BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
100% Separation of Church and State

Let's see. I will first focus on the validity of a religion. 1. You didn't prove that every religion was false 2. You simply listed of many different stories Religion is A FAITH! people believe in it. it is true to them. this goes into deep philosophy about the senses and transcendentalism. Why is a chair a chair? Because we call it a chair. Why is Jesus my savior? because I say he is. What are you typing with? a keyboard. why is it a keyboard? why is it called typing? because we say it is. we have faith that it is. Every religion is true to the person that believes it. so you failed to meet my burden so you lose but to further on what you said 1. religion harming people. yes, religion does hurt some people. WWI WWII Civil War the three most costly war in America's history weren't caused by religion if you want to paint a roses and thorns picture, don't leave out the dimensions of the thorns to convince they are bigger than the rose. 2. stay out of government to start, lets look at the point you ignored - religion can't have taxes you ignored that argument i made, so now you only have one reason why religion should be out of governments: because people don't agree. the protection of religion itself in a government is needed. if we exclude religion from the government, the government can not protect religion. The government can support the growth of religion and still stay unbiased in which religion is right. 3. currency you want to change teh currency over time, which is fine. but that message shows that the government does not respect religion at all. it appears to me you ignored my argument why our currency is not offensive. am i wrong? you left it alone so i assume you agree with me. the phrase is not offensive so it shouldn't offend anyone back to you
100% Separation of Church and State

Religion should be 100% separated from government. Here is my rationale: 1. There are thousands of religions each with various belief system. The differences in religion start wars, create hate and numerous other crimes against humanity. Since there isn't one religion that all people can believe in, or that wouldn't polarize the country it should not be part of government. Having the words 'In God we Trust' on our currency is offensive to many people in this country. Our currency would work just as well without those words and wouldn't offend anyone. 2. Religious institutions do not pay taxes therefore have no right to any voice in government. 3. Our founding fathers, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc...none of them were overly pious. They left a country (England) filled with Religious persecution and wanted their new country to avoid the same mistakes. They purposefully left religion out of government because they knew first hand how poisonous and polarizing it would become. They knew the thirteen colonies would be incapable of agreeing on anything religious in the constitution so they though it best that all things Church and State were kept separate. There is a great book "the moral minority" which backs this up with letters from the founding fathers. 4. It's dangerous to govern by religion because it's a bunch of hogwash. It's make believe like Peter Pan and Winnie the Pooh. We should govern by science and facts. For example, a religious person might say, God will save us from global warming. A rational person might say, we need to do something about global warning. A religious person might say, God told me to invade Iraq. A rational person might say, if we invade Iraq we'll get start a war we can't win and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, kill and maim thousands of our troops, spend 200 billion dollars which could have been spent on much needed domestic issues such as health care.
The war on drugs has been a failure

I would really liked to have had a real debate on the war on drugs and the failure that it has been. In over forty years of waging war on drugs I think its safe to say that this war is a failure. By redirecting some of these funds toward drug education and treatment we would be better served as a society. By decriminalizing drugs we can start down the road to recovery by having more people in treatment and counseling instead of prison and crack houses. The war on drugs is just another failed example of how prohibition doesn't work.
The war on drugs has been a failure

In this the rebuttal section of the debate I was willing to debate my opponent but I'm not sure what is actual points in favor of the war on drugs are. He has stated in his argument: "If we no longer argue whether or not drugs should be legalized, are we going to legalize it, or not? Without arguing, the government themselves will negotiate about the idea. However, without letting their people (Or even anyone (Public))I scrutinize/criticize what they deem a valid reason for the legalization/restraint of drugs, they may never encounter their own error (Although possibly, they may not have made at least 1 mistake)." I have to admit that I truly don't understand my opponent's position on this debate. So I will just ask people to look at my original argument and I will reserve my conclusions for the next round.
The war on drugs has been a failure

Presentation Legalize or not?If we no longer argue whether or not drugs should be legalized, are we going to legalize it, or not? Without arguing, the government themselves will negotiate about the idea. However, without letting their people (Or even anyone (Public))I scrutinize/criticize what they deem a valid reason for the legalization/restraint of drugs, they may never encounter their own error (Although possibly, they may not have made at least 1 mistake).I await my opponent's next set of arguments.(P.S. I will rebut my opponent's contentions in the following round (Hence, the debate format))
Battle

I challenge anyone and everyone to a hero to hero battle. Then we will settle the argument of which one would be the victor in a fight. Rules are as follows: 1. Only one version of the character/traits are allowed 2. Marvel, DC, Vertigo, Darkhorse, and Image will be the primary sources. 3. No sidekicks, teams, or minions can help. 3. Can choose a Hero, Villain, or Sidekick. 4. Only allowed to use the weapons or technology that your choice would have logical access to (must be proved) [no random Kryptonite] 5. Must state the Origin, universe, and version of your Choice {for clarification purposes} Are you up to the challenge?
Battle

One thing that I'd like to point out again is that Spiderman has superhuman strength. Another thing is that this is him with symbiote. That enhances all of his powers. Another thing that Spiderman has is spider sense. His spider sense linked with his super human abilities and also with symbiote make him quite a worthy adversary because with all of this he can evade the attacks and actually cause damage to his opponent. Sources: http://marvel.com...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
Battle

Size matters, when you're speaking of a size of this magnitude. Galactus towers over the Empire State Building. Unless you have Thor-class strength, a punch on Galactus does absolutely nothing. Galactus, if he so chose too, could strip Spiderman's powers. His speed doesn't factor in against Galactus' cosmic awareness. He perceives the entire cosmos on a different level; Galactus can know the activities of individuals galaxies away. Spiderman isn't fast enough for Galactus to be unable to track him and rip him apart with a mere thought. For these reasons, vote Galactus/Con.
Battle

Contentions: 1. Galactus is a supremely powerful, old, and ancient being. - Galactus comes from a pre-existing world from before the Big Bang. He is a force of nature, similar to gravity and electromagnetism. He is, and always was. 2. Galactus' power levels are off the charts. - Galactus wields the power cosmic to an unparalleled degree. He can bestow power upon others, transmute matter and energy, warp reality, and create life and bring back the dead. 3. Galactus' size alone makes him extremely difficult for Spiderman to handle. - Galactus eats planets in order to sustain himself, in the process devouring entire civilizations. His home, the Mï¿½bius strip-shaped, solar system-sized home of Galactus — could be the greatest source of energy in the universe. 4. Galactus' is a concept that is hard for any man to register. - Galactus' size, power level, and sheer presence is hard for any mortal being to comprehend. Spiderman could barely even comprehend him as a force before he was obliterated, like an ant under the boot of a man. For these reasons, Galactus would easily defeat Spiderman, in any form, and I encourage you to vote Galactus, the con in this battle.
Boarding schools should be made complusory to all school students

Yes I do believe that Boarding school should be made mandatory for each child. It is important for the overall development of a child which is really difficult to provide when the child in a day school. Adults understand the importance of networks more than ever in these tough economic times. Networks of friends and acquaintances who know you, understand you and can vouch for you are one of the lasting benefits of a boarding school experience. When you live with your classmates 24/7, you really get to know them. You also appreciate them, and, even more important, learn to get along with them. The diverse nature of most boarding school populations these days means that your child has the potential for a network of friends which literally could stretch around the world.
Should LGBT people be condemned (based on a christian view)

Aww shucks...<3 Naw man, I'm just a guy simply offering what I know and the rest is up to us to dialogue on. But I appreciate the comment, bro :D What I mean by "Heaven and Hell in major world religions" is the references the Holy Scriptures of God make to represent the end result of a persons soul if they partake in a certain action that may or may not be deemed Law-abiding in the Eyes of God. So Heaven and Hell in as explained in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, the Baha'i Faith and others, is explained in form of Law in order for us to know the do's and the don'ts. So they are spiritual states of being, based on the actions we do here on Earth rather than geographical locations. I hope this answers your question :D If not, then I apologize and you can rephrase it anyway you wish haha
Should LGBT people be condemned (based on a christian view)

Hello hello to my dear friend Danmurphy789! I would be more than happy to take this debate. Just a heads up, I will be arguing my position using a logical/common sensical/scientific approach as well as Biblical references to support my stance. Personally, I have objections to LGBT actions as a whole but not I have nothing against the homosexuals themselves because some are absolutely beautiful people. In addition to this, I don't believe they will go to hell or heaven as a spiritually geographical location as most people think, because nobody is predetermined to even end up in such places. I believe that we all go back to God and the hell and heaven that are in the major world religions, are the states of an individual's soul based on the actions they do on this Earth according to the Law they abide by. I hope that this clarifies my stance and I look forward to a great debate. :)
Progressive Taxation

Income Equality - This is one of the biggest pros that progressive tax advocates promote. A progressive tax system really acts as a tool for redistributing income from the upper class to the lower and middle class. Those individuals who earn more pay more into the federal government. This helps keeps the income gap from growing wider between the rich and the poor. Social Justice - Some argue that it is morally right that those who can afford to pay more in taxes should do so. Those that have very little income should be helped out by those who can afford to help. A progressive tax allows governments to collect money from those who can afford to pay, and uses it to help create a society that is more happy as a result. Those taxes are used to fund education, medical services, housing assistance and other welfare programs for those people who really need help. Because so many people need help with these things, society is better off as a whole. More Government Revenue - A progressive system allows governments to collect more money from higher income earners. This results in more money collected, rather than if everyone paid the same percentage. As a result, the government can provide more programs and services that benefit society. Efficiency. What is the optimal amount of public goods and services the government should provide? If the government creates a rule that says everyone must pay an equal share of their income, revenue will be restricted to the rate that the lowest earning workers can afford to pay. Consider the case of a married couple with drastically different earnings. One spouse earns $40,000 per year, while the other earns $400,000 a year. If the couple goes Dutch, they will restrict their shared consumption. However, if the couple adopts a rule that the higher earning spouse pays more, then they can enjoy a higher level of shared consumption. This means they will consume a better house, better car, and better lifestyle.
Progressive Taxation

Progressive taxation should be allowed for these reasons: First off, the rich have it better off, we can look at them like a well developed, rich in infrastructure society, like the U.S. Most of the world depends on the U.S for exports because the U.S is so well established. This is how we should view this debate, the poor depend on the better-off, better-established rich class to survive and prosper, therefore we should tax the rich more than the other classes (progressive tax)
Progressive Taxation

In this argument I intend to list the reasons for no Progressive tax, and since my opponent has effectively forfeited this round, my arguments from before stand. - progressive taxes reduce work incentive - progressive taxes give incentive to evade taxes - progressive taxes hurt the economy The debate should be weighed based on whether all groups of taxpayers benefit from only a progressive tax, which has been proven that no one benefits. On the flip side, people have been shown to benefit more from a flatter tax code.
Progressive Taxation

In this argument, I intend to respond to the pro and further my case for no progressive tax: In the pro's argument, he concedes to my conclusion that flat taxes achieve the goal of progressive taxes with his 10% flat tax example, ergo, he has already forfeited the debate on progressive taxes, his argument then continues, not as an advocacy for progressive taxes, but an attack on the counter plans to progressive taxation, to this I respond. Taxing consumption does not reduce economic activity, in tact, if a sales tax were to replace all the existing taxes, the surplus revenue for producers would be enough to have a net saving for all consumers. Taxes are needed to pay for the government, even Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations noted this, but he believed the proper way to fund the government was either through flat taxation or a tax paid based on 'convenience', which according to him included taxes on consumer items. Before the progressive tax, every government in the world was capable of funding itself without deficit. Before the income tax was even produced in the United States, it was capable of winning wars and establishing a substantial empire. Today, both Hong Kong and Singapore enjoy a higher standard of living than most other countries, with a higher HDI than the US, with a flatter tax rate and a surplus, proving that with flat taxes, funding government with a surplus. Much of post-cold war Russia's economic expansion is credited to the flat tax rate that was installed. States in the United States that have a flatter tax code have less unemployment and more job growth, states like North Dakota, Texas, and Colorado outperform more progressive states like New York and California. Progressive taxes are an unnecessary burden on the economy, and the pro concedes to that fact, a flatter code can not only fund the government, but it can increase the standard of living and increase productivity, and still achieve all the values the pro holds.
Progressive Taxation

Just as a constructed illustration of this, take a tax system with a 10% rate on all income over $10,000 a year, the first $10,000 being tax free. If you make $10,00, your tax rate is 0%. If you make $20,000 then your tax bill is $1,000 ($20k " $10k x 10%) or 5% and if $100,000 then your tax bill is $9,000 ($100k-$10k x 10%) or 9%. We have rising average tax rates even if we don"t have a rising marginal one. Indeed, the average tax rate will asymptotically approach the flat tax rate itself as income rises. As above, you can also have rising marginal rates or tax bands if you desire, but this flat tax with an allowance is indeed enough to meet the condition of it being a progressive tax system. The second part is about efficiency, which is that part that means that we tax consumption. Here the concern is about deadweight costs. All and any tax, by being levied, means that some economic activity doesn"t happen. But we do need to raise some taxes, somewhere, for we do rather need this thing called government and we"ve got to pay for it. Maybe we don"t need as much as we have, perhaps we need more, but the basic fact that there have to be taxes of some kind remains. We would obviously therefore prefer to raise the tax money we need by using the taxes that have the least deadweight costs. All other things being equal we"ll be richer by doing it this way rather than using taxes which destroy more economic activity for the same amount of revenue collected. We know which taxes destroy the least economic activity as well. Repeated taxes on real property can actually create more economic activity in certain circumstances. Then more costly are consumption taxes, more costly again are taxes upon incomes and then most costly are capital and corporate taxes. Transactions taxes like the financial transactions tax are so ludicrously expensive in this sense that we don"t usually include them in our list: but they"re way up at the top there, even more damaging than capital or corporate taxes.
Mother should be punished for lying about dead soldier to win Hannah Montana tickets.

Since my opponent forfeited and I sick today I will keep this brief, my just stating the mother let the young girl lie and commit fraud and then the mother further carried it on by making a statement to the company that yes her husband had died in Iraq. She gave a false name and a false date of death , she also gave a cause of death. That should at least be fraud . I am not stating we should make a new law or even that she does hard time. I do however think she should be fined or ordered to do community service maybe with disabled VETS (might learn a lesson or two)
Mother should be punished for lying about dead soldier to win Hannah Montana tickets.

What should she be punished for , how about fraud ?????? I'm not proposing that a new law is made. It was supposed to be a true essay to win tickets. This mother had her 6 year old lie and then she herself went ahead and committed fraud , she gave the people running the contest a false name of a US soldier , and a false date of death. She committed fraud , I would think community service or a fine would be a good punishment for that. Since when is it a good thing to encourage your children to lie to get what they want???
Mother should be punished for lying about dead soldier to win Hannah Montana tickets.

I'm not sure what type of punishment you're talking about but to make a law would be against free speech and is not harming anybody. To make a law not to write fictional essays is ridiculous. I assume you are talking about legal punishment because you stated they were punished for not getting th tickets. The essay was moral because it encouraged the yong child to write and even write a moving enough to win the contest. Children should be encouraged to write and not punished.
Mother should be punished for lying about dead soldier to win Hannah Montana tickets.

I find it to be so sick that any parent or person for that matter would make up a story like this little girl and her mother. I do not blame the child , I put all blame on the mother. What kind of example are you setting to let your child tell such a horrible lie to win concert tickets. There are people really going through such tragedy right now. For those who do not know the story. A 6 year old little girl submitted an essay to win Hannah Montana tickets, the story was about her daddy dying in Iraq. The mother also went along with the story saying that it was true , giving a name and date and saying it was a roadside bomb. They won the contest only to find out it WAS'NT TRUE. The father is a carpet cleaner and is alive and well. I think its sick and the mother should be punished by some sort of community service. Here is the article : http://www.dallasnews.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I also think they should definitely not give them the tickets, I think one article says they have now decided not to give them the tickets. I just can't believe someone would make up this sort of lie for concert tickets.
History is an Important School Subject

I would first like to offer my apology in having the last speech. My opponents can't refute anything I say. While there is nothing I can do about this, I still apologize. My opponent has said that you need to know about your government and why it is this way. All throughout my speech I will be reinforcing the idea that you can always look at the news. People might say, "Why is everyone against America?", but this is a very public topic. I'd like to say that history class must not work very well if nobody knows all the answers it offers. It has been around for a while. She said that it will give you a clue about wars and things in the future, but I have already proved that history doesn't always repeat itself. She said that WW2 started from WW1, but these were two events that happened within a couple decades of each other. Slavery having other wars in other countries was because people there heard about the American Civil War, and that spurred on their revolutions. Now I will repeat my main contentions to end this debate in my favor. History is irrelevant, if you're doing your taxes, you don't have to know when King Henry II was born and when he reigned. My opponent didn't really refute this argument. Second, history is not interesting for all students. This coincides with my plan of making history an elective class. Take another elective, say art class. Some students love art class, so they take it. But other students don't like art. It won't really help them in life, so they choose another elective that they do enjoy. I have refuted all my opponent's points and reinforced my own. Again, I have obviously won this debate.