BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

Arguments : 1. Generally, it is believed that we can not use solar energy after sun sets. However, epoch-making technology is emerging. That is to store the sun`s heat in molten salts.(Scientific American, August 4,2010. http:blogs.scientificamerican.com) According to it, ``the power plant can harvest enough heat to generate five megawatts of electlicity, day or night, and can store enough energy to keep producing power even at night or during cloudy daytime hours.``(http:blogs.scientificamerican.com) 2. According to the Scientific American, ``solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.`s electlicity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050.``(January, 2008 Issue) For example, ``a vast area of photovoltaic cells would have to be erected in the Southwest. Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours. Large solar concentrator power plants would be built as well. A new direct-current power transmission backbone would be deliver solar electlicity across the country.``(January, 2008 Issue) We must admit that a new energy revolution is going on these days.
Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

“However, a new technology which contributes to producing a solar power with less cost is being seriously studied and will be introduced into it in the future. At this time one of the benefits of a nuclear power plant over solar power will be faded away. In fact many companies have been challenging for developing a new technology for solar power for many years.” This argument is null because we agreed to limit this debate to technology that is commercially available as of January 2013. “Capacity and Safety : It is true that a nuclear plant can simply run at full load all night or during cloudy/ rainy days. However, in case of Japan, people must take a natural disaster into consideration. For example, it is predicted that a great earthquake might happen in Japan. Therefore, in that country a nuclear power is not a safety and dependable energy source. If the natural disaster or technical accident at nuclear power plant might take place, the soils around the plant would be contaminated with nuclear waste for many years. The important thing is that the the accident of a nuclear power plant brings about the devastation of the local economy and the life of people as we have experienced in the Fukushima reactors.” I already demonstrated in round 2, that American Nuclear reactors are built to much higher standards than Japanese nuclear reactors, The American Nuclear society even went so far as to say that a Fukushima-style disaster could not happen in the US (1). Also, Solar Power produces 10 times more deaths per Terawatt hour than nuclear power (2), so essentially Nuclear power is 10 times safer for everyone involved. Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar 0.44(less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (Europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) On to my opponent’s economic argument, Nuclear Plants can contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to local economies (3). Sources: http://www.usnews.com... http://nextbigfuture.com... http://green.blogs.nytimes.com...
Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

Rebuttals: I will try to present rebuttals regarding the Pro`s arguments for Round 2. 1. Cost : Pro points out that a Nuclear Power Plant cost less than half a comparable solar power plant per megwatt. However, a new technology which contributes to producing a solar power with less cost is being seriously studied and will be introduced into it in the future. At this time one of the benefits of a nuclear power plant over solar power will be faded away. In fact many companies have been challenging for developing a new technology for solar power for many years. 2. Capacity and Safety : It is true that a nuclear plant can simply run at full load all night or during cloudy/ rainy days. However, in case of Japan, people must take a natural disaster into consideration. For example, it is predicted that a great earthquake might happen in Japan. Therefore, in that country a nuclear power is not a safety and dependable energy source. If the natural disaster or technical accident at nuclear power plant might take place, the soils around the plant would be contaminated with nuclear waste for many years. The important thing is that the the accident of a nuclear power plant brings about the devastation of the local economy and the life of people as we have experienced in the Fukushima reactors. The continuation of my argument will be made for Round 4.
Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

I am really hoping you posted this argument to the wrong debate; however I will try to make fun of your mistake as much as possible. First, Solar power is no cleaner than nuclear power, as neither produces greenhouse gases or burns fossil fuels Second, We both also agreed before that both nuclear and solar power were renewable, so this argument is also invalid Third, this argument has absolutely no bearing on nuclear power. Fourth, I really hope you know that solar panels do not produce vitamin d. I can walk outside and get vitamin c with or without solar panels. I want to thank my opponent for contributing absolutely nothing to this debate, and I forward all of my arguments to the next round. Also, all of cons sources simply link to the live-strong home page.
Nuclear Power VS. Solar Power

Let me start my arguments. These days people and industry are interested in creating a new energy source which is not only friendly for the environment but can produce enough power to sustain homes and businesses. There are number of benefits of solar power. First is that it is cleaner. ``Producing solar energy doesn`t require the buring of fossile fuels, currently the most common sources of energy in the United States.``(http://www.livestrong.com...) This is a result of research by the U.S.Department of Energy. The important thing is that buring fossile fuels contributes to releasesing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, ``producing electlicity with solar technology releases no such gases`` which is harmful for the environment and human beings. (http://www.livestrong.com...) Second is that solar power is renewable. ``The World Coal Institute estimates that there is enough coal to last more than 130 years at current production levels, enough oil to last 42 years and enough gas for 60 years. The sun, however, is an inexhaustible energy source, and from it solar technology can produce unlimited amounts of energy.``(http://www.livestrong.com...) Third is that solar power contributes to reducing oil imported from the oil producing countries. For example, ``the United States imports more than 50 percent of the oil it uses, and spends more than 20 billion dollars each year on oil from the Middle East.``( http://www. livestrong.com) Fourth is that solar power is beneficial for human health. The important thing is that ``solar energy provides an essential vitamin for the human body, vitamin D. With the influx of articifial lighting and in-home technology, many Americans are not getting enough exposure to the sun.``( http://www.livestrong.com...) Therefore, ``natural absorption of vitamin D comes from the sun`s ultraviolet rays, and solar energy - especially in sun rooms or sky lights - is an abundant and effective source.``(http://www.livestrong.com...) That are all my arguments for Round 2. I continue on my arguments for Round 3. Good Luck.
Arrogant people don't believe in God.

Let me spell it out for you. P e o p l e w h o a r e a r r o g a n t can have the same beliefs as anybody else. It's not the fact that they are arrogant but how they treat others. It's not right to treat others on their emotional factors or how YOU perceive them to be, it's their actions that you need to judge on. Some people can't help that they are arrogant or its a disability they are issuing with. But they can still believe in God if they want.
Arrogant people don't believe in God.

I am the con side...you are the pro side. I am against the resolution that all arrogant people believe in god, while you are for it. The first round should've been for acceptance, but since you have already gone, you will not argue in the final round and allow me to have the last say. I don't really have much to say at this point, though, as the Pro side seems to agree with me, despite taking the opposing side.... I contend that your amount of arrogance has no bearing on whether or not you believe in god, as many arrogant people believe in god, such as the leaders of the crusades, or Hitler, whereas some humble people don't believe in god, such as many atheists or agnostics that are humble and help others. The God we are specifically debating is the Judeo-Christian God. Arrogant: Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
Arrogant people don't believe in God.

You are being arrogant about other arrogant people, therefore making you a hypocrite. claiming that arrogant people don't believe in God is not even an ounce of being correct. you can be the meanest person ever but you can still believe in God but not hold to your standards. Last time I noticed, God doesn't test people on their amount of arrogance but on how they have faith in God and believe in Him. THATS IT.
Impromptu 10

I shall leave my opponent with three choices for argumentation in Round 2. I choose to argue my opponent's first presented choice. I will debate the proposition, "The Cleveland Indians & Atlanta Braves should not have to change their mascot. " Here are my opponent's choices: 1) Should the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) pay its athletes? Should amateur players be compensated for the use of their names and images in official NCAA merchandise? 2) Should certain types of advertisements—such as for prescription drugs, alcohol or tobacco, and ads aimed at young people—be regulated? Or should companies be allowed to present their products as they wish, leaving it up to the consumer to decide whether to buy the product? 3) Since the 1980s, AIDS has killed roughly 32 million people worldwide, and there are currently some 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Is focusing on prevention efforts the best way to combat the disease? Or should efforts focus on treating those who already have HIV/AIDS? How should other diseases, such as malaria, be addressed?
Impromptu 10

Opponent's choices: 1) The Cleveland Indians & Atlanta Braves should not have to change their mascot. 2) Education modifications are unrealistic in the real world. 3) DUI is the equivilent of attempted manslaughter. In Round 1, my opponent will only leave me my 3 choices to be argued in Round 2. My opponent will choose 1 of the above the and argue either side in Round 2. Judges will determine who presented the better case. Good luck and enjoy!
Fast Food Resturants do More Harm Than Good

As far as my forfeiting the round is concerned.I would like to remind the readers and my dear pro that I was not in the favor of this debate having more that 3 rounds.Pro will certainly agree to this.I must also admit that it was my fault that I could'nt notify Pro of my decision to forfeit one argument. Although I would have loved to reply to my pro's argument but since he has requested me not to post any new arguments, I think it will only be wise to fulfill his wishes. As far as voting is concerned, I it is my heartiest appeal to the reader's to vote for what seems right and fair and wise to them.
Fast Food Resturants do More Harm Than Good

However, on to the voting: Agree with before the debate: Pro (Of course, almost everyone thinks that fast food is bad. ) Agree with after the debate: Con (Con showed some reasons why fast food is good. ) Conduct: Pro (Con forfeited. ) Spelling and Grammar: Tie Most Convincing Arguments: Con (Con provided some great reasons of why fast food is beneficial. ) Most Reliable Sources: Pro (Con has only given 1, while Pro has given 5. ) Finally, I would like to thank Mcoolshi and the readers. Happy New Year!
Fast Food Resturants do More Harm Than Good

However, please read my side of this debate for Round 4: 1) " I think that Pro has failed to understand my point. What I mean to say is that fast food is not hazardous to EVERYONE. It is only a problem for abscent-minded and nonchalant people. " ~ Con Fast food is indeed hazardous, because fast food, most of the time, are unhealthy. This meets the definition I gave. 2) "Once again the con has misinterpreted my words. I will only say that it was just an example of what can be inducted by eating so called "unhealthy" foods. " ~ Con I believe Con agrees with me that fast food is pretty much unhealthy. 3) "So what my Pro is basically doing here is that instead of blaming the nonchalancy of people, he is blaming the fast food joints. Till what extent is that fair? " ~ Con What I am basically saying is that the fast food restaurants should allow more healthy foods. 4) "Okay. So my opponent has just claimed that watching TV causes obesity. Friend, scientifically speaking; practically anything where you have to sit for long hours can make you obese (and it causes more harm than just eating fast food) If you need proof, you can ask the office goers whose job makes them sit under the comfy air conditioner whole day without having to shed a single pearl of sweat. " ~ Con Okay. Let me go again, fast food + TV = obesity > rice, vegetables, beans + TV = obesity. Fast food CAUSES obesity, too. 5) "If my opponent says that may is a word of probablity; then it only fits to tell him that "almost always" is no less. " ~ Con May is a word of probability, yes. Almost always gives a higher chance of not getting something then with may. 80% vs 20-30%. Fast food gives an 80% of being exposed to obesity, while the other chance is only a 20% chance of not catching obesity. Which is better: eating fast food or vice versa? My opponent has failed to refute some of my arguments, so they still stand. I thank my opponent and the readers for reading. Thanks!
Fast Food Resturants do More Harm Than Good

First thing first, since my opponent has commented against my arguments in his arguments; I will follow the same pattern. 1)"I believe Con has agreed to me. If something is hazardous to someone, it means that the item is also hazardous to other people. You see, if you drank poison, it would definitely kill someone else. Hazardous = dangerous. Hazardous- full of risk" I think that Pro has failed to understand my point. What I mean to say is that fast food is not hazardous to EVERYONE. It is only a problem for abscent-minded and nonchalant people. 2)"So, how does neglecting household chores is fatal? " Once again the con has misinterpreted my words. I will only say that it was just an example of what can be inducted by eating so called "unhealthy" foods. 3)"Yes, we COULD make better choices, but do we? The majority would not be making better choices. " So what my Pro is basically doing here is that instead of blaming the nonchalancy of people, he is blaming the fast food joints. Till what extent is that fair? 4)"My opponent has stated a very helpful tip to the eaters of fast food, but many adults and kids decide to eat the most delicious meals. They do not care about the content, thus leading them into obesity. Let's remember that we have TV. Kids will watch an average of 4 hours a day, thus leaving it a fact that fast food TV = obesity. If you ate rice, vegetables, spaghetti, or bread and watched TV for 4 hours, you will not get as obese as if you ate fast food and watched TV for 4 hours. Therefore, fast food contains many harms. If you often eat fast food, it leaves you vulnerable to the obesity epidemic. " Okay. So my opponent has just claimed that watching TV causes obesity. Friend, scientifically speaking; practically anything where you have to sit for long hours can make you obese (and it causes more harm than just eating fast food) If you need proof, you can ask the office goers whose job makes them sit under the comfy air conditioner whole day without having to shed a single pearl of sweat. 5)"My opponent has stated that fast food may not cause obesity, but, may is a word of probability. We also know that fast food almost always causes obesity, but there are many other things that cause obesity like junk food. However, we know that fast food is a factor of the obesity epidemic. " If my opponent says that may is a word of probablity; then it only fits to tell him that "almost always" is no less. With this I come to the end of my side of the argument.
Fast Food Resturants do More Harm Than Good

I wish you good luck! => Obesity 1. McDonald The Big Mac contains 540 calories. That is more than what you should eat at a meal. A medium french fries contains 380 calories. This is more than what you should eat for breakfast! Thus leaving it fact that McDonald is unhealthy. . http://www.associatedcontent.com... 2. Arby's Let's look at Arby's, now. A regular popcorn chicken is 330 calories and a regular Roast Beef Sandwich contains 320 calories. Way more than what you should eat for breakfast, yet many adults come toward Arby's for breakfast, even if most of the items are well off 300 calories on a 2,000 calorie diet. 3. In-N-Out Let's face it. Many kids and adults LOVE In-N-Out. However, having a famous combo: the hamburger with onion, a milkshake, and some fries are well off a 500 calorie lunch or dinner. This proves that eating fast food is unhealthy. ==> Conclusion As you can see, fast food creates a humongous problem known as obesity. I thank Con and the readers. Thank you and Merry Christmas! ~Yugi
Marijuana should not be legalized

The legalization of any drug may cause major problems in our society. When a doctor proscribes a drug it is for medical uses, but is sometimes used to get high. The patients that want to use marijuana to get high may crack the system and not need to go see a doctor. The drugs may find there way into our schools and cause a more major drug problems in our schools. If we do not want an increase of drug issues in our society Marijuana should not be legalized.
Marijuana should not be legalized

The long term effects of using Marijuana is upper respitory problems, immune system problems and may play a roll in causing cancer. My opponent pointed out erlyer in round two that I only had listed short effects off marijuana. They are still side effects from the drug and can still harm some people. . http://alcoholism.about.com... . http://drugabuse.gov... Marijuana is good for treating anxiety disorder but there is a drug called Lexapro(excitalopram oxalate) which does the same as marijuana would do. Why would we need to legalize marijuana when we already have drugs to treat illments that marijuana can treat? www. Lexapro. com Schedule I drugs have a high tendency for abuse and have no accepted medical use. This drug has a high tendency to be abused even by medical users, as any other proscription drugs it would add to the amount of quote "Frequent flyers" that come to a doctors offices and emergency rooms just to get the drug. . http://www.addictions.org... . http://www.safeaccessnow.org... I would like to point out to the voters of this debate that my opponent has yet to post why marijuana should be legalized. He keeps saying that my argument wont hold. He has yet to persuade me on why it should be used as a medical treatment. The whole spew of how my argument has no meaning may be true but can you expect the readers to vote for my opponent if they know no facts on why it would be a good drug?
Marijuana should not be legalized

"When Marijuana is used for a long period of time it would cause harmful effects on our body. " Name some, and then cite sources. "There are alternative drugs that are safer and have the same effects as medical marijuana would. " Name these. Cite sources. "Medical marijuana has not gone through enough patient safety testing and clinical efficancy trials. " Oh? . http://www.drugpolicy.org... . http://newmexicoindependent.com... . http://www.drugscience.org... Those are just a few from about two minutes of searching. "It is classified as a quote "Schedule 1" substance meaning high potential for abuse and no medical value. " Source this, and then provide a better explanation of how this has anything to do of why it should not be legalized. "Harmful effects: There are over 400 chemicals in the marijuana plant, the main one being HTC. Some immediate effects of this drug are a faster heart beat, reduction of short term memory and the reduction of concentration. " Note that these are short term effects and that they fade. "Long term users of the drug may become dependant on it. " Cite sources, and then construct a valid argument on how this should affect its legalization in any way. "Which means that they would have a hard time limiting usage of the drug. " Non-Sequitor. "Affect on schools: The earlier people start using drugs that they will likely start using more powerful drugs," Cite how this is relevant, or how it is factual. ". .causing young users not to do school work. " Non-sequitor. "Marijuana effects the ability to think, reading comprehension and verbal skills, When students are "high" they do not retain what is being taught to them. " Cite this. Also, these are, again, short term affects that wear off shortly after usage of marijuana. My opponent has not constructed any valid arguments with any valid sources.
Marijuana should not be legalized

The legalization of any drug may cause major problems in our society. When a doctor proscribes a drug it is for medical uses, but is sometimes used to get high. The patients that want to use marijuana to get high may crack the system and not need to go see a doctor. The drugs may find there way into our schools and cause a more major drug problems in our schools. If we do not want an increase of drug issues in our society Marijuana should not be legalized. ========================================================== When Marijuana is used for a long period of time it would cause harmful effects on our body. The studies of medical marijuana raise alot of questions and less answers. The Variables associated with using medical marijuana on patients. There are alternative drugs that are safer and have the same effects as medical marijuana would. Medical marijuana has not gone through enough patient safety testing and clinical efficancy trials. It is classified as a quote "Schedule 1" substance meaning high potential for abuse and no medical value. Harmful effects: There are over 400 chemicals in the marijuana plant, the main one being HTC. Some immediate effects of this drug are a faster heart beat, reduction of short term memory and the reduction of concentration. Long term users of the drug may become dependant on it. Which means that they would have a hard time limiting usage of the drug. Affect on schools: The earlier people start using drugs that they will likely start using more powerful drugs, causing young users not to do school work. Marijuana effects the ability to think, reading comprehension and verbal skills, When students are "high" they do not retain what is being taught to them. Therefore for those reasons we should not legelize marijuana for medical use.