If one hundred percent of the population, were infected with your virus. There would be no sudden death rate. Initially the only the people who become zombies will be those who die of known causes. Again causing warnings and red flags to go up everywhere. At the onset there are more people who are not zombies then there are who are zombies. The zombies will be quickly over taken and destroyed.If the zombies only sense hunger and infection, feed them sandwiches. or bait them to all converge on Walmart. Your zombies sound like retards, so anyone would be smart enough to trick them with a piece of dried fruit. I'm assuming that they sense infection to keep them from eating themselves? Truthfully I can't figure out from your writings who is infected how, and when do they actually become zombies. Is it a two part process?
The cause of a zombie apocalypse

I belive that there will be a true zombie apocolypse that will be caused by the sudden failure of electricity and I can back it up. What do you think it will be caused by?I would like an opponent who also agrees there will be (or could be) a zombie appocolype but disagrees on the cause. First round is for acceptance. Just let me know what your stance is on this subject.Round two is for initial evidence. Explorations of your position are important to the overall decision making processRound Three is for refutation. You think I'm wrong, I think you are wrong. Wait for this round to say why.Round Four is for Rebuttal. Further evidence to define your own position.Round Five is for Agreements and conclusions. If I make statement that you agree with, let it be known. Do you continue to hold your position?
The cause of a zombie apocalypse

Thank you toamat26. During this final round of debates, I would like to resolve that losing Electricity will cause a zombie apocalypse and that is more likely than a virus outbreak. First I will reiterate some things- A zombie is a person whose behavior or responses are wooden, listless or seemingly rote; automation –dictionary.reference.com A person held to resemble the so called walking dead; especially : automaton –Merriam-Webster. A person markedly strange in appearance of behavior. –Merriam-Webster. The zombies in my scenario are not dead or reanimated. They are listless in their behavior. Before this apocalypse can take place, all parts of the world must be producing more food than is naturally possible with the aid of electricity. The zombies retain their ability to think, but not to think rationally, they are still human but in survival mode. There is no pure distinction of who is a zombie and who is not. Zombies are irrational and unwilling to farm, or hunt. Those who are not zombies are able to sustain themselves through hard work, consistency and food rationing. Currently there is neither enough reliance on electricity, nor a virus that would cause a zombie apocalypse. Pro’s death virus is continually dormant except in death. It spreads by breath, which means only 15-20 people would be affected at one time. But the virus would be dormant in everyone that was living. So it would never affect more than 1% of the population. Loss of electricity would affect everyone immediately although the responses would vary everyone would be subject to the madness. Loss of electricity consistently results in looting and criminal activity. Viruses do not. It is easy to see how losing electricity could cause havoc to the extent of zombification in people all over the world, especially considering how it continues to be a more central part of our lives.
The cause of a zombie apocalypse

The key factor that causes my version of a zombie apocalypse to be true, is the exclusion of reanimation as a factor. The zombie factor in my cause is not the living dead, it is the loss of intelligent reasoning. This loss is spread through groupthink which I refereed to earlier as a mob mentality. Although the cause of the Apocalypse is lack of electricity, the mayhem comes from being without vital life sustaining resources such as food, water, and heat. Electricity is the primary generator of these resources now and will only increase as time goes on. As electricity becomes more prolific, the need for personal knowledge concerning farming, hunting, and naturally occurring food sources is diminishing. People alive after the loss of electricity (everyone) will try to conserve their current way of life. And with no knowledge of any alternatives, they will band together as long as there are food sources and turn on each other when the sources deplete.At the time of the apocalypse all books will be e-books and cannot be accessed. What electricity can be accessed will depleted before the food sources are depleted, and used for entertainment as opposed to sustainment. This line of thinking, where losing electricity causes zombies, follows the metaphoric line of thinking that "zombie will eat brains". Zombies will attack people who have the knowledge to be self sustaining. Unfortunately they won't be trying to learn their own self sustainment. The zombies are wandering aimlessly until they find people with food, and then attack those people to feed themselves. Another factor that cause my theory to be the most legitimate, is the loss of electricity to grow food and harvest food affects everyone instantaneously. The lack of food affects some people more quickly than others.We both agree that zombies are hungry. But in my scenario the food resources have been depleted. In your scenario they have not been depleted. In my scenario zombies are capable of working together, but also have the ability turn on each other, which is more plausible then zombies only attacking the living.
Nuclear energy is a good source of energy

1. those 3500 workers are employed for 20-30 years. which takes up half a work-life. Therefore, although they are temporary, that is jobs created until they are halfway to retirement. My opponent states solar plants, which is a good source of energy, but he has forgotten that this is a debate about whether or not other forms are good, but instead that nuclear power is good.2. nuclear waste is the biggest con in the nuclear energy. This is going to be readily solved in 2 waysa. The space elevator is only 2-4 decades away(http://news.yahoo.com...) when a half life is 1 thousand years, that is acceptable.b. fusion reactors are rapidly approaching, this doesn't just get rid of nuclear waste, but also creates more power.3. The cost of a nuclear power benefits the economy that much more, and once again forgets the point of this argument. Also not to mention that solar plants create about 10 times less power in their life https://www.debate.org...thx for reading, and id ask my opponent not to make any more new arguments in the 5th round. good luck
Nuclear energy is a good source of energy

I'll try and rebuttal my opponent's arguments as best I can. 1) My opponent claims that nuclear energy more jobs than other sources. I believe this to be very incorrect. For starters, nuclear power plants require professional scientists over blue collar workers, meaning that it's availability for jobs is significantly decreased. As a result, the average plant only employs 400-700 people, with maybe 3500 temporary jobs for constructing the plant itself (http://www.nei.org...). This is pretty low compared to other renewable sources such as solar power plants that offer jobs in the 1000s. 2) My opponent uses the proposed space elevator as a solution to nuclear waste (a thing that he apparently blows off as not a big problem as well). First off, nuclear waste is a huge problem with power plants since they require highly radioactive elements (such as Plutonium) to operate. The subsequent radioactive waste produced often has a high half-life (time it takes to decay to half its self), with the average element taking at least 1000 years (and that's being generous). Storing it is a huge political and environmental problem as even with places such as Yucca Mountain, there is still more waste (and more continuing to be produced) than places to store it. My opponent states that space elevator will solve this dilemma. Let me just say that while the space elevator is a decent solution to the problem, we are still decades away from constructing it. The space elevator is literally an elevator into space. Financing it would be a huge problem in the UN, not to mention the fact that technology to construct it is still out of bounds. The links my opponent provided only clarify that scientists have all the materials, but what is an ingredient w/o a recipe? There is also the fact that this elevator has many problems of its own such as withstanding the conditions of space (I believe metal can only be in space for 10 years before having to be replaced b/c of the cold, but don't quote me on that), adjusting to the Earth's constant rotation, adapting to the sun's heat when close by, and collisions with other space materials among others. Right now, we can't just wait until all these problems are solved. Nuclear waste needs to be dealt with in another, more viable manner. 3) I will concede to my opponent the point on space required. However, the costs of building a nuclear power plant are very expensive as it costs about $8.5 billion to construct (and that's not even taking into account decommising costs) compared to say a solar power plant that costs about $1.65 billion. I eagerly await my opponents response.
Nuclear energy is a good source of energy

1.Nuclear energy is a good source of energy, if not the best. It creates jobs, more power than many other sources, and has some of the lowest impacts on the environment. Nuclear waste will soon not be an issue due to the rapidly advancing "space elevator" http://spaceref.com... http://www.forbes.com... rt.com/news/lunar-space-elevator-2020-646/ Sources support it. Getting rid of nuclear waste could be a great way to use this new, great idea. This source of energy creates a low impact on the environment anyway. After refilling a nuclear reactor with more Uranium, the refill can last for years, even decades. Not to mention that Fusion reactions are rapidly coming to a commercial scale for nuclear power plants and with more investment this could make nuclear energy the dominant source of power 2. Nuclear energy requires little space for a large amount of electricity. rt.com/news/lunar-space-elevator-2020-646/ I realize this is the U.K. and not the U.S., but the U.K. doesn't need near as much energy as the U.S. and therefore can cope to the fact that they have less land. 3. Building a nuclear power plant creates jobs I realize that building a power plant requires time, but time means jobs, which we need. So this also benefits the economy. Thx for reading and good luck to my opponent