azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is getting breast implants acceptable to you?
Side: No

Lol, I don't care much for worms. I mean all together. I don't think I conform very much in the way you're talking about. But it's all an opinion I suppose.
Debate: Is getting breast implants acceptable to you?
Side: No

I just aviod anything that disagrees with, and there are many things within the established order that disagree with me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjSwsww5SfQ
Debate: Is getting breast implants acceptable to you?
Side: yes

I agree with much of what you are saying but i have one crucial disagreement i.e. God didn't make anyone. Vaiations in the appearance of the popuilation are the result of natural selection, when you say God made them you imply that some deity (who by the way is fictitious) sculpted everyones features individually, this has no grounding in reality.
Debate: Is getting breast implants acceptable to you?
Side: No

I'm not a woman but id like to throw my two cents in anyway, i dont beleive breasts should be altered unless theres something physically wrong with them. Men prefer natural breasts anyway so why change your appearance. Western perceptions of what is and isn't beautiful are the reason many strive to enhance their appearance when in reality there is no comparison to natural beauty. The glory is in all our differences, people are becoming like drones who have to match up with whatever western society tells them is beautiful.Yes lets make everyone the same, that'll make for interesting experience on this planet, ehh?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

There has been no scientific evidence that global warming is happening. In fact studies have showed that the earth is getting colder. In the 70s scientist predicted that there was going to be another ice age. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over. Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong. If anything almost all the evidence points away from global warming.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

There has been no scientific evidence that global warming is happening. In fact studies have showed that the earth is getting colder.Not according to NASA and every other credible scientist on the planet who know more about science than you. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/In the 70s scientist predicted that there was going to be another ice age.What is your point? That does not refute all the overwhelming observable evidence that supports that the Average Global Temperature is in a general upwards trend, and it does not dispute the fact that CO2 is a green house gas, and that is not only observed on earth, but also on other planets. Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over.Some in the past that were hypothesizing were eventually disproven because that's how science works. That means science is right, that does not disprove scientific facts. It shows that science is capable of amending its consensus when facts are presented. Presently, there are no facts that are refuting all the undeniable observable evidence that support the theory of Global Warming. Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong.This is patently false. We are seeing sea level rise (part of the prediction), we are seeing mass extinction underway (part of the prediction), we are seeing air that is unhealthy to breathe (part of the prediction), and we are seeing a general warming trend in the AGT (part of the prediction). If anything almost all the evidence points away from global warming.You shouldn't be telling me this. If you really think you're right, call NASA RIGHT NOW, and tell them you've proven all the scientists in the world with credibility wrong! Go now! You will change the world!
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Well well well, where do I start? Before you go talking about the basic facts of science, you should learn some for yourself.-Ice caps are, in fact, not melting. At all. They are increasing. Arctic ice has gone up 50% since 2012. That's 1.7 million square kilometers.-Instead of talking about other planets, why don't you talk about Earth, THE PLANET WE LIVE ON and also know the most about.-To say that the fact that CO2 contains heat is not up for debate is just ignorant. Earth's atmosphere is 0.03% CO2 and approximately 1% water vapor. Water vapor has a higher specific heat. A high specific heat means that it takes more energy to heat something up, thus maintaining that heat for longer. A low specific heat is the opposite. So if water vapor maintains heat for longer and there is exponentially more water vapor than CO2, why isn't water vapor something to worry about?-Yes, CO2 comes out of cars and factories. This is simply a fact with no further explanation.-Even with those so-called increases in CO2, it is still only 0.03% of the atmosphere. THAT, by the way, is a fact.-The temperature of the Earth has not changed in 17 years (since 1997).-Those that say the polar ice caps are melting, polar bears are dying, and the sea level is rising are completely wrong. I mentioned above about the polar ice and how it has increased 50% in only two years. As for the polar bear population, it has more than doubled in the past thirty years. As for the sea level rising due to the ice caps melting, it is impossible. Even though it is a proven fact that the ice caps have expanded rapidly, let's just say for argument's sake that they were melting. Imagine that you have a half of a cup of water. Now add some ice to that water. You will notice that the water level will rise. Well when that ice melts, the water level goes back down. It would be just silly to say that the cup will overflow from the melting ice.-Scientists predicted about 15-20 years ago that in the near future, we would have to wear special suits to protect us from the heat. We are obviously not walking around with crazy suits to protect us from heat.-Those who claim that Earth is a giant greenhouse are also wrong. Earth is by no means a greenhouse. A greenhouse is surrounded by glass and traps heat inside. Earth is obviously not surrounded by glass. When clouds form, they reflect heat back into space. This is Earth's way of cooling itself down. So we could not heat up the Earth if we tried. This is why when you are outside on a hot summer day and a cloud rolls over your head and blocking the sunlight, it instantly feels cooler. The heat is being reflected back into space by the clouds.-If you're wondering why the THEORY of global warming has become such a widely accepted theory, go ahead and look into Climategate. It is a scandal literally showing that scientists have lied about global warming.-Don't believe everything you've ever heard or what has been brainwashed into peoples' brains.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

attempted to fix bolding - didn't work
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Here, we have a bad player of Go.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

I was reading your comment and as tempted as I am to respond to it as a whole, one particular line struck me:And to add to that, there are more trees on the earth now than ever in recorded human history.What evidence do you have for this? I tried looking this up and only found evidence pertaining to a hundred years ago.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Okay let's just make matters a whole lot simpler where I can still get my point across. I'm assuming that we can at least agree that there are more trees now than 100 years ago. Well the most industrialization in history has happened within the past 100 years. Carbon dioxide from the factories, cars, what we breathe out, etc. is what trees use as their food. So it only makes sense that the more carbon dioxide there is, the more trees there will be. Plus, carbon dioxide isn't as bad as it's set out to be. It's a vital part of life and we would all be dead without it.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

So it only makes sense that the more carbon dioxide there is, the more trees there will be. Plus, carbon dioxide isn't as bad as it's set out to be. It's a vital part of life and we would all be dead without it.No, that does not make any sense. It might make sense if humans did not rely on the logging industry all around the world, but they do.And fill a bag of carbon dioxide, stick your head in it and try to breath. Then recognize that too much of it can indeed be harmful. An oversimplified demonstration, but evidence enough for this instance.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Yes, it absolutely does make sense. Let me put it to you this way. There are very very small trace amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (0.04%). Carbon dioxide is used in our respiratory system to breathe and breathing is obviously an important part of life. However, to touch on what you are saying, if I breathed in only carbon dioxide, that would be bad. But that's not what happens. The same goes for oxygen. If you were to breathe in just oxygen, that also has the potential to be fatal. But again, that't not what happens. At all. The fact of the matter is that we NEED certain amounts of these gases in order to sustain life as we know it. And personally, I think to say that with the huge size of the earth, to say that 0.04% of something is enough to heat is up and demolish it is foolish.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Let's ignore the fact that your entire argument has been addressed ad nauseum: Why are you responding only to me, and not to JustIgnoreMe, who has taken the time to provide a LOT of evidence?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

"I'm assuming that we can at least agree that there are more trees now than 100 years ago."No. There are more trees in the U.S. than there were 100 years ago, not globally. ref ref"So it only makes sense that the more carbon dioxide there is, the more trees there will be."No, the more carbon dioxide there is the more trees we need - carbon dioxide does not create trees"Plus, carbon dioxide isn't as bad as it's set out to be. It's a vital part of life and we would all be dead without it."Try breathing into a bag, and you will find it to be a vital part of death..."let's just make matters a whole lot simpler"Ah, the prerequisite for people talking about things beyond their knowledge. Why do you, who obviously knows nothing about the topic, trust your (uniformed) opinion, over the opinion of those who do know what they are talking about?? (see also)
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Because he feels it in his gut, man.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Of the scientists surveyed, 98% of them said that we are causing global warming. Okay, so what about the rest of the scientists on the entire planet? It's like asking 100 atheists in a group of 100,000 people if they believe in God.No - this was an attempt to survey ALL peer-review studies - not a subset.http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/ 024024/pdf/1748-9326 82_024024.pdf
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Uh huh I bet.*
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

CO2 DOES NOT TRAP HEAT.This is where you are fundamentally wrong.Asymmetrically vibrating greenhouses gasses absorb energy (trap heat) radiating off the earth which otherwise would able to escape into space.If you do nothing else - learn what a greenhouse gas is and how it works (is complicated, but worth it)
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

I know what people claim the greenhouse effect to be and what greenhouse gases are claimed to be. I understand it. It scientifically doesn't make sense though. If you saw what I said about specific heat, you would realize that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas and its upsurd to claim that it is. It has little to no ability to trap and maintain heat. And besides, carbon dioxide is a vital part of life for many species (if not all).
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

It scientifically doesn't make sense though.Hmm, I wonder why the scientific community thinks it does then.It has little to no ability to trap and maintain heat. And besides, carbon dioxide is a vital part of life for many species (if not all).Both of those statements have been addressed multiple times.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

If you saw what I said about specific heatWhether a gas is a greenhouse gas or not does not tie to specific heat. It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space.carbon dioxide is a vital part of lifesaying that some is necessary does not show that there is no such thing as too much.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

"Whether a gas is a greenhouse gas or not does not tie to specific heat. It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy (through a shift in its dipole moment), preventing that radiant energy from going into space."Just want to clear up the science.The dipole moment of a molecule refers to the net charge distribution. For example, most salts have strong dipole moments by definition due to the fact that salts are formed by ions. CH4 has a dipole moment of 0 because of it is a tetrahedral with the same atom for all 4 corners. CO2 happens to have a dipole moment of 0 as well because it is linear. It looks like O=C=O. Oxygen is actually a very electronegative atom and usually skews distribution towards dipole moments. However, the linear double bond means the oxygens cancel each other out.The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra. Greenhouse gases tend to have large absorption bands in the IR range as that is the wavelength the Earth radiates.Absorption spectra relate to the atomic composition and the gaps between quantum states. Basically, when the energy of the photon (which depends on its frequency) is close to the difference between two states, an electron is more likely to absorb that photon and change quantum states. This is the act of absorption.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Ha - good job clearing things up... not.To un-"clear up the science":CO2 happens to have a dipole moment of 0 as well because it is linear.CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching. (There are four vibration modes for linear molecules, only one is symmetrical.) This is what I was saying in my post with: "It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energy"The dipole moment has nothing to do with the absorption spectra.The dipole moment determines whether the molecule will absorb any energy. If it can, then the spectra at which it does determines whether it is a greenhouse gas.ref
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

It has to do with whether the way the molecule is vibrating allows it to absorb energyNo. All molecules have an absorption spectra. Having a dipole moment does not allow molecules to absorb energy. It will absorb energy regardless of dipole moment. The absorption spectra is like a fingerprint for each atom. We use spectroscopy to identify atomic composition.CO2 has a permanent dipole moment of 0, but does have a dipole moment during bending and asymmetrical stretching.How do instantaneous dipole moments allow for energy absorption? You do realize that all molecules, regardless of permanent dipole moments, vibrate and have instantaneous dipole moments. That is the basis for LDF. Without LDF, nothing would be alive.The dipole moment determines whether the molecule will absorb any energy. If it can, then the spectra at which it does determines whether it is a greenhouse gas.All molecules absorb energy. It does not matter if there is a dipole moment or not. The absorption spectra only depends on the composition and structure as that determines quantum state gaps.You seem to have some weird understanding of dipole moments. They are a measurement of the polarity of bonds. I am not sure what you think they are, but it seems like you are completely mistaken.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

How do instantaneous dipole moments allow for energy absorption?Are you really not able to read references:"A gas molecule absorbs radiation of a given wavelength only if the energy can be used to increase the internal energy level of the molecule. This internal energy level is quantized in a series of electronic, vibrational, and rotational states. An increase in the internal energy is achieved by transition to a higher state. Electronic transitions, that is, transitions to a higher electronic state, generally require UV radiation (20 mm). Little absorption takes place in the range of visible radiation (0.4-0.7 mm) which falls in the gap between electronic and vibrational transitions. Gases that absorb in the wavelength range 5-50 mm, where most terrestrial radiation is emitted ( Figure 7-8 ), are called greenhouse gases. The absorption corresponds to vibrational and vibrational-rotational transitions (a vibrational-rotational transition is one that involves changes in both the vibrational and rotational states of the molecule). A selection rule from quantum mechanics is that vibrational transitions are allowed only if the change in vibrational state changes the dipole moment p of the molecule. Vibrational states represent different degrees of stretching or flexing of the molecule, and an electromagnetic wave incident on a molecule can modify this flexing or stretching only if the electric field has different effects on different ends of the molecule, that is if p 0. Examination of the geometry of the molecule can tell us whether a transition between two states changes p."ref from beforeSee also:http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/Environmental/L13/2.html https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html http://www.nku.edu/~hicks/CHE%20120/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect%20alpha.htm http://www.academia.edu/8717003/Thegreenhouseeffectandglobal_warming-REVIEWhttp://academics.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem105manual/Chem105manualSummer07/Lab06/lab06.html http://orgchem.colorado.edu/Spectroscopy/irtutor/IRtheory.pdf All molecules have an absorption spectra. Having a dipole moment does not allow molecules to absorb energy. Only molecules that can change their dipole moment can absorb energy in the infrared spectrum "IR active" (greenhouse gasses are only concerned with thermal IR by definition, so absorbing in the Raman spectrum is not relevant to the discussion.)
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Me: All molecules have an absorption spectra. Having a dipole moment does not allow molecules to absorb energy.You: Only molecules that can change their dipole moment can absorb energy in the infrared spectrum "IR active" (greenhouse gasses are only concerned with thermal IR by definition, so absorbing in the Raman spectrum is not relevant to the discussion.)You don't seem to understand what an absorption spretra is. It is just a range of EM frequencies that a particular atom can absorb.IR spectroscopy is a technique that focuses on IR bands while Raman spectroscopy is a technique that focuses on visible bands. Using a specific technique on a molecule does not mean the atoms only contain those bands. These are all spectroscopy techniques used to identify specific atoms.How do you define "change their dipole moment"?You are misunderstanding some key concepts. I suggest you stop googling around for bits and pieces and just read a wikipedia article about bonding polarity or bond/molecule vibration. Also look for energy states or quanta.You are misinterpreting your sources. You need to understand the concept of quantized energy states. They are distinct. Energy states are not continuous. That means to move from one to another, you need an exact amount of energy. This is what they mean by transition. A dipole moment change indicates an energy state transition, but it does not guarantee any EM band.You're just spamming random sources without even understanding the actual science.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Ok. I am back.I thought I responded to this part a long time ago. You are just mashing together different parts without understanding the full picture.You should google "dipole moment" and "transition dipole moment". Dipole moment refers to the classic interpretation which is just a net difference in charge distribution. A transition dipole moment is a state transition. I have been trying to pound this into you for a while. There is a difference.Some of the stuff you pasted refer to the classic interpretation, while some refer to the QM interpretation.Your mish-mash of information even includes unclear statements. One source does not even mention degenerative bonds."Water has three normal modes of vibration, all of which are IR active. Carbon dioxide, a linear molecule, has 4 normal modes of vibration. Even though it does not have a permanent dipole moment, the dipole moment changes during 3 of the 4 modes, so carbon dioxide can absorb in the IR.""Only two IR bands (2350 and 666 cm–1) are seen for carbon dioxide, instead of four corresponding to the four fundamental vibrations. Carbon dioxide is an example of why one does not always see as many bands as implied by our simple calculation. In the case of CO2, two bands are degenerate, and one vibration does not cause a change in dipole moment."This is why you should focus on learning the basics so that you understand the big picture.EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitiondipolemoment#Analogywithaclassicaldipole
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Ok. I am back.Oh joy!I thought I responded to this part a long time ago.You apparently think many things that are incorrect.You are just mashing togetherNope.You should google "dipole moment" and "transition dipole moment".I already know the difference (and tried to explain it to you in my very first response to you).The confusion was yours all along - if you knew what a greenhouse gas was from the beginning, you would not have interjected to clear things up by discussing the permanent dipole moment of CO2.Dipole moment refers to ...Dipole moment can refer to several things - again, not knowing which one was relevant shows your ignorance on the subject, not your knowledge... Your mish-mash of information even includes unclear statements.Unclear to the unlearned.One source does not even mention degenerative bonds.Not mentioning every possible piece of information does not make a source inaccurate or irrelevant."Water has three normal modes of vibration,..." and "Only two IR bands..."Both of these are correct statements - what are you taking issue with? Note the "Water..." one does mention that the bending mode is degenerate in the original source if you could read it.This is why you should focus on learning the basics so that you understand the big picture.This is why you should look again and see that my statement was correct all along if you knew what you were talking about...Thanks for clearing things up though...