BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anthropogenic climate change.

This is as close as the opponent comes to making an argument about cause: "A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. ' But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.'[0]" That is the only statement that is close to an argument about cause. Then the source basically states, science does not know, but what if. Then appeals to emotion by asking people to think about their grandchildren, thus action to reduce CO2 must be taken, you know just in case. The question could also be asked, what if the consensus is wrong? The alarmists are advocating for billions of people to reduce their living standards to keep the planet from maybe warming a few degrees. Looking at the analogy mostly used to explain green house effect, which is a green house. A few years ago I was in an empty plastic sheet green house on a sunny but very cold day. The very thin sheet of clear plastic raised the inside temperature significantly, but the owner was planning on disassembling within a few days. My question to the owner was "would a second sheet of plastic make the green house warmer for longer?" The owner looked at me and said "it does not work that way". There would be an insulation effect if there is a gap between the two sheets of plastic. Yet, this false consensus is asking us to believe that more CO2 equals higher global temperatures. From an idea that more plastic does not make a green house warmer to a question would more CO2 make the Earth warmer. There is research that suggests once there is enough CO2 to have a green house effect more will not cause higher temperatures[1]. This is outside the narrative and must be stopped. Government's need a reason for people to be scared so that controls can be forced on everyone. In summary, consensus is not science! Climate change has become like a religion for those that believe. Western civilization learned centuries ago that state and religion is best separated. Thus, policy changes based on climate change consensus should not be enacted by governments. 1. http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...
Anthropogenic climate change.

The task at hand is to "...contend that anthropogenic climate change is non-existent." From a common definition anthropogenic means relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature. Then, from common usage "climate change" means a harmful rise in global temperature. This could be a difficult task. The earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.1% trace gases including CO2.[1] Assume (for this paragraph only) that the small trace gas of CO2 (.04%) is the cause of global warming. The focus here will be upon sources of CO2 emissions both natural and manmade. The source emissions of CO2 would by a most rational people would be the cause of global warming. According to the IPCC 800 gigatons of CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere from nature and man, annually.[2] Most rational people would consider a source that is most than 51% to be the cause of a problem. Some irrational people might try to argue that 33% would be a threshold for cause. Only, crazy people would state that something that is less than 5% could be consider the cause. That brings us to the percent of total CO2 emissions from mankind. That percent of CO2 emissions is 3.62% (29 from man of 800 total gigatons)! [2] This 3.62% can not be the cause of global warming. Now, questioning if CO2 is the cause of global warming. The alarmist side uses thresholds in parts per million (PPM). 400 PPM sounds scary and 0.04% is at an insanely small amount, both numbers are the same. Imagine, how quick the alarmists arguments would be dismissed if they said that 0.04% of atmospheric gases drove global climate. Then if combined with only 3.6% of annual CO2 emissions is from man, this is an incredibly small number that man is responsible for. Using just common sense methods, it becomes very hard to believe claims made by alarmists. Anyone attempting to say 3.6% is the cause of a problem would be laughed at. Especially, when the gas in question is exhaled by each one of us. The real reasons for climate change to be anthropogenic is political and financial. Just federal grants for climate change related projects is greater than $10 billion.[3] Scientists are just as financially motivated as anyone else. A climate scientist that is outside of the mainstream will not be funded. This creates incentives to stay in agreement with those in political power. Anthropogenic climate change as a political is prefect for oppressive progressive politicians. The solutions to this false issue are more governmental control over the daily lives of harmless people. The politicians have scientist by the purse strings, this ensures compliance. This debate is about causes not effects, thus positive and negative impacts will not be addressed. 1. http://climate.ncsu.edu... 2. http://www.climatechange2013.org... 3. http://www.gao.gov...
Anthropogenic climate change.

A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. " But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [0]Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so. "in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke." [1]"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [2]"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." [3]"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al " [4]My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating. Sources:0. http://science.sciencemag.org...1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...2. http://dx.doi.org...3. http://www.nature.com...4. http://iopscience.iop.org...
Anthropogenic climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.
Multiple stab wounds may be harmful to monkeys.

"My resolution urges mere possibility which at the same time means that everything else is still also possible. A relative example would be like me flipping a coin and saying, "This coin may land on heads". This is true, but if my opponent was to say, "This coin may land on tails" it would only further my point by showing the possibility inherent in my first statement" Oh dear, thats really confusing me here, good tactics Yraelz (if you can't beat 'em, confuse 'em!) but I could just say the exact same thing back to you. Another relative example would be like me flipping a coin and saying, "This coin may not land on heads". This is true, but if my opponent was to say, "This coin may not land on tails" it would only further my point by showing the possibility inherent in my first statement Yes it's a slightly changed around unquoted form of what you just said, but plagiarism isn't against the rules (in THIS debate anyway) so.... What I'm really saying is... Em... I'm stating that... Uhhh... VOTE CON (SUPPORT THE PLAGIARIST!) OR YOU'RE A... em... nonplagiarist? :D
Multiple stab wounds may be harmful to monkeys.

Hmmm.... My opponent posts what appears to be a credible source, yet it is credible in my favor. Let us take a look at the conclusion of this source: "From the intellegent ramblings of Dr Kiedkjhksj kjhkghabka we are to assume and follow blindly the fact that "Multible Stab Wounds May Not Harm Monkeys"" I stand in firm affirmation of this statement as it does not negate my statement in any way. My resolution says that "stab wounds may" which means the other side of this card is, "stab wounds may not". My resolution urges mere possibility which at the same time means that everything else is still also possible. A relative example would be like me flipping a coin and saying, "This coin may land on heads". This is true, but if my opponent was to say, "This coin may land on tails" it would only further my point by showing the possibility inherent in my first statement.
Multiple stab wounds may be harmful to monkeys.

Ah, this would be true excluding the fact that my resolution quite clearly states, "stab wounds". Thus the stabbing must leave a wound, which would not be scene through the use of a cotton bud. However we should also notice that my opponent does not limit the stabbing to just cotton buds so I am going to include sharp objects which would definitely leave a wound. As this resolution is not limited to any particular place I am going to include the throat and eye socket with my opponents, "stomache". And, as a final note, I will be citing this as evidence: http://youtube.com...
A Zombie plague is more likely to be the result of a fungus than any other Pathogen

First and foremost, i'd like to address the previously invoked argument on definition of the term Zombie, and i'd like it to be known that I fully accept the definition provided by my opponent. Not only this, but as a courtesy to the debate let it be re-iterated that the Pro should prove that fungus is the most probably cause and the Con should prove parallel to this, that Fungi is not the most likely. With that, I first refute the point of my opponent and then go on to strengthen my own point. On that note, proof of what would indeed cause a phenomenon such as that of the given example of Ophiocordyceps Unilateralis, or OCU. I do secede that the Proponent of this resolution offers a compelling example of The so called 'Zombie Ants' and further goes on to digress that Mammals will not be affected by such a thing. The science behind my opponent's argument although very established simply can not and will not occur for there is a fatal flaw in the argument which is this: The basis of the fungi argument is that it will indeed evolve to a point where it will affect humanity. IN order for micro or macro evolution to occur, one must look at basic concept of Natural Selection. Either an event occurs with which the fungi needs to evolve to propel itself into effecting humanity for means of SURVIVAL which can take hundreds of thousands if not millions of years assuming there is a constant stimuli to create such a mechanism. More likely however is the result of a random mutation occurring in the genes. The likeliness of this event ever occurring however is simply not a number within reasonable science. Now on to my own counter logic: Because the law of evolution is the sole vessel in which my opponent resides, and it is simply illogical to reside in a concept as this without looking at the laws that dictate the process, we may look to a more plausible force; Artificial Pathogen. Humanity has done a great job in the past creating not only other pathogens in a short time, but has done work creating artificial diseases and pathogens. In essence the comparison between Nature and Artificial Modernization is this: Man has more impact in Nature than Nature does. Hence; Not only on a logical scale would it suffice to say that man is much more likely to begin an event such as this, but because we [Humans] have already dabbled in the 'art' of biology and augmenting or changing our environment and selves, we are not only more likely, but almost inevitably going to create an event such as the described resolution. We see this in recent history as Mexican Scientists openly expressed durability with so called 'Zombie Cells' out living base normality. In conclusion, for this round I have attacked the concept of Natural Progression as opposed to man and urge a Negative ballot to the voters as I feel it procures the more logical form of argumentation on this specific Subject. Sources for this Round: (http://www.apsnet.org...) (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
A Zombie plague is more likely to be the result of a fungus than any other Pathogen

In essence, the term 'Zombie', is not a natural phenomenon. We can look to either definition, the first being your traditional Un-dead 1.) the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter into and reanimate a dead body... or 2.) the philosophical definition used to describe 'Imaginary creatures designed to illuminate problems about consciousness and its relation to the physical world. ' Both coming respectively from Merriam Webster and The Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. With these terms in mind, the term described by the pro is the former, in regards to a pathogen creating an animate being containing the Nature of Death. With these things in mind it is important to see that fungus would not indeed be the root cause because it would be of human cause. This is because no Natural force is strong enough to resurrect any being and Humanity has acted more on changing Nature than any other Natural thing, especially in it's projects to augment or change Human Nature. We see this any and everywhere. Something as simple as the effect on Earth's Carbon cycle (http://engineering.nyu.edu...) proves that we can cause a change in Nature that is beyond the cycle, even between life and death. And besides this, the concept of a Zombie in itself, being a human concept, has already become a near bi-product of human experimentation in the field of Science in trying to alter the human body. (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com...) Main Observation: It is a fallacy to reduce the probable cause of such a pandemic to Fungi. The Burden of Proof should fall to Affirmative to prove that the spores would have any adaptive purpose to generate such a thing.
A Zombie plague is more likely to be the result of a fungus than any other Pathogen

A more realistic scientific debate centered around a near impossibility. Explanation: I will be debating that, if a Zombie Apocalypse were to happen, it would be the result of a fungus. A fungus is a type of pathogen when talking about diseases, my opponent will only need to prove either why a fungus couldn't be the cause of form of zombie apocalypse or why a different form of pathogen would be a better explanation. Evidence matters as well as explanations. First round is for acceptance everything goes so long as we attack and defend points. Opponent cannot use an alternative explanation as to why a fungus would create a type of "zombie" if definitions be required or questions need to be asked, feel free to do so in the comments.
All of the recent DDO members with KKK members in their pictures are one person

We are actually way more than 5 members, look at my friends list for those that are currently "public" others don't wish to be named, for fear of being discriminated by prejudice Debate.org members like you. If you look at the date these accounts are created you will see huge anomalies: Source 1 Joined: 3 Months Ago Source 2 Joined: 1 Hour Ago Source 3 Joined: 4 Months Ago Source 4 Joined: 1 Month Ago Source 5 Joined: 2 Years Ago My profile joined: 3years ago Your theory is essentially debunked here. The reason we are all KKK is because we are representing our movement and we discuss our ideologies with one another in group messages. Anyone is welcome to join us, on the condition you change your profile picture to that of the KKK. Thank you. Most humble regards, Madness, spokes-person for the Anti-black movement.
All of the recent DDO members with KKK members in their pictures are one person

If you've been looking at the debates recently, you'll find a number of them are unable to be accepted. All of them deal with implying whites are the superior race, and all of them are with KKK members in their white uniforms in their profile pictures.In addition, all of the profiles, which can be found in the below links, were updated within the last 5 hours(at the time I created this debate), further suggesting they are the same person. http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org...http://www.debate.org... For the above similarities, I think they are too coincidental for each of these profiles to be from different people.
All of the recent DDO members with KKK members in their pictures are one person

-DISCLAIMER: THE ABM IS DISBANDING. WE HAVE BEEN ATTACKED BY THE MODERATORS AND ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO MAINTAIN OUR BELIEFS ON THIS SITE WHICH DOESN'T ACCEPT US RACISTS.-"Well, I'd like to point out an inconsistency between your previous round and this round. You said in the third from the bottom paragraph from the last round, specifically "The reason we are all KKK..." You claimed one thing in the last round that contradicts what you say this round." I was talking about why our pictures are of KKK members. We make it very clear that we are ABM, and not KKK. I fail to see how this relates to one person being responsible for 9+ accounts. "You've not sufficiently refuted every claim, for example you've not refuted the supporting evidence I provided of how there are so few KKK members," We are not KKK, but you refuse to accept this. The reason we feild KKK pictures is simple; We understand that the KKK meet extreme predjudice when they enact their freedom of speech, we believe this is undemocratic and unfair. We simply veiw our KKK profile pictures as a symbol of our fight for our freedom of speech. You're not allowed to join the ABM until you change your profile picture to that of a KKK member. It's like saying "Muslims are Christians because they believe in Jesus as well." Just because we believe in certain ideologies of the KKK and feild their symbolism, doesn't mean we are the KKK, so stop showing prejudice towards our group. "You've not explained why all of you would have changed your pictures all in the same day" Yes I have, please actually read my arguments. We are organised and communicate via group messages, as the spokesperson of the clan I told all the members that they must change their profile picture. How is this hard for you to understand? "If you provide at least 3 different IP addresses, I'll concede this debate." Couldn't I just go to my local internet bar and use that IP, or just change my IP? Your logic is flawed. This screen shots is dated the 15th. As you can see we are communicating privatly with one another, if one person owned all these accounts would they be talking to themselves? This screen print is a dialog between me and your first source. It's dated 15th. I could pull up dozens more screenshots, but this proves it."*All* of the recent DDO members with KKK members in their pictures are one person" Thus I only have to prove that at least one account is owned by an individual. I've proved far more than one here. Could you really vote for Pro after seeing visual evidence. Pro has failed to provide a logical argument and has failed to meet his burden of proof in anyway. All I had to do was refute his claims, I'vc managed that and I've gone above and beyond to provide tangible visual evidence.-THE ABM HAS BEEN DISBANDED, THUS ALL ACUSATIONS OF RACISM AGAINST THE ABM ARE INVALID. WE ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE FOR PAST MESSAGES, AND BEAR NO ILLWILL AGAINST BLACK PEOPLE.-
All of the recent DDO members with KKK members in their pictures are one person

It only takes one anomoly to debunk your baseless theory.Not when there's a potential reasonable explanation for the anomoly. You could have very well created these accounts over the span of 3 years. I've personally seen accounts be removed for being from the same person, and they were spaced out by many months in creation date. Also, all but one of the ones I linked to were created within the past few months. I am the only one claiming to be in the KKK. We are the ABM and to my knowladge no one else makes that claim.Well, I'd like to point out an inconsistency between your previous round and this round. You said in the third from the bottom paragraph from the last round, specifically "The reason we are all KKK..." You claimed one thing in the last round that contradicts what you say this round. Nonetheless, if what you claim here now is true, that you're the only kkk member, how many people are there out there who are actually part of the ABM? I'm sure it's also a very small number too. Very few people nowadays are blatantly racist. Racism usually exists on the subconscious level for most people, and promoting ideas that are anti-black is blatant racism. Racism is highly discouraged in society, so most people who are racist won't be blatant about it. The burden of proof is on you, as you're making an accusation. Thus far, you've failed to meet your burden of proof and I have refuted every point you have made.You've not sufficiently refuted every claim, for example you've not refuted the supporting evidence I provided of how there are so few KKK members, and why would they be over-represented on this forum? You've not explained why all of you would have changed your pictures all in the same day. And, usually burden of proof is something agreed upon before a debate is stated and I never agreed to having sole burden of proof in this case. Look up the debating guidelines on this site, and you'll see that the default is that both sides have a burden of proof unless otherwise agreed upon in the first round of debate. Additionally, I think if there is enough suspicion, the chances are what I say is true. If people lean one way or the other, and if people see that my conclusion is logical, it's reason to believe you are all just one person. There's one way you could easily win this debate:Have each of your members check their IP addresses, take a screenshot of them, and provide them here as pictures. If you refuse to do this, this would cast more suspicion on you likely. Since the default is that we share burden of proof, unless otherwise specified in the first round of debate(which it wasn't), we both need to prove our stance. All you've done so far is offer rebuttal to my points, you've not provided evidence supporting your side yet, such as IP addresses of each of the members, if they are actually different members. You could also offer other logical points I suppose. If you provide at least 3 different IP addresses, I'll concede this debate.