BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, with the exception of me resulltinf to forfeiture

I would like to point out that my opponent has not proven that he could beat me in a debate, nor could he support his claim with evidence "i have beaten you in all our debates so far and you dont have a single example that i am wrong"No evidence is to be found here. Meanwhile, you assert that I have no examples without waiting to see if I have any examples. http://www.debate.org... 4 of my losses. Nowhere does it say that I have lost to you. This means that you have never "beaten me in a debate."http://www.debate.org... are my ties. I have tied one debate with you so far.http://www.debate.org... are my wins. I have won 7 debates against you.At this rate, you will never beat me in a debate. You could've used reasoning to support your bare assertion, but you decide not to, as always. You will sometimes get off topic, spout off random nonsense, and make bare assertions. The sources will show the voters that what I had just claimed is true, and that you haven't beaten me in a debate yet.I have put out evidence to reject your claim, so in return, I ask that you use reasoning or other evidence to debunk my claim. Since I already addressed that you have the BoP, you HAVE to prove me wrong. So far, you haven't done anything to debunk anything that I said. You don't use any sort of logic or statistic that proves that you could win a debate against me.
vi_spex could never beat me in a debate, with the exception of me resulltinf to forfeiture

The title already says it all. I think that you could never beat me in a debate, not counting the fact that I could forfeit the debate. And since you have to prove that you COULD beat me in a debate, (as I've stated) the Burden of Proof is on you. (Btw, my apologies for misspelling "resulting", I know it said "resulltinf". I'm going to put that out there.)
The US should increase its use of nuclear energy

We are told that USA & the world at large faces an energy crisis unless we build new nuclear power plants. First the pemis of an energy crisis is fake & secondly nuclear energy is more of a risky & expensive solution, it creates layers of problems, we should rather invest cheaper renewable energy sources like hydroelectricity, wind farms, solar farms & salt water into hydroelectricity. 1. Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction and pose an unacceptable risk. We need to eliminate, not proliferate them. An attack could render a city like Manhattan a sacrifice zone and kill hundreds of thousands within weeks. 2. More reactors can"t halt climate change in time. We would need 300 in the U.S. and 1,500 worldwide just to make a dent in greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions. One reactor takes seven to ten years to build. 3. Devoting scarce resources to shore up nuclear takes away from the real climate change solutions " conservation, energy efficiency and renewables like wind and solar. 4. Building enough reactors to offset climate change is cost prohibitive. Reactors cost $4 billion or more each a decade ago and the price hasn"t gone down. 5. Nuclear reactor proliferation means more waste with no place to put it. A new Yucca Mountain-style dump every four years would be needed if 1,500 new reactors were built. 6. Nuclear power is not emissions-free. From uranium mining, milling and enrichment to construction and waste storage, nuclear uses fossil fuels. 7. Reactors at the beginning and the end of their lifespans are at their most dangerous, prone to breakdown and accident. Most of the 103 operating now are nearing the end of their cycles. Adding new ones doubles the risk of accident. 8. Electricity is not the biggest problem. It"s fossil fuel-powered vehicles. Adding nuclear won"t address this or reduce these major ghg emitters.
The US should increase its use of nuclear energy

This debate in essence has come down to a couple main topics: waste, economics of plants, and claims made by my opponents(sorry for being broad). Before I move on to those points I believe it's also important that I point out how my opponent never used one piece of evidence throughout the debate. Now moving onto the arguments. Waste I refuted my opponent's claims about waste throughout the debate with evidence. You could use thorium based reactors, which effectively reduce waste to a minuscule amount, in tandem with blowing this waste into glass to extremely reduce the amount of waste and contain it. Which my opponent never responded to. Economics of plantsMy opponent spoke about how plants cost a lot to construct, which is true. But using evidence from the EIA I showed that an overall lifetime system levelized cost which takes into consideration everything associated with constructing and running a plant, nuclear falls in the middle of the pack. On top of this using the same EIA evidence I also spoke about the capacity factor (how much of the US power grid a certain form of energy can power), I showed that capacity factor for nuclear was much higher then all of the counterparts which my opponent proposed. Meaning that even if nuclear costs a little more, it's still much more viable power source. I also refuted my opponent's point about subsidies using evidence from the NEI showing how the subsidies nuclear receives aren't any greater the other forms of energy and also aren't as bad as my opponents suggested. Claims made by my opponentBecause this topic is a little broad I should clarify. Throughout the debate my opponent made claims without any evidence that were either false, fear mongering, or had some other issue. So, I what they were and where in this debate you can see my refutation of these points. Nuclear plants are essentially nuclear bombs waiting to happen/fallout fear mongeringMy refutation for this is during my round 2 response. I essentially talk about how this extremely unlikely this would be to occur and is mainly fear mongering on my opponent's part, also I gave evidence about how a nuclear meltdown's harm wouldn't be too significant. I also refuted the point about nuclear fallout by showing how my opponent gave no evidence and how my evidence about the actual dismantling of warheads is occurring as a result of nuclear energy. This should clearly hold more impact.
Gay Marriage is Wrong

Why should lovers stop just because they are frowned upon? It has been said that Gay Marriage goes against the bible, but that leads me to ask- "Why is this being handled by the state?" I was under the impression that Church and State were separate. I understand how nice it is that people are trying to keep Americans out of hell, but shouldn't the individuals take that risk themselves? Why not institute laws against atheism? Or we could just jump the gun completely and publicly stone anyone who disagrees with the bible. Many say that Gay Marriage would destroy family values, but since we have had Gay neighbors for my entire life, and as we have not yet succumbed to Satan's powers, I fail to see the validity of that argument. Basically what this argument means is that Christians are afraid to live in the same neighborhood as anyone who is different. Furthermore, it is widely believed that gays choose to be that way, just as the rest of us "choose" to be straight. All I'm going to say is that when you're born, your tongue already has its taste preferences set up. Of course, you may think your favorite food is bagels, because that's all your mother feeds you. Then one day at the store, you buy some cantaloupe, and you discover it's what you'v wanted all along. We are not born gay or straight; we simply are born with unique preferences, that are not the concern of the government, in any way, shape or form.
Gay Marriage is Wrong

I don't believe you can judge the quality of a parent by their sexual orientation. Many children are molested by their heterosexual fathers- regardless of whether the children are male or female. Many heterosexual mothers also allow their children to be sexually, mentally, and otherwise physically abused by heterosexual family members- if not by themselves. Since the majority of children in America live in heterosexual households, how much worse can it be in a homosexual household? I have met homosexual parents and they emphasize great care in protecting their children from most forms of abuse BECAUSE they are being more closely watched by society. I don't feel sexual preference dictates ability to parent, and keeping a child from an otherwise loving family due to the parents' sexual orientation is just ridiculous...
Gay Marriage is Wrong

I am not opposed to homosexual unions of any type- only those in which I am asked to be involved in... unless those homosexuals are female. What I am opposed to is the state or the government trying to force religions to recognize and even preside over homosexual marriages. There should not be any legal hindrance to anyone who wants to assign another person as their heir, beneficiary of insurance claims, power of attorney in medical decisions, etc. As a comedian once stated- hey, if gays want all the crap that comes along with marriage, by all means GIVE IT TO THEM! I don't believe homosexuality is "wrong", but I do believe gay "marriage" in the religious sense of the word is wrong because religion prohibits it. I would not vote for a consitutional amendment banning it, or having anything to do with it for that matter. Legal unions which transfer all the powers of a spouse to the couple should be legally sufficient for homosexuals, and there are churches that will marry them even without a legal union. I don't think we have a real problem here as long as the religious understand the difference between a legal union and marriage, and homosexuals understand that marriage these days is just a peice of paper giving your spouse rights over your life! There is a happy medium, but zealots are counterproductive to any solution...
Gay Marriage is Wrong

For the record- My profile says I am "against Gay marriage". I chose "against gay marriage" because of the way the question is worded. It states "couples of the same sex should be allowed to get married, AND BE RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE(not yelling but emphasizing this statement)". I believe this is an issue of individual states, not a federal mandate. I would personally vote in favor of an institution which gives gay couples equal rights as a traditional married couple- but I don't feel it it is the government's place to enforce a blanket equal recognition of gay couples and heterosexual couples as heterosexual marriage is not a legal institution, rather a religious one that has been secularized. It is from this point of view that I have chosen to favor the statement- "gay marriage is wrong". Who determines whether a secularized religious institution is wrong or right? Since it is a religious institution, though secularized, it is only logical to follow the philosophy of the religion which first imposed it's institution in America as a legal one- Christianity. From a Christian point of view gay marriage is wrong. This is the point of view that matters in this argument because secularism, democracy, or any purely logic based institution cannot determine whether a religious institution is right or wrong, and whether or not the right to marry should be modified legally. Furthermore, as with traditional marriages, it is the individual states' rights whether or not to recognize ANY marriage. A collective examination of state laws concerning marriage will show that nearly every state has basic differences governing marriage, and every state reserves the right to recognize marriage licenses from other states- though most submit themselves to recognition of other states' marriage licenses they do reserve that right. Now that that's out of the way, how is gay marriage wrong religiously? Well, the bible DOES specify that marriage is between a man and a woman. The bible also specifically denounces sex, love, and sexual acts between members of the same sex, and through Mosaic law it is impossible to consummate a marriage between members of the same sex. The government cannot force any religion to recognize marriage between anyone. The Catholic church cannot be forced to recognize a Muslim marriage license between members of the Catholic church, and vice versa. Certain parameters must be met in every religion in order for the marriage to be consumed, and a basic requirement in every religion is that the marriage is between man and woman. Gay marriage is wrong because marriage is a religious institution, and you cannot force a religion to recognize something that is against it's fundamentals.
Atheism vs Christianity : Does God exist

I will start off that saying, while I am an Atheist myself, I've decided to play Devil's advocate (so to speak) and argue for the existence of a creator. According to my opponent, Round 1 is to be acceptance, so I will not go into great detail, as the next round will be the round where our arguments are presented. For this round, I will simply ask some questions to my opponent to set the record straight on exactly what we will be arguing. I was raised in a Catholic school and a Catholic home, and I attended Mass every Sunday. While I've grown to reject the concept of a God, I've grown to understand the psyche behind those who do, and the thought process that occurs when making the choice to believe in a "God". The first step in that process, is defining just what "God" is. This is a huge part of deciding whether or not the concept can be true. In defining God, the first thing one must ask, is "Is god tangible, or abstract?" Most, save for the more hardline Evangelicals, would define God as abstract. We cannot hear him, see him, touch him. He is a concept, not a real thing. He exists, but is so wildly beyond our comprehension, he can ONLY exist as a concept in our minds. Therefore, the routine argument is, he is abstract. On the other hand, many believe that they themselves have experienced God, and that he is real and tangible. The second question one must ask is "Is God all powerful?" Eastern Religion, along with pre-Abrahamist Western Religion, taught that God is not all powerful. God can be killed, can be wrong, can fail, etc. We can see that in Hindu Vedic texts and in the Norse Apocalypse of "Ragnarok", where all of the Gods died. Christians, Jews, and Muslims, on the other hand, define God as someone who cannot be wrong, cannot be killed. He is all powerful, and his will is the final word. We cannot understand how he is right, but he is. The third and final question is, "Is God alone?" How many Gods are we talking about here? One, like in Judaism and Islam? Many in one synthesis, like in Hinduism (Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu) and Christianity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Many, like in Roman paganism and Shintoism? So, my challenger, before we start this debate, please define in these terms exactly what God is? Is he a concept or a real being? Is he all-powerful or prone to failure? Is he one and only, many different, or many forming into one? Whatever definition you would like to set is fine by me.
Should we Debate Creationists, or should we excluded them from Scientific discussion

Unfortunately Con has forfeited this round, in the process dropping my contentions. He has not fulfilled his end of this burden of proof, meaning that he has not explained to us the benefits of excluding people and why we shouldn't debate people who disagree. He didn't address why we shouldn't simply win the debate, nor did he address the distinction between ardent followers of some belief system and people who may be apathetic, and to whom we ought to be directing our efforts. Then he discusses educational outreach and awareness and so forth, but disregards that debating is a form of that. He claims that it merely promotes ideological entrenchment, but not only hasn't proven that -- and, frankly, cannot prove it -- but there are plenty of examples, merely on this site, of people changing their minds simply by virtue of having a good debate. People who are unaware will be able, also to learn of the different sides and various arguments and form their own opinions. My main case, ultimately, is that I love DDO and what this site stands for -- that sounds cliche, but let me elucidate it with the remaining characters I have. DDO basically says that, no matter who you are or opinions you hold, theres's a place for you in the discourse. Yes, debate is going to be rigorous and you may well be pushed to your intellectual limits, but that's not something that ought to be frowned upon, but encouraged. And an anecdotal example from my past, if you wouldn't mind. It's interesting, actually, because it explains the origins of my name. When I was still an undergraduate, I called myself a Hayekian (subscriber to the writings of Frederick von Hayek). My macroeconomics professor was an ardent Keynesian, and would often joke about the "invisible hand." I initially found his language and out of character, so I addressed this during his office hours. Instead of attacking me -- or excluding me -- he explained his positions and suggested further readings. Look at where I am now.
Should we Debate Creationists, or should we excluded them from Scientific discussion

I think it's important at this point to point out the cognitive dissonance in Con's argument. First, he claims that debate is not the only way to "validate and further one's side." Implicit in that is that debate is a way, in which case, he has upheld his own resolution. Then he goes on to say that education and awareness are preferable to debates, meaning that we should prioritize education over debating. That may be so, though that is outside the parameters of this discussion. We're not debating what the most effective way to achieve our end is, but rather whether one method, debate, is at all beneficial.It's interesting, I should point out, that he doesn't at all address the benefits of "excluding" people, which is obviously his end of the burden of proof in this debate. He speaks of debates being a form of ideological entrenchment, though it's difficult to be ideologically entrenched if you're apathetic -- or if you're simply uninformed, such as the Americans unaware of a heliocentric worldview. Notice that I never suggested that we attempt to cut through Ken Ham's confirmation bias, but to debate for the sake of exposing the flaws in his arguments for the benefit of people who are otherwise apathetic or unaware -- which is educational outreach. I see this as the primary flaw in Con's argument. He points to a figure of many Americans being "unaware" of heliocentirsm, then speaks of "Geocentrists," which he is implicitly defining as adherants to geocentrism. But what he fails to account for is that (1) apathy, as is suggested by his poll, does not imply ardent support and (2) there is a difference between people actively pushing these views and people who simply are unaware and may presently subscribe to such a view by default -- or have no clue one way or the other, and are thus "unaware." My point is, in debating people like Ken Ham et al. -- people who are ideologically entrenched -- we reach a broader audience of people who aren't, and who can change their minds.
Should we Debate Creationists, or should we excluded them from Scientific discussion

First, I want to start off by saying that there are plenty of science deniers that we refused to debate with and have delegitimized, Take the Geocentric crowd, once very popular but more a laughing stock. Even still geocentrism holds some wait, "Recent polls have suggested that one in four Americans are unaware the Earth revolves around the sun"(www.rawstory.com) But know one in their right mind would want to debate with Geocentrists, the obvious solution is to Stress and increase Educational efforts about the issue. So my point is that we treat creationism In the exact same way. My opponent said we cede ground to and lose the apathetic and undecided voters by demeaning them. This would be true if debate was the only way to validate and further ones side. But increased awareness and stress education under the pretext of science denial is much more preferable than debates that just assure ideological entrenchment.
Should we Debate Creationists, or should we excluded them from Scientific discussion

Truly, the fact of the matter is this: we do know where the science is and has always been. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about 13.2 million, and evolution is the driving generational force. All of this has been proven scientifically, and Con and I both agree that these ought to win out in the end. Therefore, our main disagreement has to do with methodology. He seems to think that merely by excluding people, we're advancing our own cause. In fact, we're doing just the opposite. Let me provide a pertinent example. About 1 in four Americans are "skeptical" of climate change (. http://tinyurl.com...). John Oliver did a segment on Last Week Tonight (. http://tinyurl.com...) where he took a position quite similar to Con's: essentially, he wants to report "one in four Americans are wrong on climate change" and likened it to 1 in 4 Americans denigning the existence of owls. But the fact is this: we don't win people over to our side by demeaning them or excluding them from the debate -- and this goes largely to people who are apathetic or have been lied to for all of their lives, or told, perhaps by a mainstream news outlet, that there are two equally valid sides when we know, on an issue such as climate change or evolution, the "debate" is largely over. So, I think the only way to address this issue is by debating these people on the facts and evaluating their arguments. To say that we shouldn't debate creationism is to suggest that, merely because it may not be possible to convert Ken Ham to the side of since, we should cede ground to him with people who are either apathetic or not sure -- the "undecided voters" portion. We suggest that we are too timid or too arrogant to discuss these issues. By saying "the debate is over and we won't even discuss this with you" is to betray an inherent arrogance. Why not just win the win debate?
Should we Debate Creationists, or should we excluded them from Scientific discussion

I am Against Debating creationists ,in an Age where we have the media promoting certain views and discouraging others, It is very important that as far as science goes, we, as in our media, schools and institution, do NOT debate with science deniers. Doing so furthers their position as the other side, a legitimate alternative scientific theory that presents its own facts. Many people now think that, Evolution AND the creation story are in conflict over an unsure issue. Evolution is and has been the only choice with regard to facts, history, paleontology, biology etc... It only make sense that when we talk about scientific theories, we should only discuss the ones that are actually scientific.