BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming

Survival is one of the strongest instincts we have. If humanity’s survival is threatened on a mass scale, Extraordinary measures would not only become acceptable, They would be demanded. If we are facing an environmental disaster due to global warming, It would be irresponsible to not use all means available to us to avert this disaster. Many people do not believe that global warming is happening; even more do not believe that climate change is going to lead to global disaster. I can understand why these people would not want to attempt a cure for a problem that they do not believe even exists. However for those who do believe that we are facing catastrophe, It is completely reasonable to want to do everything we can to save the environment.
Global warming

A catastrophe, Aye, I'll agree the likelihood looms above as likely. And perhaps research into Geo-engineering would not be bad (Of naturally occurring phenomenon and their effects). However, While I agree that no one unified law and government exists on Earth, There is a fragmented and loosely aligned organization and laws. UN rules for example. Google: theguardian pacific iron fertilisation geoengineering So I reiterate in a sense, That truly groundbreaking work in the field of geoengineering cannot occur until the world itself is broke apart by catastrophe. In which case, What is 'most important is to consider how we can best survive and gain supremacy in the world that follows. After which geoengineering can take the place it so rightfully deserves in our research. I admit I do expect your argument to be based in some fashion around this type of article. Google: nytimes climate volcano geoengineering But even that article includes a line I shall cherry-pick and take from context. "Geoengineering has long had an outlaw image among much of the scientific community, Viewed as risky last-resort measures to solve climate problems that would be better dealt with by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Even discussing geoengineering concepts has long been considered taboo among many scientists. " That's my argument for the difficulty in supporting such an effort politically. For an argument on dangers, Look only I say to the Dust Bowl of Grapes of Wrath fame. When we tilled too widely and greedily with new technology (And some bad luck of wind and drought) Look to the Four Pests Campaign of Mao's China. Yes, Humans attempting wide change on their environment can have benefits, But too so, Risk. Research and understanding may take place, But far too slow for it to benefit us. Better to accept our hand dealt. Better to plan for blood, Sweat, And tears until we finally overcome and in another time are allowed to again heal the Earth. (Churchill quote)
Global warming

You are correct that humankind is not united under one law and government. As such there is really no entity to stop a nation, Such as the U. S. From unilaterally taking action to counteract global warming. Geo-engineering technology is currently being studied and tests are being conducted. We have seen that volcano eruptions have served to reduce global temperature. Depending on the size of the eruption the cooling effect can last months or years, None have led to an ice age. This is one of the geo-engineering methods I’m advocating, Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), Pumping gasses into the stratosphere to reflect some of the sun's heat. Keep in mind that the basis of this debate is the assumption that global warming will soon lead to worldwide catastrophe. Meaning that global warming will cripple our environment, Killing millions of people. If you accept this assumption, I think it is foolish to rely on industry around the world to reduce greenhouse gasses. So far we have had treaties and resolutions to reduce greenhouse gasses, Yet global temperatures continue to rise. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I’m not saying that we give up on trying to reduce greenhouse gasses, I’m saying that after years of trying unsuccessfully to reduce greenhouse gasses, If we are facing catastrophe, It’s time to include a different approach, Geo-engineering.
Global warming

As humankind is not united under one law and government, Enforcement of geo-engineering is not feasible. In addition our understanding of such technology, It's implications, And long lasting actions make it too dangerous to use. Going back into an ice age would be damaging as well as a heating. The only solution remaining is to accept the likely effects in the future and to instead individuals, Groups, And governments looking to their own safety and survival in such an event. Adapting to life in the new world. As well as WW3 in which humanity is united under one government and is then able to develop technology to survive the new world, As well as move into space.
Global warming

To my opponents round 3, I say of course we may want to try to save the environment. But let us not stretch our necks out upon chopping blocks for lost causes. In an ignoble, Doubting, And selfish world, Is it reasonable to expect others to share your sense of selflessness and noble spirit of sacrifice to risk and attempt a fine deed? I don't think so. With the odds of society, Science, And rational self interest. It is reasonable for people to looks to their own skins, Own flocks, Own families. The only way I see your proposal working is for one nation and law to emerge to confront the crisis. Do you really see that happening?
Junk food should be banned

Junk food should not be banned as many students from remote area come to stydy in cities. They ve no much options to satisfy their hunger. They usally do not have time for cooking food early or late night. Moreover it is convinient to purchase easily avialable food. If junk food is banned students have to travel a long distance each time to satisfy their hunger. Mostly they would avoid this and would leave their meal. This would also cause a bad effect on their health.
Our constitution has been raped, and we might as well write a new one simply saying "screw God".

You have a radically warped view of what the constitution does and says. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people from the government so in situations where a government official in a government capacity is attempting to influence religious, political, or other rights or curtail free speech or the press they are to to be stopped. Public schools cannot "speak for themselves" they are restrained by the bill of rights from speaking on issues that the people at large cannot agree with. You cannot have a school sit a child down and force them to read the Koran or pray to Shiva, Jesus, or Zeus. If you wanted to make government rules for dealing with religion, almost undoubtedly you'd end up with the same rules we have today. Our constitution is being enforced.
Our constitution has been raped, and we might as well write a new one simply saying "screw God".

Seperation of Church and state never existed in our constitution, it was a term coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to congress, and he was referring to the state controlling peoples religion. Nowhere in our constitution, or in that letter, does it say anything about our governments ability or lack thereof to engage in, endorse, facilitate, or in any way be involved with any religion whatsoever. Our nation's founding fathers WERE Christians, and while we weren't founded as a Christian nation, we were founded on Christian principles. Some arrogant atheist (Scarlett Ohara) gets offended that her child has to see prayer and so she sues AND WINS??? This is what started the whirlwind. Now this is where people say, "Public schools are for learning not religion" My response to this is twofold A: Your lack of religion is no more important or educational than my relationship with God. Why should prayer or devotionals not be allowed in school? You want to pray to shiva, go ahead, I wont bother you. B: Our nation's public schools speak for themselves. You removed God from our kids education, and with him the concept of absolute morality. You can argue there is no such thing as absolute morality, if that is the case we should have no laws and no police because if you can murder your baby just because he isnt born yet why cant I murder you? Our nation has been getting worste an worste, and everyone is like "oh it has nothing to do with that". DENIAL We grew and thrived as one nation under God. We are one of the most powerful nations on Earth, even though we are one of the youngest. Since we kicked God out of society more and more we are losing our standards, our family unit, our worldwide reputation, and ourselves. Atheism is just as much "just your opinion/belief" as is any religion, and to try and elevate your own beliefs above everyone elses while simultaneously telling everyone else to keep their stupid opinions at home is called...um...HYPOCRISY Then there is freedom of speech. Do you think the writers of our constitution had virtual child pornography in mind? Do you think they were looking out for the rights of a bunch of white-hooded inbreds advocating hate and violence? Anyone can say whatever they want, so long as it isn't a religious statement. There have been 2 national coverage stories over the past year of Valedictorians (One in PA and one I think was Michigan) thanking God in their V speech and having been removed from stage. That lesbian chick can insult Jesus at her little awards show to show her disdain for Christianity, but a judge cant choose to hang the 10 commandments in his courtroom. Once again, hypocrisy. Fortunately for you guys, atheism is much more profitable to the government than most religions are.
Mitt Romney is a Liar (as a GOP Candidate)

This is a short debate. Only 3 rounds.No trolling, no semantics.I must prove that Romney as a GOP candidate has lied at least 10 times.R1: AcceptanceR2: Argument, CON rebuttalR3: Rebuttals and ClosingDue to the last word advantage, CON will only have the opportunity to rebut 5 of PRO's points in R3. PRO will only be able to rebut 7 points in the final round if necessary.Mitt Romney: This guy (http://www.google.com...)
Mitt Romney is a Liar (as a GOP Candidate)

Arguments1) Opponent Conceded2) My opponent basically states that "[Mitt] does plan on cutting rates across the board." Therefore, Romney's plan DOES CUT TAXES for the wealthy. And Romney has not specified any cuts in deductions. So, we cannot assume Romney would do such a thing. So the Romney plan does cut taxes for the wealthy overall. - Win3) The main point of this point is that Romney was lying when he said that "25 million people are unemployed because of Obama."That is obviously not true, therefore a lie. WinThe picture shows that private sector jobs are slightly up, net under Obama. And government has shrank. 4) The article I posted earlier showed that the ACA reduced the deficit by several billion over 10 years, net. Thus, Romney was lying when he said that eliminating the ACA would reduce the deficit, because it is false. Win.5) Opponent conceded.6) Opponent conceded.7) Under Romney's current tax plan, and which programs he plans to cut, net his plan, as my source last round proves, increases the deficit. This includes any growth that may occur from the tax cuts. Win.8) My opponent basically says that Medicare has never been cut. So, he says indirectly that Romney was wrong and was lying. FTW, Reagan increased revenue for Medicare. Win.9) Since I can only rebut 7 points, I concede this one.10) If the people are earning an income, they are not unemployed. If Romney HAD SAID, "Today more people are out of work in America or working part time than employed in Canada." it would've been true. Romney however didn't say this. Therefore, it was a lie. Win.11) I can rebut 7 points. I concede this one. Even though Romney only paid a 14% tax rate as I proved.12) Concede. For sake of 7.13) Opponent conceded. Romney was talking that the NRA endorsed him as governor of Massachusetts, what they never did (clarification).14) I concede this point.15) The statement Romney said (currently, in the past few hours the link went down) was that Obama has not completed his campaign goals. Now, that is not true Obama has completed at least 47% of his campaign promises, with others "in the works." [3]16) Opponent conceded.17) We all know that the UAW does not own the auto companies. A lie. The auto companies are corporations. Their website proves it too. [4]Conclusion:So, I win points, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, and 17.Therefore, I win. Thanks for the debate.Vote PROSources:[1] http://www.americanprogress.org...[2] http://www.politifact.com...[3] http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com...[4] http://www.gm.com...
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

1. Okay. He rejected God. 2. No, he will be eternally lost because of rejecting God. 3. No. Rejecting God is not a sin. The same idea does not mean they are the same thing. Forsaking is more of an abandonment issue. Rejecting is more of "I don't want or need you" kind of thing. The Bible says that this choice whether to serve him or not is not a sin. Rejection isn't a sin which means that one goes to hell not because of his/her sin but his/her choice to reject God. I don't think there should be any judgement against Saul and that only God knows if he was lost or not and that his case proves nothing becaue there was no Jesus and the basis of right and wrong were the conscience. I think that every move we make is a choice but rejecting God is not a sin since God gave us this choice. Free will is a choice God gives us and nowhere in the Bible can I find that the rejecting of God is a sin. So forsaking and rejecting are two separate things and carry different ideas though similar in ways. I agree with you on you're 7th point but that's because of rejecting God not because of sinning. Since they chose to reject God, and then sin, they got punished. They did not sin and get punished bad, they rejected God and got punished bad adding the sin, which made it worse. Also, most Christian books I've read find that the "Ultimate" choice is if you reject God or not. All the other sins are also choices but the ultimate choice is not a sin aince God presents it to us. Only the ultimate choice is truly what God gives us. "For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone who purports to be a Christian can say that rejecting Christ is not a sin", I think that you are not one to judge me and how God judges us is the most important. I think that's not right for you to judge me in a debate and that is unfair to all. Also rejecting God is not a sin, since God gives it to us. I don't care how many sins you list that God says will be eternally lost, it is the ultimate decision that will get you eternally lost and that is why you would do those sins. I also think I have made it clear that if you reject God will be eternally lost. I also made it clear that it is not you're sins that make you eternally lost, it is our ultimate choice that will cause it. Also thank you for this debate, I really wished it had a longer time limit because there's lots of pressure. Thanks.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

1. I honestly do not know about his salvation status. I believe that only God can truly judge him and as the Bible said that no man may judge. 2. Both. It has happened before and can happen. 3. Yes. First of all, sin is a strong word. Sin is defined by my opponent as "believing or commiting acts contrary to God's law". However my opponent has a part that destroys her own case. It's the part that someone may sin that will make him or her go to hell. Choice is not sin. Choice is instead the freedom that God gives us to make decisions on our own. Saul chose to reject the Lord after he had accepted him. Rejecting God is not a sin. It is the choice that God gives us. The choice to reject God will ultimately make us reject God. So when my opponent says that King Saul is a primary example of a Christian sinning enough to go to hell, I'd say that King Saul wasn't a Christian because Jesus hadn't come yet and he didn't sin which made him eternally lost but his choice did. Therefore my opponent's first contention is invalid. The 2nd contention was that the behavior and consequence of Israel are types and shadows for our Christian example. My opponent goes on to prove what Israel did and what will happen for Christians. However, let me remind you that Israel chose to reject God. They did not sin badly enough to get punished. They were destroyed because they rejected God not because of their sin. My opponent's contention three is that salvation is conditional, I agree with this. It is conditional when you reject God. Rejecting God is not a sin because God gave us this choice. Therefore that choice to reject him is not a sin which means salvation is only conditional when we reject him. When my opponent has as her 4th contention is basically that the Bible confirms we can fall away. I absolutely agree with that. The only thing I need to say is that we fall away by rejecting God which is not sinning. The Bible says we fall away, it does not say we sin in such a way to fall away but instead reject Christ which is NOT a sin but choice. Therefore falling away is irrelevant. I have refuted all of my opponent's case. I'm sorry that they were not as good as I thought but it's really tough to write good arguments in a couple of hours. Thanks.
A saved person, a Christian, may sin in such a way as to be eternally lost.

Each party is permitted to ask three questions of the other disputant each round, except the 1st and 5th, and the other party must answer on his succeeding post. I will define the term: A saved person: one who is saved, not lost A Christian: synonym for "saved person" or child of God May sin: the possibility exists that this person may believe or commit acts contrary to God's law Eternally lost: eventually wind up in hell The historic Baptist position is that a child of God (once saved) cannot possibly ever be lost (always saved). Of course, I deny this. I will add that the proposition is to mean, "The Bible - the sixty-six books of the standard Protestant Bible and a correct translation thereof - teaches by example, command, or inference that a saved person may sin . .. .. ." I add this because I am in debate, if you want to call it that, with a moron named DakotaKrafick who accepted the terms and definitions, then as it turns out, does not believe in God, hell, heaven, eternally lost, eternally saved, or even the definition of sin as provided.
Laughing

RESOLUTION ================================ Your resolution seems a bit blurry, but I think I have it. Your Resolution is that people should laugh just as much as they did when they were younger. DEFINITIONS ================================ Laughing: An audible expression or the appearance of happiness, or an inward feeling of joy (laughing on the inside). It may ensue (as a physiological reaction) from jokes, tickling, and other stimuli. ARGUMENT =============================== Although laughing can be good, it can have negative effects on a person's body. Strong laughter can sometimes bring an onset of tears or even moderate muscular pain This would not be good for a person as they grow older. Elderly people have diseases that eat away at their muscles Laughing as much as kids do would in the end bring more harm than good. Kids laugh a lot, but it is because things just seem funnier to them. Now a day, people get irritated with people laughing all the time like little kids. It is shown that nursery kids laugh 18 - 45 times per hour! Adults laugh about 15 times a day. That means that we would laugh in a twelve hour span about 20 more times than we do normally. Nothing would be taken seriously. Telemarketers can't just laugh all the time when on the phone, who would take them seriously? Funerals would be a joke, everyone sitting in one room laughing over a dead body. ---------------------------------------------------- Something else to think about, we would be ripping one all the time! Laughing relaxes muscles. When this happens it is impossible not to gas. That is why kids always let out leak and stink up the room. It is the same thing with peeing and pooping. The elderly already have weak bladders, why would we want them to lose total control? Would you be okay if your grandmother ripped one every time you walked into the room? People will definitely not be more attracted to you. ------------------------------------------ You claim, "If one starts laughing, they will notice the benefits today! " Well, that does sound like a pretty good infomercial, I'll give you that. But like all infomercials the benefits are not as good as they seem. Laughing will most likely not save countless lives, scientist say that chocolate helps you to. Does this mean we should eat chocolate everyday? The resolution has been negated. Sources: (1). . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). . http://www.allenklein.com...
Laughing

Even though many do not argue against laughing, studies have proven that as they average adult ages they laugh up to twenty-five times less than when they were in kindergarten. There are too many positive benefits laughing brings about to let this happen. Laughter benefits us physically, mentally, and socially. From laughter, we enhance our immune system; therefore, we are less likely to become sick. Our levels of stress are decreased. This leads us to thinking and acting more clearly and creatively. Also, people are more attracted to us, and it is easier to make and improve relationships of any kind. Because of all the many benefits of laughing, we cannot afford to stop laughing as we age. No reason is great enough to laugh less, and nothing can make up from the loss benefits that we will not gain. If one starts laughing, they will notice the benefits today!
All particles with angular motion are in a radius approaching 0.

I am having a hard time understand what my opponent is talking about. If I am not mistaken, my opponent argues that the angular momentum of a rigid body comes from "tangential motion," by which I believe my opponent means the "orbital angular momentum" of the particles in a rigid body (a rigid body is a collection of particles). Then, my opponent (I might be giving him too much credit here, as I'm filling in the holes in his argument...) states the same thing I said in the previous round: for a rigid body to have 0 radius, the particles which make up the rigid body would have to move faster than the speed of light. I already explained why this is not physically possible. There are many other problems with my opponent's argument. For example, particles are not rigid bodies. Rigid bodies are made up of particles, and can have a radius, but the issue at stake in this debate is that of particles, not rigid bodies. I have clearly shown that particles do not have a radius. Hence, the resolution is affirmed.
All particles with angular motion are in a radius approaching 0.

A second state of rotation does not describe the semi-rigid body undergoes motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only a passing of a particle is conservative. There is not an external force at all to pass this particle, let alone sufficiently remove that particle. A first state of motion does not occur when a rigid body undergoes rotational motion. The tangential motion of each particle is insufficient to increase proportionally with the radius from the axis of rotation and only the radius of the particle in the axis of rotation approaches 1. By approaching one the rigid body has an angular motion. Wikipedia's Article On Rigid Bodies: http://en.wikipedia.org...