BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

The arctic ocean defiantly is falling and that does not fit with global warming, especially if you say its warmer up there. (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) (http://www.physorg.com...) (http://seattle.craigslist.org...) The facts do not come together and there is a lot of hype, but little concrete evidence that global warming is something to be worried about.
Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

"You said: 'much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet.' If you say CO2 cools the planet then how can we be warming the Earth? How does that CO2 differ from our CO2?" - The difference in CO2 that you're asking about is a matter of a solid vs a gas. CO2, or gaseous carbon, traps infrared solar radiation that would otherwise be reflected back into space when it is perpetually emitted into the atmosphere at the current rate. Solid particulate matter that is emitted into the atmosphere actually reflects solar radiation. "With water vapor causing most of the greenhouse effect and the little bit of CO2 that influences it being mostly natural, how can the comparatively miniscule amounts of CO2 we emit make any difference?" - As out of control carbon emissions trap infrared solar radiation and warm the earth, there's a significant increase in the amount of evaporated water in the atmosphere, which intensifies the greenhouse effect. "According to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite the Arctic Ocean's sea level is falling, which if the ice were melting should be rising." - I'm not sure about that one. I cannot attest to the validity of ERS-2 observations. "The sun has at least some control over the temperature and Mars's icecaps have also decreased over the past 3 years." - The climate crisis is due to occurrences that have taken place over a period of longer than three years. Even if Mars has retreating icecaps, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is due to solar activity. "The hype over global warming may be more prevalent now because media is more wide-spread and can hammer in the idea of global warming more." There is a degree of truth to this, but that's not to say that it's a good thing. People need to be aware of our impact on the environment. I do not believe, however, that the media should try to terrorize anyone about global warming. When people get scared it inhibits their ability to rationally deal with the problem at hand. There are a lot of ideas floating around that there needs to be international enforcement of environmental regulations. To me, an international government is a very scary thing.
Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

Great response! I'm glad that there is such a strong arguer for global warming on this site. You said: "much of the emitted CO2 and other pollutants form natural sources is in the form of particulate matter, which actually causes global dimming of the sun, and serves to cool the planet." If you say CO2 cools the planet then how can we be warming the Earth? How does that CO2 differ from our CO2? With water vapor causing most of the greenhouse effect and the little bit of CO2 that influences it being mostly natural, how can the comparatively miniscule amounts of CO2 we emit make any difference? As for the arctic sea level, for some reason I wrote falling in the place of rising and vice-versa. Sorry, I checked it over, but I guess I didn't notice it. This is what I meant to type down: According to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite the Arctic Ocean's sea level is falling, which if the ice were melting should be rising. The Hockey Stick Graph is the graph that show the average world temperature spiking up at the end (today) so that it looks like a hockey stick and that graph is scientifically invalid. The sun has at least some control over the temperature and Mars's icecaps have also decreased over the past 3 years. The hype over global warming may be more prevalent now because media is more wide-spread and can hammer in the idea of global warming more.
Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

Let me first say that I believe in global warming and I am doing this to see if I can win even against it. You say that the Earth's temperature has been rising because of CO2 produced by man, but this a normal cycle and there have been tons of other times when we have freaked out about it. (http://icecap.us...) Go to this link and look at the bottom graph on page six, which is the average temperature from 1895-2007. Not only do I not see the temperature rising too far above normal, I see it falling sharply around today. This is in complete contradiction to your claim that the earth is warming and that it is different then it has been. Now go to page 7 of the link. There you see that CO2 and temperature have no link. The sun can have a big influence on the earth's temperature and it has been more active lately as proved by page 3 of my link. There have been many times in which the world has worried over a global cooling. In 1895 the New York Times was reporting an apocalyptic story, not on global warming, but on global cooling saying "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again". Later, in the 1920's the earth warmed by half a degree and the New York Times started talking of an apocalyptic warming. Then, in 1975, the New York Times reported that "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." The cover of Science News showed a worrying picture of the earth being enveloped by ice and many people panicked. Now, its reporting warming again and this time its different? I don't think so. It is not just the Times that has spread global warming, in 1975 Newsweek worried that the earth was cooling dramatically. Everyone is taking minor temperature changes as apocalyptic predictions. (http://www.geocraft.com...) Here it says water vapor is responsible most for the greenhouse effect and most other sources are natural. In the medevil warm period, people were able to grow grapes in England and they can't grow grapes there today. Not to mention we are just recovering from the Little Ice Age, which may explain why we feel a bit warm. The arctic ocean, which if the ice is melting, should be falling, is rising according to Europe's Space Agency's ERS-2 satellite Even the hockey stick graph, which is used to prove global warming is scientifically invalid. All in all, it water vapor that has the most effect on global warming and even if it didn't there are still many reasons for why it is false and not caused by man.
Global warming is nothing more than a natural warming cycle, and not is due to CO2 emissions.

It would seem that the consensus among academic institutions worldwide would be enough to persuade most people that global warming is real, that it is a problem, and that it is a direct result of human-produced carbon emissions into the Earth's atmosphere, but many are still not convinced. The skeptical argument seems to be that the Earth is so vast that mankind could never be any real threat to it, and / or all of the evidence presented by the world's most prominent scientific minds only points to naturally occurring events and warming cycles. The problem with the skeptical side of this argument is that the skeptics lack the knowledge necessary to view the argument objectively, from all sides. Skeptics fail to understand the concept of chronic vs acute when considering whether the source of harmful carbon emission levels are man-made, or naturally produced. Scientists have taken into consideration the significant amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere naturally by contributing factors such as volcanoes and organic decomposition. The difference is that manmade sources perpetuate a consistent or chronic flow of carbon emissions across the planet, which maintains the enhancement of the greenhouse effect, and as a result causes the exponential rate of unnatural warming our planet is experiencing. Significant natural sources of carbon emissions do occur, but they are acute and subside after a period of time, and therefore do not intensifying the greenhouse effect for a period long enough to perpetuate an accelerated warming trend. Scientists have been able to map natural warming trends over the course of several hundred thousand years through analyzing ice core samples taken from Antarctic glaciers, as well as through other methods. When comparing the rate of fluctuation between natural carbon and temperature cycles and the cycles being witnessed today, it is clear that excessive manmade carbon emissions are causing an accelerated warming trend at such a rate that our global ecosystem cannot adapt to in a non-catastrophic fashion. I would ask that my opponent keep their argument rational, and leave their emotions at the door.
Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism

I accept the challenge and negate the resolution with one caveat: I do not agree with the Pro's decision to include the word "healthy adults" in the resolution for three reasons. First, there is no morally significant difference between healthy adults and unhealthy adults, so we should be debating this resolution as a general moral principle. Second, since children are also a major part of modern society, the term "adult" is too inclusive; children should also be a part of the debate. Finally, debating about the health-related impacts of an action is distinct from an action's moral rightness because one's choices about one's health only affects oneself and not others. Thus, all of the contentions in this round must center on the moral rightness or wrongness of vegetarian diets and omnivorous diets, and not on the health-related impacts.
Tim Spin's Debate Tournament R1: Vegetarianism

Resolution: Vegetarianism is a more ethical diet than an carnivorous (or omnivorous) one for healthy adults in modern civilization. By "modern civilization" I'm essentially referring to the fact that alternatives exist. We are not referring to a hunter-gatherer society where food is constantly scarce and man and beast are frequently pitted against each other in an evolutionary show down.I will be taking the PRO stance and the burden of proof is squarely on me. First round is only for acceptance and definitional qualms from Con. Additionally, although we'll try to make the debate quick as I am on a deadline - August 13th through August 20th I will have no internet access. I have made this clear and in the event that the debate does go overtime it will not count as a forfeit, but rather be continued when I come home. Regardless, I will try to respond quickly but thoroughly to meet the deadline.Good luck, Con.
Conversion Therapy

Hello, my name is Ivan Hopekins and I am a family doctor and would like to welcome you to the debate. It is my first debate on this website, so please bare with me as I find out how the "gizz" works around here. Shock therapy is the most effective way to treat the homosexual illness, as it caves into our society and grabs us by our legs, forcing us to act on such matter. I have personally sent teenage boys to gay conversion, with permission from their parents, of course, and I can confirm that it has a 99% success rate, which means it works 99% of the time! These children have been tricked by the media into thinking homosexual behavior is natural, and shocking them to coming to the conclusion is the most effective way for someone to stop such a satanic choice they made in their life.
Conversion Therapy

Conversion therapy is a psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual through electroshock therapy. Pro will advocate for conversion therapy. I, con, will argue that conversion therapy is not only ineffective, but immoral and dangerous. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources. Rounds:R1: AcceptanceR2: Main ArgumentsR3: Rebuttals (No new arguments) This debate will assess whether churches and other religious institutions in America should or shouldn't be taxed for the property they own. Con will discuss why religious institutions should pay their taxes, while pro will defend why these religious institutions should be exempt from taxes. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Conversion Therapy

If being gay isn't a choice, then how was this man saved from sin? http://www.ibtimes.co.uk...? How do you explain this story http://www.jamaicaobserver.com...? These two men are now people of God, and when they embraced their Christianity, their homosexual behaviors died down. This is physical proof that science cannot explain accurately, because God works in very mysterious ways. Proving homosexuality is a choice is a very simple concept, all you need is two magnets. Try to put a positive and a positive or a negative and a negative together; it just simply doesn't work. But when you put a negative and a positive together, then they can connect. Whether it's electroshock therapy or something else, this is a proven illness by the Old Testament that needs to be treated accordingly. It was a pleasure debating you, and I hope that the best comes in the following years.
Conversion Therapy

I wished my opponent cited valid sources and used quantitative or qualitative data to suppor this arguments. His claims are very vague and does not form an argument that supports Conversion Therapy. Additionally, I did ask that rebuttals would be saved for Round Three, and not Round Two."Your argument that homosexuality is not a choice is very flawed. You have given a study source, which I do give you credit for that it is indeed a very well presented argument, but an argument I cannot believe." I believe that I have properly demonstrated that homosexuality is purely a genetic trait, and that it is commonly found in nature by citing multiple sources which help support my argument."You said that electroshock therapy has an 11% success rate, by associating homosexual behavior to pain. If homosexuality wasn't a choice, then how is it possible to have a success rate at all?" As I have said before, Conversion Therapy uses painful stimuli (electricity) to discourage homosexuals from acting on their sexual impulses because the therapy deliberately associates these impulses with pain and fear. An article which I have cited in the previous round states that "success in therapy has been defined in various ways... [such as] behavior to continued homosexual attraction in the context of celibacy," (S1).Sources:S1) http://www.ispn-psych.org...;
Conversion Therapy

Your argument that homosexuality is not a choice is very flawed. You have given a study source, which I do give you credit for that it is indeed a very well presented argument, but an argument I cannot believe. You said that electroshock therapy has an 11% success rate, by associating homosexual behavior to pain. If homosexuality wasn't a choice, then how is it possible to have a success rate at all? Maybe electroshock therapy is not the right direction, but an 11% success rate means nearly 1/10 people treated with this kind of therapy had a positive outcome. There wouldn't be any percentage of success rate if it weren't a choice to be homosexual to begin with. I would also like to add that one study does not confirm fact. For example, there are studies that say climate change is not real, when there are others that say the exact opposite. Both cannot be right, so therefore it requires more than one study to confirm fact. In Duet 7:1-6, there were a group of people known as the Canaanites who lived in a town that practiced perversion, sodomy, idolatry and other sinful acts. These sinners were so satanic and evil, that when Yahweh commanded Israel to exterminate them, they had to even kill their livestock. Why did I tell you this story? Well, it's because sin is passed on to animals, and they continue to practice what us as humans do, and if we practice in homosexuality then animals will practice in homosexuality.
Why the Christian Trinity is NOT Biblical

I will be debating for why the Christian Trinity is NOT Biblical. Whoever accepts this debate will be arguing for why it IS Biblical. I would like a Christian who actually believes in the Trinity to engage in this debate with me. If you are an atheist or a person who does not believe in the Trinity, please do not accept and play as "Devil's Advocate". We will be using only the King James Bible to cite "evidence" for this debate. Which means, you cannot use quotes or information from any other type of resource or document or book other than the King James Bible. The first round is acceptance. The second round will be explaining what your worldview on this is and perhaps some questions. The third through fourth will be for either more "proof", questions, or rebuttals. The fifth round is for closing arguments and rebuttals. The Burden of Proof lies on both the Con and the Pro. If you have any other questions, please ask them in the comment section.
Why the Christian Trinity is NOT Biblical

-Rebuttals- Genesis 1:26 This verse is taken out of context to portray "evidence" for the Trinity. Let "us" make man is a usage of words called, "plurality of majesty". "Us" is a common usage among kings and/or queens indicating they are talking to their kingdom. Well, you say, who is God talking to? Simply, the angels. It even clears the word "us" up as obviously not being used to show the Trinity in the next verse. It says in the following verses, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;". Notice it says "his" and "he" indicating a singularity of God and NOT a plurality. How can the Son pray to the Father? I would say that you would agree that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time. Most Christians believe this. You see, although Jesus is God, since he is 100% man, He HAS to pray. Jesus had 100% of man's nature, and since He did, He had to pray. It was man's flesh crying out to God. The word "Trinity" not in the Bible? It isn't first of all, as you admitted. Second of all, your argument about the word "Bible" not being in the Bible is entirely invalid. Consider this, the word "Bible" comes from the latin word, biblia, meaning, a collection of books. This word we use to call the scriptures has no scriptural value or changes anything about the Bible. Unfortunately, the Trinity does change some things. Name of God? "God" is not a name, only a title. What did the apostles baptize in the name of after Jesus told them how to do it in Matthew 28:19? That's right, Jesus. -Questions- It says in the Bible, "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow".... (Phil. 2:10) Now look at this, in Isaiah 45:23, Jehovah God says, "unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear". Are we going to be bowing down to two seperate persons in the Godhead? Or are they one and the same person? Jehovah also says in Isaiah 45:21 that he is our Saviour, "a just God and a Saviour"... Do we have two Saviours since Jesus is also ours?
Why the Christian Trinity is NOT Biblical

The Bible teaches that there is only one true God and that the Father is God, the Son is God, and Holy Spirit is God. However, the Bible also teaches that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is three consubstantial Persons, meaning God is three Persons in one Being. The Bible makes many references to God's plurality in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:26 says, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." In this statement God is referring to himself in the plural, which can only mean that God is not a singular person. Deuteronomy 6:4 is speaking of the Being of God. There is only one true God, the Triune God of the Bible. John 17:3 also helps expound on the Trinity: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." How can God the Son pray to God the Father if they are the same person? Also, how can the Father be the same person as the Son? The distinction is clearly laid out in the previous passage. If God is the Father in Creation, how can the Son be crying out to him after Creation? The word "trinity" may not be in the Bible, but neither is the word "Bible." Since you like to say, "God is the Father in Creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in emanation," I don"t see why saying "[the] phrase "God the Holy Spirit" is not in the Bible [and the] phrase "God the Son" is not in the Bible"," has any bearing on your stance. The name Matthew 28:19 is referring to is God. Those three persons all have the name of God. The same thing applies to John 5:43. The name of the Father is the name of God (YHWH in the Hebrew).
Why the Christian Trinity is NOT Biblical

I believe there is one God and Jesus is His name. I also believe God is indivisible in his being. This is commonly referred to as, "oneness or the oneness of God". Deut. 6:4 proclaims, "Hear O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. Jesus refers to Deut. 6:4 as a verse of great importance, the first commandment. He states that "this is the first and great commandment." It is, that is, Deut. 6:4, is the foundation of all faith. Everything we are as Christians rests on the shoulders of this commandment. Which is why, this debate is of such great importance. In John 17:3, Jesus prays to the Father, "And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Jesus places eternal life as being contingent upon having a knowledge and a revelation of the true God. As many people like me like to say, "God is the Father in Creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Spirit in emanation. First, before I dig into this deeper, let me say some things that people may not know. The word "trinity" is not in the Bible. The phrase "God the Holy Spirit" is not in the Bible. The phrase "God the Son" is not in the Bible, and last, the phrase " three in one" is not in the Bible. This may seem trivial at first, but in my understanding, it is not. Also, I would like to state that I do not believe in modalism at all. The name of God is Jesus. The verse, Matthew 28:19, perfectly illustrates this. Jesus had said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If you diagram this, you see the titles, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", describe the name. What is the name you say? Jesus, it's Jesus. Jesus said in John 5:43, "I am come in my Father's name". If he came in His Father's name.... Then what is the name he came in? Jesus. It's Jesus. http://mballestero.files.wordpress.com... This a very brief explanation of what I believe of God. More to come.