BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

I will address my opponents arguments. " fine arts according to the wikipedia refers to arts that are concerned with a limited number of VISUAL and PERFORMING ART forms like painting, sculpture, dance, theater, architecture and printmaking." If you want to be a good debater, I would not use Wikipedia as a primary source. For all anyone knows, you could have edited it and could have been the author of that definition. "In my side I really do not know the kind of curriculum the United States is implementing towards their students." This topic is not concerning curriculm but rather extra curricular activities, Two completely different things. "But I strongly believe that the two subjects complement each other, in the sense that athletics is one part of showing a person's talent just like what fine art wants us to do. Implying this statement, it is therefore anbiguous to give priority to both because if your want to engage yourself in athletics it is one way also of engaging yourself in fine arts. Logically speaking if this is the case then it is very appropriate to prioritize fine arts rather than athletics." CONTRADICTION!!!! My opponent says that we prioritize both but then says we prioritize fine arts. Look to my burden. I must show that both parts of the resolution be prioritized the same. HE CONCEDES TO MY BURDEN. Thus even if I say nothing for the rest of the round, I have won. "Fine arts also puts the crearivity of a student physically and mentally so if this is the case , giving most of the time to fine arts rather than athletics will shape students to be physically and mentally fit ." This point fails to explain how fine arts helps a person physically. MY OPPONENT AGREES WITH MY BURDEN AND THUS I HAVE WON.
Resolved: That secondary education in America should value the fine arts over athletics.

fine arts according to the wikipedia refers to arts that are concerned with a limited number of VISUAL and PERFORMING ART forms like painting, sculpture, dance, theater, architecture and printmaking. In my side I really do not know the kind of curriculum the United States is implementing towards their students. But I strongly believe that the two subjects complement each other, in the sense that athletics is one part of showing a person's talent just like what fine art wants us to do. Implying this statement, it is therefore anbiguous to give priority to both because if your want to engage yourself in athletics it is one way also of engaging yourself in fine arts. Logically speaking if this is the case then it is very appropriate to prioritize fine arts rather than athletics. Fine arts also puts the crearivity of a student physically and mentally so if this is the case , giving most of the time to fine arts rather than athletics will shape students to be physically and mentally fit .
Global Warming

This organization, http://timeforchange.org... that 1 kilogram of meat is responsible for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as a car driving 250 kilometers." I hate to break it to you, but the reason why cows aren't usually mentioned in global warming studies is because the cow problem... Has already been solved! Fish oils reduce by 20% (1) Gas capturing by 25% (2) Fart-reducing supplement by 60% (3) And farmers who own these cows aren't reluctant in doing this! However, the CO2 problem has solutions that have been pushed away with reluctance. That's why it's discussed so often. "Also the same webiste, skeptical science, states that natural causes like oceans and vegitation are 750 giggatons while out output is 29giggatons" Oh, you mean this one? (4) *facepalm* If you were to just READ WHAT IT SAID, you would see that it REFUTES your point. While natural causes emit a lot of CO2, they also capture CO2. We are offsetting the balance, however, which puts CO2 into the atmosphere. "albedo clouds are changing and that there are emmiting more than 2x the greenhouse gases humans are emmiting" Wait, they are emitting greenhouse gases? First, that is completely wrong. Clouds don't emit greenhouse gases. Second, Albedo is steady as shown in the website. "You wanted citation for the gravitational magnetic oscillations, here it is: A book from Cornelius van Huten" Milankovitch cycles don't explain the rapid warming we see today. Take a look at this. (5) See how the warming line is kind of steady? However, look where it says 2004. See how it is SIGNIFICANTLY upwards from where the black line ends? That's how quickly the temperature is rising. "You claim that the sun is on a cooling trend" "this link says other wise, they claim that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling and that is backed up by the natural cycles of the magnetic field and the sun." From the link: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend." "Then you once again deny something I said as faulty well let me back that up too" Your link supports what I was saying. Try reading it again. "I have just proved with evidence,something you failed to provide" Link count for Rounds 1-3! Pro (Me): 1 4 - 0(Links that were against me) = 5 Con (ajg897): 6 - 2 (Links that were against him) = 4 Here, let me give you a tip: When citing a source, read it first. It might be against you. 1. http://rationalwiki.org... 2. http://www.dailyfinance.com... 3. http://www.salon.com... 4. https://www.skepticalscience.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Global Warming

You first made the point about how I implied carbon dioxide is placed in the atmosphere by humans. You then procede to cherry pick a quote of mine without placing it into context. My point on that post is simply listing a possible alternate theory to climate change. You then refute my evidence and my link.I failed to provide you with the actual hieght of the jar that is my fault, but the equation you have provided is faulty, the equation says the amount of co2 humans emmision, you neglected my actual point of the cows in your equation.This organization, http://timeforchange.org... that 1 kilogram of meat is responsible for the amount of carbon in the atmosphere as a car driving 250 kilometers. http://www.fao.org..., this website reports that livestock is a bigger threat than humans in contributing to climate change.Also the same webiste, skeptical science, states that natural causes like oceans and vegitation are 750 giggatons while out output is 29giggatonsLet me use your equation ( (The amount of CO2 emitted by humans in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in metersLets switch it up witht the amount of greenhouses gases emmited by nature in tons. ( (The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by nature in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in meters,The same webiste foa.org says that cows where responable for 250 million tons so lets do a equation,(29,000,000,000,000* 907.185/ 1.98) / (1212* 2589988) = 2338635.750884500000 meters or 2,338 miles compared to the 4 mile high jar humans emit. nature greenhouse gases > humansLook at this the same website you are using to 'disprove me' is also disproving you!!! http://www.skepticalscience.com... that unlike what you said albedo clouds are changing and that there are emmiting more than 2x the greenhouse gases humans are emmitingYou wanted citation for the gravitational magnetic oscillations, here it is: A book from Cornelius van Huten https://books.google.com...You claim that the sun is on a cooling trend : https://www.skepticalscience.com...this link says other wise, they claim that the Earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling and that is backed up by the natural cycles of the magnetic field and the sun.Then you once again deny something I said as faulty well let me back that up too, http://io9.com...You then say that "if you believe that Co2 emmitions are causing something else to cause global warming, it means that you believe in man-made global warming." I have just proved with evidence,something you failed to provide, and using the links that you provided me that nature emmits more than 35x the amount of greenhouse gases that humans emmit.
Global Warming

You said yourself, "that the co2 being placed in the atmosphere is causing natural changes". Who is placing that CO2 in the atmosphere? Us! See the bottom. "the increasing birth rate of cows, who can produce enought carbon dioxide and methane to fill up a jar the size of Rhode island" 1. The link is faulty. 2. A jar the size of Rhode Island would be 2-D 3. If you had a jar with the base being Rhode Island, and it was filled with all of the CO2 emitted by humans in 2010, the height of the jar would be: ( (The amount of CO2 emitted by humans in 2010 in tons) * (Number of kilograms in a ton) / (Density of CO2 in kg/m^3) ) / ( (Area of Rhode Island in square miles) * (Number of square meters in a square mile) ) = Height of jar in meters ( 33615389000 * 907.185 / 1.98 ) / ( 1212 * 2589988 ) = Approximately 4906.462 meters So the jar would be about as high as 6 Burj Khalifas stacked on top of each other. That's for humans. "chnages in the formation of albedo clouds can create a negative feedbacks that cancel out all or nearly all of warming effect of higher level of co2." Well, well, well. Look what we have here: (1) You see, earth's albedo has been very steady, but the earth is warming. The albedo, while playing an important factor, isn't doing much nowadays. "that the greatest influence on climate is the transformation of Earths surface" See the bottom. "how the natural process of algea is being adapted to the new formation of currents and is a prime factor in the realese of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" Algae consumes CO2. Look at number 3 in this list: (2) "natural gravitational and magnetic oscillations of the solar system induced by the planets movement through space can dribe climate change and naturaly effect the Earths magnetic field" Ridiculous claim needs citation. NOW! Next one says that the sun can cause climate change. Well, the sun has been on a cooling trend since the 60's, but the Earth has been warming. (3) NOTE REBUTTAL! "At first, people where afraid that the earth was going to be placed in another iceage because of Co2 not in a rising temperature." Actually, most people thought the earth was going to warm, not go into another ice age. (4) 1. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 2. http://allaboutalgae.com... 3. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 4. http://www.skepticalscience.com... The thing is, Man-Made Global Warming says that the earth is warming, and people are making the earth warm due to CO2 emissions. If you think that the CO2 emissions are causing something else that causes warming, that still means you believe in Man-Made Global Warming.
Global Warming

Yes I agree that the Earths temperature is rising, that is no secret.I just do not belive that global warming is the reason why.My six propositions of alternate climate change are,The bio-thermostat theorem- that the co2 being placed in the atmosphere is causing natural changes in the output/input of carbon dioxide in plants and animals such as algea, also another possible theorem to add to this is the increasing birth rate of cows, who can produce enought carbon dioxide and methane to fill up a jar the size of Rhode island, source, animals.howstuffworks.com/cowscarbon.More alternate theories of climate change is the albedo and cloud fromation, this one is short, chnages in the formation of albedo clouds can create a negative feedbacks that cancel out all or nearly all of warming effect of higher level of co2.-humans forcing the greenhouse effect alternate to greenhouse gases, that the greatest influence on climate is the transformation of Earths surface, like the creating of deserts and the cutting of the rainforests.-ocean currents, natural changes in the Earths mantle is cause the current of the oceans to move at different speeds or chnage direction all together, the theory states how the natural process of algea is being adapted to the new formation of currents and is a prime factor in the realese of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.-Planetary motion, natural gravitational and magnetic oscillations of the solar system induced by the planets movement through space can dribe climate change and naturaly effect the Earths magnetic field.-Solar variability - changes in the coronal ejections and magnetic fields of the sun causes changes in the cloud formation, ocean currents, and win that can cause climate change.This is just a note not a arguement: At first, people where afraid that the earth was going to be placed in another iceage because of Co2 not in a rising temperature.
Global Warming

From what you have said, we can agree that the Earth's temperature is increasing. Right? (respond in round 2) "the sun goes through natural cycles" And? What does the sun have to do with CO2 and global warming? Scientists have made an easy explanation for why CO2 warms the earth, so what does the sun have to do with it? Now, the world has emitted over 30 Gigatons (30 billion tons) of CO2 in 2010 (1) We can be certain that people are causing global warming. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Red Lumas have trust issues.

However, before I do so, I must point out that my opponent does not get to choose who has the burden of proof in the debate. My opponent is the instigator and thus, is the one making the positive claim. Thus, the burden of proof falls upon him. . http://en.wikipedia.org... There are two categorizations of the burden of proof. The first is the legal definition in which the opposition (my opponent) is weighted with the responsibility of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, a case against me (innocent until proven guilty. The other is the evidentiary burden in which the same requirement is placed on my opponent's shoulders. Enough evidence must be provided by the opposition to disprove a statement excepting the case of the statement of existence. In this case, my opponent is against the resolution and we are not debating the existence of a Red Luma, thus, the burden falls on my opponent. However, I shall still go about proving my case, it just needs to be said that the burden is not on my side. *** The Red Luma in "Super Mario Galaxy", when approached, exclaims that he has a secret, but will not reveal it. Furthermore, it can be shown by talking to any of the other characters that they too are in the dark about this Red Luma's secret, since they do not say anything important enough regarding this secret. We can thus conclude that in this video game universe, The Red Luma alone keeps its secret from all other beings, including its other Luma companions. . http://www.mariowiki.com...(species) This is commonplace in those who have trust issues. This Luma is irrationally selective in revealing its secret as the player must unlock another part of the game before it will reveal its secret, even though the player is supposed to be the hero of the game and this fact is well known. . http://en.wikipedia.org... If this Luma does not have any trust issues, why would it keep this secret from its companions? Why would it keep this secret away from its adopted mother Rosalina? And furthermore, why would it keep this secret away from the only being who can take advantage of it; the main character and Hero? . http://www.mariowiki.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... It is plain to see that the Red Luma has problems with choosing whom to trust. However, I will let my opponent respond before I delve into a deeper psychoanalysis of this troubled character. Thank you.
McCain for President

The polls after the 2nd Presidential Debate are saying Obama won. I agree he won if you are voting for who comes across as being the most charismatic. I'm not voting for the person who speaks best in front of others. I'm voting the best person to lead this country. It's funny that we hear how inexperienced Palin is but it is okay that Obama doesn't have all the foreign affairs experience that McCain may have. McCain --I believe will do what he says. He has proven he has character. He has proven that he isn't worried about pleasing Republicans just because he is in the Republican Party. He doesn't have a problem with disagreeing or working with them if he supports the same cause. We hear the catch phrase that character matters, but it seems many want to forget about the people Obama's been involved with. If that doesn't show his character than what does. I know all of us are thinking about the ecomony, but if we were attacked tomorrow, by terrorists or other radical organizations, who would you want to lead us. It's funny that we want people to be honest, but we focus on the stupidest things, like when McCain said "that one" in reference to Obama. Does that really matter. Both candidates are guilty of this type of pettiness. I believe we are still terribly vulnerable to terrorist attacks and I want the most qualified man to lead our country. If we get taken out by terrorists, we will have more to worry about than the ecomony-which I too believe is a major issue. But think about it for a minute. World history tells us that great nations are taken down. Why do we think we can't be the next. I want my kids and grandchildren not to forget that we must be a force of good. Not just for our children but for other people being victimized. If we were the victimized in Iraq under the dictatorship of Saddam, wouldn't you want someone to help you? McCain sees things straight forward--if we stop looking at style and start looking at substance, you might see who makes sense. We need to stop thinking about ourselves all the time.
Should there be free college

It is in within my rights to believe we should not have free college within the United States of America It is a fact the U.S. is in extreme debt, that is fact. However, Colleges and universities being made free, despite what you may be inclined to believe, would actually substantially increase the debt of the U.S. in the best scenario. First off, taking more taxes from rich people comes with many problems. You cannot tax more from just the rich without extreme opposition. You would need to increase taxes in general (which would also bring about extreme opposition). But then, There are better things to use more tax money for, like fore example,starting to pay off national debt, or better yet, fund internal improvements. Either way, I would like to open my paycheck and actually have something in it. Next, 2 to 3 years is not enough to get students a well paying job. 4 years is usually the minimum to get a degree, but to get more well paying jobs, you need more years of education, which in turn would just increase the debt of the USA. And going back on your previous point, Why would anyone want to get rich if they knew after they crossed a certain line thy would get taxed heavily. The point "More people would be educated which would then create more jobs" is also false. First of all, it would not create more jobs, only take up more job openings or open small businesses which don't generate lots of revenue quickly. Sure there would be more employment, but that does not lower national debt. The best way to lower national debt is to export goods, have tariffs, and taxes mostly pay schools, police departements, and, yes, colleges, but colleges also rely very heavily on the money students/scholarships pay. Without these, the Colleges would need so much money from the government it would, again, increase the debt. "More people with more money" is also a false statement since there is a finite amount of cash value in a country. The only 2 ways to increase a country's wealth is through exporting goods. "Our debt goes away" also is an unlikely statement since it would take years, decades even to get rid of this debt. Finally, I would like to point out that more availability to colleges would not mean many more people go. There is a long and tedious process to apply and get accepted into college. Making college free would only mean more people would go for higher education, costing more money, increasing debt, and at the end of it, do you really want to be rich in a country that heavily taxes the rich? Or the envelope of a paycheck being worth more than the contents inside? I don't think so
God (Probably) Exists

DA Debate : God (Probably) Exists Introduction Romanii and I have been planning to do a debate for several months. After deliberation over topic, and delay due to time constraints, both of us are finally ready to debate.I have a lot of respect for Romanii as a debater, and I hope that this debate is one of excitement and intellectual rigour. The resolution of this debate is “God (Probably) Exists”, which, given the amount of debates on this topic in this site, should be easily understandable. Note that both of us are playing as the devil’s advocate. As Pro, and with the sole BOP, I shall be arguing that God does indeed probably exist. Romanii, as Con, has no BOP. All he has to do it to refute the arguments that I give in favour for God’s existence sufficiently. The winner of this debate shall be determined on whether Pro upholds by BOP to a sufficient degree, and that is for the judges to decide. Definitions It is important to note that I am not arguing for the tri-omni God; the God of Classical Theism. Instead, I am merely arguing for a deistic God. Hence, the following definition is to be used. God: A supernatural, universally creative force that is responsible for the creation of the Universe ; and the physical law that governs over it. [1] [1] Adapted from: http://www.deism.com...