BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should humans consider going to Mars

OK my opponent stated: "So, instead of reducing green house gas emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, houses, and factories, we should instead tell everyone on the planet to pack their bags and they'll be shipped to Mars. This is ridiculous, instead of going to another planet why don't we try to fix the Earth?" Think of it this way. "what if there was no green house effect" Scientist say's that with no green house effect thee would be NO WEATHER HERE ON EARTH. They'll effect the crops even more wouldn't' it? Reducing green gas house emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, house, and factories? We've been trying to do that for decades now!. Global warming was reported pre 1938. And yet there's still green houses, gas cars etc. So why wait? By time the government or we as people, decide to take action it'll be all ready to late and to much of earth to attempt to recover. It'll take time transport humans, cars etc. Also it'll take time to build houses, factories and so on..BUT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!!. Last but not least Mars has Ice polar if you dint know. If those polar caps melt it could form an ocean. which could help the growing of crops. YEAH I SAID IT. check out the links below for proof. Vote Pro because Con doesn't make any sense. You just cant restore the ozone layer when its most vulnerable. once it is gone it's gone and there's nothing that can bring it back. You cant restore the Ice melting. what are you gonna do?. you cant just decide one year to fix the problem and expect for it to be ok the next. It takes time and it'll already be too late. And can cause floods which will put Canada, North and south America under water. Once it melts, It melts!. http://wiki.answers.com... What if there was no green house effect >>> http://wattsupwiththat.com... Mars polar caps >> http://www.spacetoday.org...
Should humans consider going to Mars

Humans should consider going to Mars, because it is scientifically proven that, due to the global warming, pollution in the air and climate change that humans are in big trouble. Ice glaciers are melting, the ozone layers is being ripped apart, and climate is rapidly changing. I say go to Mars because water has been found on Mars, which is all living thing needs. And its proven that an actual human being can live on Mars. If a human being can live on Mars I'm very sure any other species can.
Should humans consider going to Mars

Think of it this way. "What if there was no green house effect" Scientist say's that with no green house effect there would be NO WEATHER HERE ON EARTH. I had never said that we would reduce greenhouse gases to zero, merely reduce our amount of emissions. That is far more cost effective than spending trillions on flying to Mars. Reducing greeen gas house emissions, lowering the pollution from cars, house, and factories? We've been trying to do that for decades now! True, but does that mean we should give up because it hasn't worked? Furthermore, what is more realistic? Impose a carbon tax, or fly to Mars and live there? We shouldn't give up and do something more complicated than our problem, it is easier to solve global warming. BUT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY! !! Let my ask you this, how long does it take to build a building in your city? Roughly a year minimum. Now, how long will it take to ship matierals and build entire cities from the ground up on Mars? To build thousands of cities all over the planet? Last but not least Mars has Ice polar if you didn't know. I am fully aware of the fact that Mars has water on it, but water is not the only thing humans need to live. I have already shown how Mar's atmosphere is inhospitable for humans, we would freeze and burn to death in a single day. You just can't restore the ozone layer when it's most vulnerable. We have. The hole in the ozone layer decades ago has already regenerated after the ban on CFCs. You can't restore the ice melting. Yes we can. The Earth has experianced many instances of warming and freezing. Earth has had over 5 ice ages, plus this global warming has happened before in the Industrial age, only for the temperature to go down again. It takes time and it'll already be too late. Compared to the 5 years it takes to get to Mars. My opponent has provided no refutation to any of my arguments, he hasn't challenged anything, so all my points still stand. Mars is simply too far away and it costs far too much to get there. Building a planet from the ground up is impossibly time consuming and wasteful. Furthermore, Mars is inhospitable for humans PLUS the planet is likely to be wiped out in the future from the Phobos colliding with it. My opponent has not refuted my points and I have destroyed all of my opponent's contentions.
Is Russia Better Than Japan

Since my opponent has provided an opening argument, so will I. Russia's economy definately is not better than Japan's. Due to Russia's insistence on getting involved in the dispute in Ukraine, Western sanctions have crippled it's economy. But more to the point, Russia's GDP is less than half of that of Japans. GDP of Russia - 1,175.996 [USD]GDP of Japan - 4,210.363 [USD]. http://www.imf.org...=You can see that Japan's economy is much better off than that of Russia's at this moment. The unused land towards the east of Russia cannot be put to use if there's no growth in the economy. I now toss the ball back to my opponent, and await their rebuttals and arguments.
Python Vs. Java

okay so normally you would be right it would be better to be quicker. But is it really better to have a sloppy mess? Java you can get it done efficiently and python. Well i mean its quicker i guess? but java is way more effiecent. Let me put it in these terms. Java is a unfinished puzzle with all the correct pieces. While Python is a pile of puzzle pieces in a giant heap each of which are from a different puzzle that you have to try and piece together. So again i say python does get the job done quicker. but java does it 100 times better
Python Vs. Java

Okay lets state it like this Your at home your lazy and you have a project due in 3-4 hours lets say that project is too do coding of some sort Then by all means i recommend python its easy and simple like he said but the real question is. Is it good? Lets go back to the project but instead you have a day or two. I would heavily recommend java. While python Is easier and quicker its more clunky and harder to do exactly what you want while with java you have less lag and although you have to do specifics more its overall better because you arent restricted think of it like this you have a piece of paper and a pencil and your told to draw. Thats python and then lets say the guy next to you gets an array of colors and a huge white board to draw on but the utensil has a tiny bit of yellow on it. Thats java your free to express yourself so again i say your not creative and you have an hour left to finish a coding project use python but if you even have only a day and have a little creativity use java there are no limits to what you can do. with java its your world with python its not
THBT change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

I believe that change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.Terms1. THBT: This House Believes That.2. Change:Development of current state.3. Comes: Occurs.4. Molotov cocktails:Actually home-made grenades, (HERE) war.5. Voting ballot: (HERE) Peace.StructureR1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance.R2. Arguments.R3. Rebuttals+ defence.R4. Conclusion/ Why I won this debate.We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round.Rules1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits2. No trolling3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it. 4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category5. No new arguments in final and beginning round.8. BoP is shared in this debate.9. Not following rules is an automatic loss.I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate! I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.
THBT change comes through molotov cocktails, not with a voting ballot.

Defense: First I'd like to point out my opponent failed to rebut Point 3 of my argument, which I feel is my most crucial point. Even when war transfers power, a "voting ballot" movement is needed after to ensure and secure true change (i. e. Bill of Rights, writing of new constitutions, electing new leaders). If these type of events don't happen, we see the results of my opponent's disastrous examples. "War is hostility on a large scale, over a long duration of time. .. Violence is hostility expressed through physical force. " By this distinction provided by my opponent, 2 of his 4 examples don't even qualify as war. Coups and dictators are not wars. El-Sisi and Ergodahn's preference to simply murder and oppress civilians who disagree with them is by his definition just violence. Furthermore, the study I cited required "the movements to be substantial in size, involving at least 1000 people active in the movement", far from "two ants beating each other up over a piece of sugar. " "Indians use Ghandi's peace movement as a cover for the numerous war and rebllions India had, for example: India's First War of Independence, which 'challenged and ended the power and control of British East Indian Company in India'". Power over India was just transferred to the British Crown, and as a result of the War, Britain cracked down harder than ever. From his source: "As well as hanging mutineers, the British had some "blown from cannon," in which sentenced rebels were tied over the mouths of cannons and blown to pieces when the cannons were fired. " It would be 90 years until Indians gained independence as a result of Ghandi's nonviolent revolution. "A story that many people don't know was when a black child in South Africa trained a dog to steal diomand from a diamond mine, which was then sold to buy weapons. " Does this ridiculous, unsubstantiated story really deserve more credit for ending apartheid than the life's work of Nelson Mandela and the ANC? "As soon as he died, people started riots! That shows the unsuccesfulness of his peaceful movement. Then again, did any change come to America after his 'peaceful movement'? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. " Riots did not nullify King's peaceful movement and life work. His movement inspired the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ENDED SEGREGATION, far from nothing. Furthermore, he is viewed as a champion of change across the world over 50 years later, the same cannot be said for any of my opponent's examples. Conclusion: My opponent argues that, when used "correctly", war brings better change than peaceful movements do. Why then did he not provide a single example of an entity using war "correctly"? Why did, in each of his examples, did the entity using war end up using war to murder and oppress civilians of their own states? War enables this kind of abuse. In the end, voters, ask yourself if movements should walk the path of the dictators, ISIS, the Taliban cited by my opponent or Ghandi, Martin Luther King J. , and Nelson Mandela. Which group has enacted the change we want? The choice is simple. Thank you for reading.
Behemoth are not a Freemason Band

Paddy if you watched the video Evidence I have given you, you would see that Behemoth symbol next to the Freemason Paddy why are you trying to deny what is being presented to you Paddy you need to be honest and tell the truth anyone who watches the video proof that I have shown will see that Behemoth Symbol is being used in the Freemasonry Paddy I notice you did not give any links or any way of defending your position lol here is another link http://villains.wikia.com...(religion) / Me Quote and Freemasonry is a cult
Behemoth are not a Freemason Band

This video doesn't mention Behemoth. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that if an artist creates something that depicts or references an entity, that must automatically mean that the artist actively worships said entity, which means that the authors of any book of the bible that references a demon or a 'false god' were active worshippers of the demon or 'false god'. There is not much more I can argue because you haven't really made much of an argument.
Behemoth are not a Freemason Band

A while ago, shortly before you banned me from your group, you decided arbitrarily that I must be a Freemason. Your logic was that a band I listen to, Polish Blackened Death Metal band Behemoth, are (in your words, and your words only) a Freemason band. You came to the conclusion that Behemoth are Freemasons based on the fact that they have a song called 'Horns Ov Baphomet', and the fact that the aforementioned song was on an album called Zos Kia Cultus, which has a picture of a Baphomet-like creature on the cover. I would like to debate you on whether or not they are, indeed, Freemasons.
Behemoth are not a Freemason Band

Paddy I don't think you understand Baphomet is within the Freemasonry here I will post again the video evidence that Baphomet is in the Freemasonry http://www.youtube.com... / Me Quote Paddy you listen to Satanica, and Cultus, Music thus PROOF: Illuminati Freemasons Worship Baphomet (Satan, Lucifer) / Me Quote Paddy you now know that Baphomet is within the Freemasonry thus I have proven to you the evidence is right there it is you that needs to take the time to listen to what has being presented to you But I can see that you do not accept the truth but Paddy weather you like it or not you listen to evil music I thought you did not believe in God Paddy needs to learn to accept the truth :) even if the truth hurt's :)
Behemoth are not a Freemason Band

Ok Dale, so of the three albums you listed ('Satanica', 'Thelema.6', 'Zos Kia Cultus') I've only actually heard one (Zos Kia Cultus). Again you make the assumption that art necessarily imitates life. You have not provided any proof that any members of Behemoth actively worship Baphomet, or are members of the Freemasons. You have shown evidence that the band are are interested in such subjects, but not that their interest is rooted in their religious ideas. Also, the lyricist you mentioned (Krzysztof Azarewicz) isn't actually a member of Behemoth, he has just contributed lyrics to three of their nine (soon to be ten) albums. That is a huge minority of their lyrics. Yes there is a song called Horns Ov Baphomet on Zos Kia Cultus, and yes I have listened to it before. That is wholly irrelevant to the debate.
Behemoth are not a Freemason Band

lol Paddy one of the links you gave I read where it say's this The band started as a traditional black metal act (1991-1996), then merged to a blackened death metal style (1997-2003) and finally evolved to a modern death metal band (2004-now). Krzysztof Azarewicz wrote many of the lyrics on the following albums: Satanica, Thelema.6, Zos Kia Cultus, / Me Quote so Paddy you are listing to Satanica and cultus music and Freemason they are into Satanica, and Cultus, music and when I clicked onto Cultus, I found in the song list Horns ov Baphomet so Paddy do you listen to that song called horns ov Baphomet Paddy I rest my case again checkmate I win,
I will never stop molesting children

I will never stop molesting children Ever since I was a little boy I liked porn I got my first boner When I was maybe 8 I wanted to have sex I wanted my classmate She was a fine girl at age 8 She was very sexy and small I never managed to have her Because I was a coward But now, At age 21 I am a different man When I see a little girl I am not afraid to approach her I am not afraid to touch her When I see a little girl Alone, Without anyone around I approach her, I kiss her, I touch her I will never stop molesting children Molesting children is what I do best You can call me monster, You can say That what I do is wrong But it will never stop me I will never stop I will never stop molesting children
Slavery

Say what exactly? That slave owners made huge amounts of profit off slave labor? (Which they did) That historically speaking before the abolitionist movement became very popular, most non-slaves in that time did not necessarily view slavery as immoral? Sorry con, these are historical facts. Sense a good of number people were making boat loads of money of the atrocity that is slavery, its hard to say that everyone during this time accepted the idea that slavery was bad. Truth is if you were in search of cheap to free labor, and wanted to make huge amounts of profit regardless of morals, than slavery was really not that bad of an option. During the era of which the slave trade was most prominent you can count on people viewing slavery as a great means of gaining capital. My opponent seems convinced that whomever decided to accept his challenge was actually going to be "for slavery". Absolutely ridiculous... To con's request, SURE. I wouldn't have a problem telling an African American that back when slavery was prominent, people weren't as morally in-tuned as we would like to think. In addition that slave owners and various southerners certainly praised slavery at the time.. A little thing called the civil war occurred for that particular reason.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY - Con has not attacked any of my arguments. - Con has posted a whopping two sentences in the entire debate so far. - Con has not yet to post really any arguments, just a statement and a threat.
Slavery

Just for the record, I myself am completely against slavery... That being said I will be more than happy to debate con on whether slavery was an overall bad thing in both a social and economical sense. *DEFINITIONS* Slavery: " Work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay." Exploitation: " The act of employing to the greatest possible advantage. " *ARGUMENTS* [1]. As far as morals are concerned, it's widely excepted in today's society that slavery is wrong. Although sense con has stated " Enough said, slavery WAS a bad thing. " I can assume that this debate will be argued from a historical perspective. Knowing that, I can assure you that previous to Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" & the up-brewing abolitionist movement, slavery was not viewed by most whites and non-slaves to be immoral. Keep in mind obviously slaves certainly hated slavery. ( As they should have) But to assume that everyone at this time viewed slavery to be a bad thing or immoral for that matter would be a some what of a naive belief. [2]. Con states in a very frank matter that slavery was a bad thing. I would ask him to elaborate his statement and perhaps go into further detail. If my opponent wishes to pass his statement as a fact he will need much more than a single sentence containing seven words.. [3]. In a financial sense, many people made outrageous amounts of profit off slavery. Due to the innovations in technology such as the cotton gin, an economic boom was taking place along with the most exploited form of labor from the slave trade. Regardless of how immoral you may view a certain action. If the people doing that said action are getting rich off of it, and profits are only getting exponentially higher, I can assure you that those people will not view it as a "bad" thing. Sources: [1] http://www.pbs.org... [3] http://funwithhistory.wordpress.com...
DDO member "Club" was in the news yesterday

Club was trying to keep this story from surfacing but through some back tracing of his IP address and after talking to some reports it was confirmed that this is the same individual as the story in the paper 40-year-old sues parents for getting rid of vast porn collection GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - An Indiana man is suing his parents for getting rid of his vast pornography collection, Which he estimates is worth US$29, 000. The 40-year-old man last week filed a lawsuit in federal court in Michigan, Where he moved in with his parents in 2016 following a divorce. He says that when he moved out 10 months later, They delivered his things to his new home in Muncie, Indiana, But that his 12 boxes of pornographic films and magazines were missing. His parents admit they dumped the porn, Which included titles such as "Frisky Business" and "Big Bad Grannys. "
Why marijuana legalisation should be avoided at all costs.

Debate has been forfeited. It would have been interesting to see the other side. I placed a pretty textbook pro-legalization debate. Evidence shows that legalization has little impact on use to begin with, especially compared to greater influences like percieved risk from education. Asside from the universally negative affects of smoking, marijuana is not particularily harmful when used by fully developed adults. Marijuana is one of the less adictive drugs we have common access to so its easy not to abuse it. Any substance can be abused, and abuse of any substance can cause harm to your your life. Please be careful, and if you have any doubts, just don't do it.
Why marijuana legalisation should be avoided at all costs.

Before beginning this debate, I'd like to give a short background on my perspective. I believe I have some degree of credibility as I have known many marijuana smokers, a handful of drug dealers, and had friends that were affected by substance abuse. I am Pro-Marijuana, Alcohol, and Cigarettes, although I do detest cigarettes. I do not recommend any of the substances, though I do drink in healthy amounts regularly. I, like over 40% of Americans have tried marijuana. I do not particularly enjoy it, and am not a regular user. Since there is nothing sacred, like human life or rights at stake here, I propose that we weigh the benefits with the negative effects for determining the winner of this debate. If the Pros outweigh the cons the pro wins. If the Con outweighs the Pros the con wins. If the con accepts, burden of proof is shared. If not, I will continue to argue that legalization is a good thing regardless.
Why marijuana legalisation should be avoided at all costs.

In this debate I will be arguing against the legalisation of marijuana, as well as why it should be criminalized on a global plan. Children in the modern day society have far too many responsibilities and errands to be under the influence on cannabis. It has been proven that adolescent indulgence in THC slows the growth of the prefrontal cortex, which is the part of the brain we use to obtain new information. Furthermore, long-term use induces impaired cognitive thinking and an altered reward system. As you can probably deduce these factors have a negative effect on the quality of schoolwork as well as attendance. The horrors of marijuana don"t stop as you exit your teenage years though. The sheer illegality of it should be enough to make any sensible adult stay away from marijuana. Failure to do so results in run ins with the law which will then add to your criminal record. Needless to say, this is non-beneficial toward any individuals" future, which poses the question, why would anyone ever smoke pot?