BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One Global Government

First, I would like to point out that my opponent stated that I thought that the only way possible for this one global government to work was through war. However I did not state that, Nor do I believe it. My opponent seems to believe that when at least two countries come together to form a centralized government all other countries would join in. There are a total of 195 countries on earth, I would need a lot and I mean a lot of evidence to support my opponents argument that all 195 countries even support centralized, One global government. Also, My opponent went on to state their plan for a global government. They stated that their would be one representative from each country, However I don't understand how one person could possibly represent a whole country, I think it would have to be a small 'government' body for each country. I feel like logic and common sense will tell us that the chances that the global government would fail is higher than the chances it would succeed. It would simply be a number of people always arguing, And not being able to come to common ground on an issue. My opponent lacks to support me with evidence or at least an explanation on how exactly they see it would be possible and successful. Let's look at a quick example. We will use the United Nations as an example, As it is practically a small global government. According to The New York Times in 2017, "Most recent the United Nations starkest failure has been the handling of the six-year old conflict with Syria, With Russia backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the United States, Britain and France supporting some opposition groups. The Security Council has failed to take decisive action on Syria, Despite reports of countless war crimes, And similarly failed to halt the conflict in Yemen, Despite its contribution to an outbreak of Cholera, With 600, 000 cases reported so far. Most recently, The Council has been confronted with mounting atrocities against the Rohingya ethnic group in Myanmar. " Therefor, If the United Nations, A prime model of a global government body is failing at resolving many of the larges issues in the world, How can we see a global government succeeding in our future? Especially with one representative as my opponent has stated. The simple answer, Is we can't.
One Global Government

First, I will state my argument, Show how my opponents argument falls and rebuild on my own. I understand that you believe that the international system is not at it's highest point at the moment. I, Myself believe international relations could be assisted in many ways, However one global government is most definitely not the solution. The biggest question is who would run the global government, And how could we ever be so sure that they would be reliable? Also, When people have power, They tend to want more of it. That is one of the largest issues with a global government, As we could never be 100% sure that the individuals who would be practically in charge of the entire world wouldn't switch up on us, As a planet. Or, If they entered the position with unlawful intentions. This leads me to my second point. You stated that due to international conflicts and disputes, There is a high chance of war. To refute this, I have to say that one global government would almost 100% cause at least one war. We have to see that if we truly want a global government, EVERY single country/nation/territory on the entire world has to be on board. What if they aren't? What would we do? Declare war on them to force them into joining the global government. Well, That would contradict your argument, As you are wanting to reduce the amount of wars occurring. According to Dr. James Kalb from the Crisis Magazine, "Even so, Something unruly as a global society can't be organized in a way that's both effective and fair, And decisions of major global players need to not match the public good better than those of lower-level institutions more susceptible to popular influence. " >> This is simply stating, A global government would not work or be effective. But instead it would be unfair. This leads me to my last point. Lack of integrity and equity of the global government. How can we be so sure that our government would be honest, And fair to each individual? How would one global government be able to ensure the wellbeing of each individual is as great as the rest? What happens to currency? The inflation would go crazy. There would obviously need to be representatives from each "past country" therefor, It would just be as effective to remain separate. How would election work? How would taxes work? How would one global government benefit the criminal justice system? We ALSO have to see that if just ONE thing fails, Just one, The entire world fails. The planet fails. As of right now if something fails within a country, Then that country fails. However, If one global government forgets to complete something, Or do something, Or put something in order. The entire world fails. This is why the status quo is greater than one global government. Do you have an effective plan for one global government?
One Global Government

I will allow my opponents (affirmative) to have the first argument. But to start off, I will provide the overview of the debate and the format: Overview: The topic is whether or not we should have one government that would govern the entire world. (Have a plan on how one government would work) Format: - Affirmative Opening Argument - Negative Opening Argument/Rebuttal of Affirmative opening argument - Refutation of Negatives Rebuttal/Affirmative Summary - Refutation of Rebuttal of the rebuttal/Negative Summary Provide Evidence to support your points!
Evolution is part of atheism.

Originally Offered to "Nobody", he failed to accept. Despite common claims that evolution is simply preaching atheism, this is not the case. Evolution is a well established and evidenced theory which explains the progression, form, organization, and distribution of all the life on this planet without the need of any outside forces. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. There were plenty of atheists before Darwinian evolution became widely known and easily properly understood as the mechanism for the design of life. While there is some congruity between having a firm and robust theory which allows us to understand all life on the planet without needing to genuflect to God and not believing in God. They are completely different. Ken Miller: Ken Miller is a theist and a world class biologist who fully understands evolution. Raelians: Raelians are a religious group who believe that aliens created Earth and the life on this planet. They don't believe in God and thus are atheists while they believe in creationisms and often deny the basic science behind evolution. Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make.
Evolution is part of atheism.

I very pleased that you went though some time to explain it. I'm very sorry about this incident. Perhaps you could have explained how each round would work out. I was just parsing my oppoment's rebuttal. I could have asked you to clarify your reasoning and condense your theory, my mistake I didn't. First I would like to ask is :how did evolution came to being? It must start from somewhere, most suggest by an atom. 2nd: evolution, some people believe may tie in with creation. but there is no evidence about it. 3rd evolution depends on faith and theory and atheism falls on faith. Evolution may fall upon different beliefs but one belief includes atheism. Abiogensis is a branch of evolution, it explains how elements form life. Organisms require hyrdogen, carbon, and oxygen. These are abotic factors but it still is essential to life. Life must start from nonliving elements. Evolution is a belief and may fall on many, one of these many beliefs include atheism. It was a confusing debate. And my opponent was being abusive by not providing any fair ground ("there's not much to defend" he never specified which side so therefore it must be Pro's because I may finish the sentence ". .. on Pro's case) and giving insulting rebuttals.
Evolution is part of atheism.

You sir, are quite dishonest. Evolution can't be a part of atheism because atheism has no parts. I went to a lot of trouble to explain evolution and exactly how and why it works and the obvious facts that it doesn't share any relationship with atheism which simply exists as a lack of belief. You turned around and had the audacity to suggest: "My opponent did not defend his case, he just defined more in depth. He Evolution started with a hydrogen molecude that came out of no where. " I'm sorry but there should be some sort of instant lose function for being that wrong. Evolution is evolution. It's a good and robust scientific theory and atheism is the nonbelief in the existence of God, and contains absolutely nothing. There's more theists who accept evolution than atheists who accept evolution in the United States. Since my opponent never gave any plausible reasons to accept the claim there's not much to defend. The supposition that evolution has anything to do with molecules popping out of nowhere AFTER I explained it in great detail and claiming that stickers placed on the cover of text books are part of the text book are beyond the pale. "Non-evolutionary view about the beginning of life ARE religious. " is a statement of fact. Creationism and intelligent design are religion claims and are barred from being taught as such. However that does not command us to accept the contrary view that evolution views are similarly religious. That simply doesn't hold. I wish this debate could have been better.
Evolution is part of atheism.

So good luck! Observation on the resolution: Evolution is a theory that life came from atoms that appeared out of nowwhere. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. Please do not be confuse with anatagism (something like that) which is a belief that there is a God but cannot be sure which one. Contention 1: Evolution is a theory that describes how life came from nothing. Evolution describes that life came from nothing thus claiming atheism because the evolution theory has no theory involving a religon. According to a textbook: Pretince Hall Biology it states, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. " The reason for putting this to to warn students about evolution. In the state of Georgia several parents are sueing the company for describing evolution as atheism. The parents also won the case. This biology book contains evidence that evolution is considered atheism. Contetention 2: Evolution has no stand in religon therefore it falls into the atheism catagory. Any theory that has no stand in whether or not there is a God or not is considered atheism because atheism is considered a theory that life ends and there is no afterlife and your born to die. So what's the point of atheism if it has nothing to support it? Evolution provides that key. My oppoment's case: "While there is some congruity. .. different" We do not understand all life on the planet. Evolution is an athisem theory. My oppoment claims, "Evolution is a well established. .. God" It may have been described but not well established. There is not such thing as a well evidenced theory. Every experiment has a flaw. Evolution never really described how life started or how that one hydrogen atom came to being just out of nowhere. Atheism is the belief that there is no God, true, but my oppoment fail to mention that atheism describes that life begins and ends without an afterlife. Evolution describes that life begins and ends after it has fulfilled its purpose. And can you rephrase your paragraph on this:"Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make," that way we can have an even ground to debate on. In conclusion evolution is atheism. I have posted my case and I await for your rebuttal. Thank you.
Should scientists focus on interstellar travel more than interplanetary?(Lightspeed travel)

It made for a friendly discussion. Impacts are known in relatively recent geological history, i.e. Chixulub and the dinosaur extinction ca. 65Mya. Nothing has erased life on Earth since it started, however. That could just be good luck, of course. Neutron stars usually emit so much hard radiation that one wouldn't even need to hit the Earth - coming within a light year could be devastating to living things on the surface. Yet there's always risk in life, and death, too, is part of what it means to live. Individuals eventually die, and so do species. If humankind doesn't die out, then it will evolve into something we wouldn't recognize as human anymore. Perhaps it would be to us the way we are to spider monkeys.The question on debate was not whether interstellar travel is a possibility, but whether it's a good immediate science goal. I still think there are preliminaries to be worked on first. As you stated, perfection in society isn't necessary - like eliminating all conflicts or killing, or achieving universal love - but we do have to reign in war enough to make sure that a large war won't wipe everything out, and we have yet to agree on a verifiable and enforceable nuclear bomb ban treaty. I was glad to see the Cold War end. But we still keep enough bombs to turn civilization into a joke if they're ever used.And a lot of it is an inside job. War won't recede until big countries (say the USA) agree to quit using the rest of the world as a resource bin to maintain their own consumption lifestyles. While the "poor" countries need to reform as well, getting rid of the corruption and patronage that contribute as much to their poverty as economic imperialism does. There may be science to be done in learning how to build a sustainable global society. It's this sustainable society that will have better odds of getting to the stars, I think.Best wishes...
Should scientists focus on interstellar travel more than interplanetary?(Lightspeed travel)

Such a focus would not be appropriate for the scientific establishment right now, given the limited resources of NASA, the government agency that would most likely undertake an interstellar travel project.We've already shown it possible to launch a payload the size of a Volkswagen Beetle to interstellar space, which Voyagers 1 and 2 will traverse as far as distances separating us from nearby stars in about 100K years or so (although neither will pass close to Alpha Centauri).Because I'm not a physicist, I'm forced to consult expert opinion on the matter of light-speed travel. Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 10th ed. John Wiley, 2013, has a chapter on Einstein's Special Relativity, the theory that asserts the speed of light is a fundamental physical constant. In the equation that converts the clock and ruler read by one observer with the clock and ruler of another observer, who is moving relative to the first observer, inserting quantities close to c, the speed of light, gives very large numbers approaching infinity as the speed approaches c. Needless to say, the only objects moving near light speed observed to date are subatomic particles. Einstein's relativity has experimental and observational support, including explaining the precession of Mercury's orbit.It's of course possible this state of affairs will change one day. I think that day is far, far away. Just imagine the energy required to accelerate a physics book (1 kilogram) to 99% of c. From K = (m - m0) c^2, the book's kinetic energy is about 5.5 x 10 ^17 Joules. That's quite a bit less than annual total world energy consumption of some 5 x 10 ^20 Joules, but still represents at least several tonnes of any conceivable nuclear fuel. However, if this fuel is carried aboard ship, the problem now becomes one of accelerating the fuel as well as the 1 kilogram payload. Now we're into many thousands of tonnes of nuclear fuel just to get that 1 kilogram up to a high speed that's still short of the speed of light itself. And 1 kilogram is short of a person, much less a colonizing spaceship!Near-light speed travel involves engineering concepts that haven't been formulated yet, but even assuming it becomes theoretically possible, it will probably require more energy than humans can generate. It might mean being able to capture and use all the output of a star like the sun, just to propel our spaceship. I have serious doubts it will ever be done. We're having trouble just getting to Mars. Nor have I touched on the daunting problems of supporting life over the years or generations a trip to the stars would entail.
There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

think verb 1. have a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something. "she thought that nothing would be the same again" synonyms: believe, be of the opinion, be of the view, be under the impression; Just thought I'd bring your attention to this word, since I stated "Well, I don't think you've done taxes ever in your life". This statement is derived my perception of you having a lack of understanding how taxes work. If you're going to get your panties in a bunch over that, then you haven't lived much then. So, let me get this right: In a flat tax situation where the guy making $25k, gets taxes $5k, and the guy making $200k gets taxes $40k and you don't think that's fair?? The guy making more, is paying more right? You think he needs to "SUFFER MORE" to make it fair? Have you ever taken an Economics class? (I don't want to assume, and get you all butt hurt). What you're advocating is Socialism. At least there's a little free enterprise with our current progressive tax, but a progressive tax under socialism will never work. To make things simple and fun for the viewers, I'll put this college experiment below to read. An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an "A" .... (substituting grades for dollars — something closer to home and more readily understood by all). After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a "B". The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a "D"! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the new average was an "F". As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Human nature will always cause socialism's style of government to fail because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers). It could not be any simpler than that.
There must be a progressive tax rate that taxes those who earn more

1) I agree. 2) This is where it get difficult. 2.1) Thank you for accusing me of never doing taxes, shows how accusatory you are. The funny thing is, your claim that I have never done my taxes is rested upon the fact that I claimed we did not have a progressive tax system. Since you accused me of something, I will accuse you of something; you must learn how to read. Take a close look at what I said in my intro: "I will argue that our progressive tax system should not be scrapped in favour of a flat-tax". See the word "our"?! That word implies that we are within a system that uses said tax institution; well, I am not an America, but I know you are (quite obvious actually). Moreover, Let us look at your into, shall we? You said my "my theory [of progressive tax] is not only wrong, but will never work. Then I will prove to you how our current system is better". Since you are arguing for flat tax and you posited that you will prove how the American system is better than a progressive tax system, you are implying that America's does not use progressive tax. So, I will turn your comment upon yourself, I assume you have never done taxes. 2.2) A flat tax system is based off the ideal that everyone should pay the same taxes because it is fair. It is not fair. Let us say there exists a poor individual who makes $25,00.00 in Alabama and a richer individual who made $200,000.00. Moreover imagine a tax rate of 20%; the poor will make $20,000.00, whereas the richer individual will make $160,000.00. Tell me, will they suffer equally? No. The fact is, not only must the tax rate be equal, but the burden must also be equal. It makes sense for the process to be equal, but the outcome of said process must also be equal.