BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vortex is a waste of Tax Payers money

Good luck to my opponent. To begin, I will define a key term. Sccording to wordnet.princeton.edu, waste- to use inefficiently or inappropriately =========== Contention 1 =========== First off, VORTEX is quite inefficient at its job. It seems to report on things that are less than useful. One report I found concluded that "The data shown in Figs. 1a-d show that there is excellent temporal continuity in the locations of the cyclonic vortex signature associated with the mesocyclone/tornado at low levels." [1] Another study from VORTEX2 simply atated that there was a very low correlation between temperature and tornado activity. [2] (This data, for the record, was taken in a record-low year for tornado activity) All of the obtained data were already known. This seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars. ========== Contention 2 ========== The VORTEX program is also a waste of money due to the causes the money could be going to. -There are currently 35.0 million people in the US living below the poverty level. [3] -There are currently 11,028,000 people who have cancer. [4] Any of these causes deserve money more than tornadoes, since no useful data has been gathered from the VORTEX studies. Some interesting data have shown up, but none that can compare to the problems going on elsewhere. [1] http://www.essl.org... [2] http://www.essl.org... [3] http://www.soundvision.com... [4] http://www.cancer.org...
Vortex is a waste of Tax Payers money

I've read several things showing peoples distain for the Government paying for the Vortex Project. For those who dont know what it is, Vortex stands for "Verification of the Origins of Rotation in Tornadoes Experiment" and what it is, is basicly a field projects study tornadoes. The Vortex 2 was originally slated for about $12 million. With the government supplements that came out last year, I'm not positive, but I think we're in the $14 million range, for the two year project. Some People say this is a waste of money. I say bull. If it is a waste, I'd love to hear how its a waste.
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

You are beyond twisting my words. You're just about mutilating them. I said the safest way to do it is don't because that truly is the safest way but I am by NO WAY saying that a couple can't have sex if they don't want a baby, when did I even remotely say that? Did you even read what I written? I just said it was the best option. Is it the only option? No. If you want to knock her up go ahead! Better to be safe than sorry right? Then again I wasn't even talking about the risk of pregnancy from having sexual intercourse. I was clearly on about IF she got pregnant without wanting to. Notice the "if" in there. If she wants to do it that's all right! I am in no way against a couple pleasuring each other. So let's bring this debate back to the subject which is about the abortion law shall we? This debate has sort of skewed on way. So now why not we look at the law side of things next?
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

i already made an exception for your rape example. condom breaking. she assumed the risk the condom would break. sexual intercourse naturally leads to the possibility of pregnancy. we can take the issue into consideration, and not punish her for it. but it's still a culpable act, in principle. "If you want to have a baby by all means proceed! If you don't, the safest way to do it is don't." you seem to be pretty much admitting that if you don't want to risk pregnancy, you can't do it. (or at the least take the most surest fire approach. bill control pill, a condom, and pull out. almost no one goes to this degree, but they could, which shows some degree of culpability. but even that has risks in theory, so my other arguments stand. )
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

Abortion is one of these hard topics to discuss but being the controversial person I am, I will take you on. Abortion should be perfectly legal. I'll give you some examples why it should: For example: Let's say someone was raped and they didn't want a baby but now they're pregnant. She had no choice to be burdened with this baby so why should she stay burdened by it with the constant bathroom breaks, the morning sickness etc.? Another example would be if the condom split during the act. She didn't want the child so why should she? If you're against or for abortions like me, nobody wants more abortions. Abortion should be an option for those who got pregnant without wanting to especially if it was an accidental condom split or the pill fails her. If you want to have a baby by all means proceed! If you don't, the safest way to do it is don't. Remember: Whatever side of the fence you're on, nobody wants more abortions. We just think it should be an option if somebody gets pregnant without wanting to and especially if it was forced on her (rape)
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

*aside from rape and mother's health, abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished. given there are no legal consequences involved, these are more about arguments on principle. abortion should be illegal, because we should recognize that we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to human life. it is clear enough that we should outlaw it, but not clear enough that we should be punishing them. for example, to establish the uncertainty, note that a snowball is not a snow man, and a lego is not lego man. same could be argued for the cell in early pregnancy. at what point does a lego or snowball become the corresponding man? it's unclear there, as it could be said to be with personhood. but, on the other hand, the earliest cell does meet the requirements for what would constitute an 'organism', albeit it would probably be viewed as more like a parasitic organism given it must live off of the mother. and it's not like every other cell, given not every other cell can grow into a person. the pro and con about human life here are enough to say in principle we should defer to human life, but not clear enough to make any meaningful punishments for it. human life is such a strong factor to be weighed, that it is not unreasonable for a person to be against abortion, and want to punish so as to deter and for justice's sake. but, i would not go that far. i would take that same reasoning, though, and argue that it's such a strong consideration, that it should at least be illegal, albeit with no legal consequences. and the last reason it should be illegal in principal, is because the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy. having sex is something that can result in pregnancy. it's not like it just happened, getting pregnant, out of no where. another reason why we shouldn't punish is deferment. while we are deferring to human life, we are respecting the autonomy of the woman involved. given there is uncertainty, who should decide? should the government decide? why not give the autonomy to decide to the person most affected by it, the mother? plus,there are uncertainties involved, but there are other considerations as well. while the mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, she may have tried her best not to get pregnant, and got pregnant anyways. things happen, plus she has a lot of other things to consider like making sure she can hold down a job, or continue in school. or maybe she's poor and doesn't want to bring another kid into the mix. the common arguments in favor of abortion should be used here, as holistic approach to why she should be able to decide given the various moral considerations involved. but again, this stuff is just sufficient so as to not make legal consequences for the abortion, but not enough to make it legal.
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

Sorry, I meant to write "One" not "on". That's tablets for you. But anyways, the first trimester is the best time to abort the pregnancy as all the embryo is at this point is a ball of stem cells. It isn't it's own life yet and the embryo wouldn't be concious until it developed a brain which happens later into the pregnancy. Aborting now is the perfect time to do so because of that. You're not ending a life at this point to suit yourself, all you're doing is preventing your pregnancy andThen again how can something be illegal if you don't get punished for being caught doing it? The whole title makes no sense in this case. It would be the same way if it was legal. Maybe you're on about having doctors give permissions for abortions? Is that what you mean? If so, that's one way it can be done. Otherwise, I can't think about anything else because there isn't really a law in this hypothetical scenario that actually prevents on demand abortions as this isn't investigated nor punished. There has to be a sanction for breaking a law whether that's a fine or a prison sentence. The whole question makes no sense!
abortion should be illegal in the first trimester, but not investigated nor punished*

"This debate has sort of skewed on way. So now why not we look at the law side of things next?" i'm not sure what you are asking for. we are already discussing why or why not the law should be the way i contend. people are free to enjoy themselves and do whatever they want. but when it comes to potentially harming a putative someone else, it becomes an issue for society. one's rights end where another's begins. for all the reasons i stated above, we treated that putative someone as a person, but recognize the various factors in consideration, and not punish. for all the reasons i stated above, we to defer to that putative person as a person, because there's too many compelling reasons not to.... but we don't punish because there's so many compelling counter factors looking at the totality.
when all else fails one should use ducK tape

I would just like to state again, I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for Duck Tape (duct tape). My con stance has nothing to do with my love of said product, but is rather to reaffirm the very real FIXATIVE properties of duck tape, and dispel your argument of duck tape as a cure-all. Unfortunately, you really haven't made much of an argument. The purpose of this discussion however is to explore the practical limits of just how much of "everything" duck tape can actually fix. In that regard, you have thus far proven to be a duck out of water so to speak: clumsy, awkward, and flatfooted. Also, your tail feathers look silly. But I digress... While the history lesson on Duck Tape was certainly interesting and informative, it didn't really bring any new conclusions to the table. Your only real argument was "If somthing dosen't move and it is supposed to you can use duck tape, Just wrap the componets with ducktape and spit on it and the smoth surfaces will work allow it to move no need for oil." Although I admire your enthusiasm, this would simply not work to fix something like, for example, a rusty door hinge. Or perhaps a better example would be this: Say you have an unwelcome houseguest who simply won't get up off your couch and leave. Wrapping them in Duck Tape, then spitting on them would not get them to move in the desired way, or to move at all if you had properly applied the Duck Tape. However, if you sprayed them in the face with WD-40, I should think that they would move very quickly in the preferred direction of the nearest exit. In conclusion, Duck Tape has a broad but finite amount of uses. Attempting to use Duck Tape outside of these roles is brutish and abusive to the true nature of Duck Tape. Because if there's one thing that's true about Duck Tape, it's that it's wicked classy. (1) 1: http://www.ductapeinnovations.com...
when all else fails one should use ducK tape

I'm gonna stick to my guns in this one. No Mr Brew, I know what i'm talking about. DucK tape is a tape that looks like ducT tape but is not tested to withstand 109 dagrees Farenhight. Duck tape company holds the record for the largest roll of tape ever. I have a roll of ducK tape in my cabnet. "Is it Duct or Duck? We don't want you to be confused, so we will explain. The first name for Duct Tape was DUCK. During World War II the U.S. Military needed a waterproof tape to keep the moisture out of ammunition cases. So, they enlisted the Johnson and Johnson Permacel Division to manufacture the tape. Because it was waterproof, everyone referred to it as "duck" tape (like water off a duck's back). Military personnel discovered that the tape was good for lots more than keeping out water. They used it for Jeep repair, fixing stuff on their guns, strapping equipment to their clothing... the list is endless."- ducktape brothers If somthing dosen't move and it is supposed to you can use duck tape, Just wrap the componets with ducktape and spit on it and the smoth surfaces will work allow it to move no need for oil. The only known thing that ducktape can't fix is a broken heart, i know from expirence. there has been books wrighten on the uses of ducktape, for hurrican preparness, just make a x and you window won't be in 12,345,678,987,654,321 pieces. you may find these aiding my argument http://www.ducttapeguys.com... http://www.ducttapeguys.com...
when all else fails one should use ducK tape

An interesting topic to be sure, and I applaud you for your directness. Although I personally have a great love of duct tape, I could not help but notice the potential for seriously misleading arguments being posted here. Reading your first round statements, I seem to be just in time! Before we begin it seems pertinent to clarify what my colleague means by Duck Tape. It is a fact that there is no kind of "tape" produced by ducks, except perhaps tape worms. What I believe we are talking about here is Duct Tape, a silvery-gray kind of adhesive tape renowned for is versatility, durability, and ease of use. Since he did not clarify, I will assume then that what my opponent meant to say was Duck brand Duct Tape. (1) Now that we're all on the same page, it's time to address the fundamental flaw in the statement "Duct Tape can fix everything." My opponent is approximately 50% correct in this argument. Duct tape is used entirely to secure items from moving any further, but can do nothing to assist the movement of mechanical pieces that refuse to do so. An easy illustration is the relatively well known joke of "If it moves and it isn't supposed to, use duct tape. If it doesn't move and it is supposed to, use WD-40." Therefore, while duct tape certainly is a powerful tool in the arsenal of any handyman (or handywoman, for that matter), it's ability is focused in mainly one direction. Oh, and just so I get the lamest joke in early, here's an old favorite: "Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together." Thank you, thank you. Vote Obama. 1: http://duckproducts.com...
when all else fails one should use ducK tape

Indeed, you have given evidence that "duck tape was used for tons of random stuff in the war." What you have failed to prove even slightly is that duct tape is the very last resort. Actually, you've mostly argued that "before anything fails at all, use some duct tape." You have given no evidence that duct tape can succeed where other products fail, such as how to use duct tape to remove cancer when chemo therapy fails. You also opened your argument with the claim that duct tape can fix anything, which I have demonstrated, factually but in good humor, simply isn't true. I tried to have fun with this and be silly, but I must say I was hoping for more of an interesting rebuttal from you than continually stating like a stoned out hippie "Duuuude, duct take is, like, totally the best...man..."
when all else fails one should use ducK tape

Uh.. what side are you arguing on? I can't find your argument either, I have proved that duck tape was use for tons of random stuff in the war. With that history lesson, it proves that they had a problem and fixed it with duck tape. and as the topic says "when all else fails one should use ducK tape" if something doesn't work the first time for fixing something (example: bubblegum or scotch tape) use duck tape. Than you for accepting, glad to see there are more duck tape extremists than me
Heaven and Hell are real.

I accept, but bear in mind that the burden of proof is entirely on you. You are the one making a claim about the world. I, on the other hand, am taking the position that I do not know if there is a Heaven or a Hell. I believe that they are made up and can give arguments to that effect, but those are not proof and I have no intention of postulating those arguments here. All I am going to do is show that you have no justification for an assertion that Heaven and Hell are real. I will say one more thing here. If you have no rational justification for a thing, then the rational position is not to assert that it either is or is not true. Now, for some things it is good to act as if it is real, for example free will. I can't say for sure that I have it, but if I do I will use it to do the most good I can(which by the way, your God doesn't give half a monkey's butt about, all he cares about is people being gullible enough to worship him without evidence and to Hell, literally, with anyone who is a skeptic) TL;DR BOP is on PRO All I will do is refute any argument he makes. Good luck, and I appreciate you being brave enough to post such an assertion openly since online you find that atheism is far more rampant than in the real world where people pretend to be religious.
Heaven and Hell are real.

Well, I would like to start by saying that although I do personally believe that there is a hell and that there is a God, I will make sure that the evidence I provide will be as professional as possible. Some might come with points of "science". I will define that, as well as other key terms in this debate. Define Hell: a nether world in which the dead continue to exist : hades (2) : the nether realm of the devil and the demons in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment "often used in curses or as a generalized term of abuse http://www.merriam-webster.com... Define Heaven: a often capitalized : The dwelling place of the Deity and the blessed dead. A spiritual state of everlasting communion with God. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Define real: Actually existing or happening : not imaginary. Not fake, false, or artificial http://www.merriam-webster.com... Define Science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now that I have defined key terms in this debate, I would first like to claim that Heaven and Hell are real places, and just because there are no recorded "facts learned through experiments and observations" by prestigious philosophers and scientists, doesn't mean its imaginary.
the USA should have universal background checks

i never said anything racial in regards to my use of the phrase 'black hoodie'. if voters want to dock con for using racist remarks, and injecting race where it wasn't before, feel free. most people like the idea of background checks. when it gets into specifics, the polls start varying. but there is general support for checks up to the ninety percent mark. getting into anything specifc, people will start disagreeing, sure. it's like hitting your head against a wall. it's common sense that not all people will stop at nothing to get a gun, does con posit that one hundred perscent of people who are denied a gun will go get one? it would be ridiculous to suggest. and, so, we see that if a person is more liekly to get into gun trouble with a gun, they are more likely to not without a gun. there is no way around this argument. the case is closed. most guns might be used for hunting or self defense, but we're only trying to stop people ith a record,,,, these other people are mostly irrelvant. a knife doesn't kill automaticsally like gun does. there was two recent shootings on the same day at schools. one involved a gun one involved a knive, both invloved over twenty kids injured or killed. one schoolhad all murders, the other had all injuries... guess which was which? plus the psychology isn't there to run and get your knife as it is to run and get a gun,,,, there's added psychological pressure to use a gun, and it kills automatically to boot. the reason why con is ranting about the same things as he is in the past debate is beause he has nothing relevant to say in response. the case is closed. con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave. and con added as a last jab that i gave no studies and gave unbacked arguments. i gave ironclad common sense and the studies i gave were rightthere in the first post.... harvard, oxford, covering individuals states and nationas... it doesn't get much more comprehensie and acadamic study that that.
the USA should have universal background checks

con posits we need stricter enforcement of current laws to reduce violence. well, then let's do that. but there is no reason we can't have more checks and such. in fact, it would be completely arbitrary to just say we are at the magic spot restriction wise, and background check wise. if checks work, why not have more? con posits that criminals would just go get guns illegally. problem is, not all people are black hoodies who will stop at othing to get a gun. does con posit that one hundred percent of people denied a gun will go get one? no that would be ridiculous. and thus the stats that say the more a person state o nation has of guns increases murders, means there would be less murders. the people who most should not have them, to a large degee won't have them. con says most guns are used for good purposes. that is true, but it doesn't mean we can't try to regulate when people who have a bad past have access to guns. no one wants to take hunting guns away. his point is here basically pointless. gun murders increase with more guns a person state or nation has. and overall murders do too. that's what i said, and co is just misinformed. at best con's example of russian is an outlier. my studies were comprehensive con argues that it isn't more likely for there to be a murder if a person has a gun, as he posits that the guns are used for hunting and such. this first of all defies the studies i showed, that said the more likely person is to have a gun, the more likely they are to have problems with it. and, it defies common sense. like the anaology that says the more likely tehre are to be pools in backgyards, the more likelty there are to be drownings...... and by analogy the more likely there are to be guns, the more likely there is to be gun problems. con pretty much just ignores all the studies i provided, and ducked and ran from the common sense points i gave.