BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education Is The Only Avenue For Success In Today's World-----(Education in General)

Education is Not the Only Route to Success My opponent makes the false assumption that education is the only way an individual can be successful. This is flawed in that education does not necessarily equate to intellect, education does not necessarily mean one will be successful (a student with a top notch education can fail to succeed in life through external causes, such as drug addiction, crime, ect.) and the most successful business in modern society is the entertainment business which does not require education. Just look at NBA player Lebron James who drafted out of highschool and has become one of the most famous and successful basketball players out there. (1) Its not just sports either, many people have become successful without education through acting, artwork, movie directing, singing, ect. So my opponent has already lost this debate in that education is not the only route to success. Contentions “one's education has a great impact on their overall mental well being” So does a plethora of other things, but that doesn’t mean they are directly related to societal success. It has already been shown that there are many other ways to be successful without education. Exercising helps mental well being and that’s exactly what famous sports stars do. “In society today a person's education has a major impact on their employment status” Which is irrelevant to people who are musicians, sports stars, artists, ect. They do not require an employment status to be successful. “a person need to educate himself in order to become a responsible adult” This is not true. Responsibility comes from prior experience and maturity, not necessarily an education. Just look at so called educated politicians; they are some of the most irresponsible people in existence. Closing Thank you for this debate. By the way, what’s with all of these one round debates lately? Either way, I’m loving it. (1) http://bleacherreport.com...
Education Is The Only Avenue For Success In Today's World-----(Education in General)

Judges, Audience, Opposition. Over decades of time, there have been great debates as to whether education is the only avenue for success in today's world. My task today is to highlight to you my points of agreement to this moot. This is since a persons' education has a great impact on the person's overall mental well being, their employment or financial status and even so lack of education disrupts one's genetic traits. Firstly, one's education has a great impact on their overall mental well being . This is so due to the fact that when person doesn't have the required amount or level of education, they would not be able to develop their full brain potential and widen its capacity. With an undeveloped brain, persons become mentally retarded and are deemed unfit to adapt to society and its changes. Secondly, In society today a person's education has a major impact on their employment status. Person's without the required level of education have undeveloped skills and insignificant attributes. Consider a scenario where a person applies for a job and the particular position requires the person to have a particular skill. Do you think this person will get the job? My answer is No! Without this skill the uneducated person would not be able to fit the position being offered. In addition without a job this person would not be able to provide for themselves financially. Furthermore, a person need to educate himself in order to become a responsible adult. If a person is uneducated and irresponsible and by some means impregnates a woman, his genetic traits is passed on the the growing offspring. In the case if the pregnancy goes as planned, when the child reaches an appropriate age for school, special needs will have to be given to the child due to his/her father or mother disrupted genes. In closing, I strongly agree that education Is! the only avenue for success in today's world. As I stated before one's education governs his mental well being as it relates to retardation, His employment status which affects the person financial status and most importantly education has a link to a persons' genes and the traits being carried on. Thank you!
America Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless It Nationalizes Housing

I have already shown a proof that you are wrong on those two points. Ownership requires you do the work for the object. Renters are doing that work, not the one who simply writes a rental contract. Stealing is taking that which is someone elses. Taking credit for someone's work is stealing. The renters do all the work for the housing, not the parasite with a contract and a pen. Renters are not volunteering to pay rent. They are socio-economically forced into it. They are also brainwashed into believing they should pay rent vs getting their fair share of the equity they solely are responsible for, just like I showed you that slaves were brainwashed into believing they were owned and their efforts were not their own, so they didn't get credit for their work. The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko Parasitic contracts are destroying our country. Americans don't really want to be enslaved by foreigners through rental contracts. They don't really want their children enslaved for generations either. This requires the internal parasite be removed from the scenario as well, which simple means we give everyone credit for their investement in houseing. Everyone wins except the parasite!
America Cannot Be Made Great Again Unless It Nationalizes Housing

Stealing means you take someone else's property without the intention of returning it. This is exactly what the current rental contract does - steals the renters property. I will prove it with the argument below.In order for someone to own something, they must pay for it. The price of something is determined by the cost in which it takes to create. Those who are renting out the property say they are paying for the property and therefore are owners, but actually the ones who are paying for the property are the renters.The renters pay for: all the development costs all the materials all the labor all the taxes the vacancy rate all the management costs all the maintenance costs and they pay for all the royalties that go to the pet projects of the landlord which are probably are non-sustainable projects that can’t float their own boat otherwise they would need the rent to do it, the projects would do it themselves. If they need venture capital that’s what the bank if for. People stuck into forced renting have no responsibility to fund these projects. A real capitalist doesn’t need to enslave people, instead customers will voluntarily purchase their products.The rental contract takes the efforts of the renters and put the landlord’s name on those efforts via putting the title of ownership in their name.Renters have their minds controlled by a twisted psychology. This is the same slave psychology that subjugated African Americans in the days of slavery.African Americans were under a false assumption - the belief their bodies were owned by whites. Renters are under a similar false assumption - renters believe their homes they have collectively paid for as a group are owned by a like minded despicable attitude as slave owners.Blacks believed their efforts of picking cotton were actually owned by the slave owners. Blacks did the work and slave owners took the work and just wrote their name on it. This is no different than what the rental contract does. It's theft.Back in the slave days we didn't call stealling blacks efforts theft because it was legal. Rent may be legal, but just like slavery was theft of human efforts, so is the rental contract.Representing ownership by the ones who actually do the work is the truth. Do you remember this famous saying, The Truth Shall Set You Free? It helped set blacks free and it can set renters free!If people want control of the country, they better start owning up to what they’ve done, because it’s being taken away by thieves every second.
Why the United States Needs To Be Invaded, Lose A War -

This debate is wether or not the U.S. needs to be invaded. I, the Pro/For, argue in shirt, the U.S. needs to be invaded, and/or lose a war because of it's tyrannical and dictating rule over most of the rest of the world unable to protect themselves from the U.S. - The problem is the U.S., in that that are imposing their ideology and dictating ways on other cultures that cannot stay true to their own personal beliefs and ways of living because of big brother's "power" hold over them. - This is a simple opening so you can better understand where this debate will progress from here, as well as have a better understanding of the debate topic / i - Con will post argument, I will respond -
Why the United States Needs To Be Invaded, Lose A War -

"First of all, it seems most of your content was clearly copy and pasted."Is my opponent attempting to defame me? If my opponent imagine such a claim, she better back it up and anyone can use Google search to find out if it was copied and pasted. Otherwise refrain from making such libelous claims on here."Your response in that the US is not tyrannical, has no argument, what so ever, just definitions on what a democracy and and tyrannical government is. Thanks, but I believe most of us know these definitions."My opponent has contradicted herself. If she knew what the terms "tyrannical" and "democracy" mean. Why did she claim the United States was being tyrannical if she knew what it meant? My opponent has brazenly conceded the very premise of her argument that she offered in Round 1." I said they are using their dictating rule over most of the world, there is a clear difference."What evidence did my opponent present in this entire paragraph? She has only offered conjecture which is relative to each individual's opinion. "Your argument is very weak, and with little no rebuttal against the topic on that the US is a dictating tyrannical state."My opponent already conceded the United States is not "tyrannical" once he stated he knew what "democracy" and "tyrannical" meant. The United States functions as a liberal democracy that allows the majority control the country at the same time protecting the rights of the minorities(religious, ethnic, political, or otherwise)."It is clear the US wants a stranglehold over everyone else, without appearing to be a dictating tyrannical state."What evidence is there to support the claim has a stranglehold on anyone?Ladies and gentlemen, what did I say in Round 1? I said the debate resolution was visceral and my opponent has confirmed it with her Round 2 arguments. She has offered us too many fallacies to chose notice, ranging from appeal to emotion to appeal to authority fallacies[1][2]. My opponent has ranted and rambled about things that are not relevant to the debate resolution ranging from ADHD to taxes to a 9/11 conspiracy to the Bilderberg group to some alleged herding of the American population. Notice, not one of my opponent's claims have to do with anything in the debate resolution that she created. My opponent has not supplied us one consistent point other than they have nothing but contempt for the United States. My opponent has no intention of debating the resolution but her intention is to rant and ramble as I predicted in the first round. The debate resolution was visceral for my opponent to launch a tirade about the United States based on her opinion.[1]http://www.nizkor.org...[2]http://www.nizkor.org...Concessions on the part of my opponent 1. The United States is not tyrannical.2. The United States is not imposing its' ideology across the world.3. The resolution is visceral.I will await the next round to see if my opponent has any intention of presenting arguments rather than rants based on her opinion. We want facts not conjecture. We want points related to the resolution not incessant rambling. The resolution's premise has been refuted.
The Trinity is True.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt. 28:19). In the Greek, tou ("the") is used for each title, and each is separated by kai ("and"). This helps support the view that in this text three distinct individual persons are being spoken of: However there are not three distinct individual persons sitting on the throne of God. " Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me Weep not: behold the Lion of the tribe of Juda the Root of David hath prevailed to open the book and to loose the seven seals thereof. Rev 5:6 And I beheld and lo in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts and in the midst of the elders stood a Lamb as it had been slain having seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. "
The Trinity is True.

We are told that the Father raised Jesus from the dead (I Thess. 1:10), the Son raised Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22), and the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Yet, we are told in Acts 17:30,31 that *God raised Jesus from the dead*. Therefore, either the Bible contradicts itself or the three persons are the one God. In *Christ's Great Commission* to preach the Gospel, he instructs his disciples to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt 28:19). It is important to note that the Greek word "name," used in this verse, is singular (homonos). It does *not* say, "in the *names* of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," but rather, it says, "in the *name*...." In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three distinct *persons*, have only one name. This clearly implies the Triune nature of God. Furthermore, the Trinity is revealed at *Christ's incarnation* (Luke 1:35) and *baptism* (Matt 3:16,17), in the *Apostolic benediction* (II Cor 13:13), and in *Christ's own teachings* (John 14:26; 15:26). "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." (Matt. 28:19). In the Greek, tou ("the") is used for each title, and each is separated by kai ("and"). This helps support the view that in this text three distinct individual persons are being spoken of: ...in the name of *the* (tou) Father *and the* (kai tou) Son, *and the* (kai tou) Holy Spirit. If the Greek text had been referring to only one person, it would have most likely read: ...in the name of *the* Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. or, ...in the name of *the* Father, *the* Son, and *the* Holy Spirit.
The Trinity is True.

So you agree the Trinity is a concept that is taught by man. Not in bible. Christ is like water H20. Example: H20=Water=Steam=Ice=Water not three different raw materials but one. God's = Christ came from Adam who was the first man or root of the line of David. Father. God's Spirit talked to the flesh of Adam and Eve. God's Son returned virgin born through a daughter of Eve is what is written but, not taught in church. God has a spirit that can travel the earth like the wind. But God does have mass and that human mass that began with Adam. The First Adam is the same as the Second Adam. Remember the cross. Rev_5:3, And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. Why? Is God/Christ a man? No! Rev_5:4, And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon. Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. When did Adam/Christ fail? Eden! One must struggle in order to prevail! Rev_5:6, And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. Rev_5:7, And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. Adam/Christ is sitting on the throne of God bible fact. One guy sitting on the throne. NOT THREE.... NOR A TRINITY.
The Trinity is True.

For three different god's but one, to mean Trinity that word should at least be in the bible one time. Trinity (Found 0 times in 0 verses) One God (Found 7 times in 7 verses) Mal_2:10, Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? Mar_12:32, And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: Rom_3:30, Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 1Co_8:6, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Eph_4:6, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. 1Ti_2:5, For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Jam_2:19, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Did God form himself in the Old Testament? " Isa 43:8 Bring forth the blind people that have eyes and the deaf that have ears. Isa 43:9 Let all the nations be gathered together and let the people be assembled: who among them can declare this and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses that they may be justified: or let them hear and say It is truth. Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses saith the LORD and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me. Isa 43:11 I even I am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa 43:12 I have declared and have saved and I have shewed when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses saith the LORD that I am God. "
Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.

To compare vaccinations to smoking clearly demonstrates just how intellectually bankrupt your anti vaccine argument really is. Here is an analogy which is more accurate and relevant-- that is between the vaccine and the disease it prevents. Vaccines as is true of all medications aren't perfect-- they have side effects mostly they're mild and tolerable but rarely very rarely they can cause severely adverse reactions. But those sort of reactions are extremely rare. Exposure to the disease which the vaccination would have prevented places people at 100s times greater risk for serious complications including death than do vaccines
Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.

There was a time when I completely agreed with you. I understand how vaccines are supposed to work. I understand how herd immunity is supposed to work and how we are supposed to have eradicated many diseases via vaccination. The problem is things are always what they seem. Remember the tobacco companies? Everyone thought cigarettes were okay or even healthy. Doctors smoked, yet later we found out cigarettes were anything but healthy. There is always a chance you are correct, but simply spewing statistics won't change my mind. If you really want to change my mind, watch the three videos and tell me why they are wrong. My predictions based upon empirical evidence is that vaccines will be just like cigarettes. I don't know what your implying with your last sentence. I will tell you that my intentions are good and I want only the best for everyone. https://thinkprogress.org...
Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.

"My position is discouraging people and preventing people from receiving vaccines is a serious concern which has the potential of creating a public health crisis." bearski Your position is that vaccines can save lives. I beg to differ. Vaccines can only cause harm. The cure for cancer, heart disease, and diabetes has already been found. [2][3][4] All three disease can be cured via lifestyle change, diet and exercise. Yet, there is no money in telling people to eat a whole foods plant based diet, get enough rest and exercise. Follow the money, and you find the corruption. Btw, I am not anti everything. I fight climate change deniers all the time. [5] As for GMOs I don't think there is enough evidence to be against GMOs.Sources2. 3. 4. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...5. http://www.debate.org...
Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.

You do not explicitly state your opinion but from one of the links you provided one can fairly reasonably infer your position is anti GMO and anti vaccine. And from that one can reasonably infer you support Putin's decision. I do not. Since vaccines is what's mentioned in your headline that is what I will focus on. Putin appears merely to be a prop on to which you can advance your anti-vaccine views. My position is discouraging people and preventing people from receiving vaccines is a serious concern which has the potential of creating a public health crisis.
Putin banned western vaccines in Russia.

"[Janurary 9, 2016]states that President Putin has issued orders that his people must be protected from GMO "food" and Western pharmaceuticals "at all costs." " Notice " and western pharmaceuticals, includes vaccines. Dmtry"s article has Putin concerned about the western business model of poisoning its people with GMOs, junk fast foods, and vaccines for personal gains." [0] "Russian president Vladimir Putin says that Western governments are enslaving humanity through vaccines." [1] Seems to me Putin has banned western vaccines in Russia. Sources 0. http://www.realfarmacy.com... 1. http://beforeitsnews.com...
Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes

While I have been using statistical information to back up my point, you have preceded to create petty arguments in which you have offered poor-to-very-little to the debate on whether video games are the main cause for violent juvenile crimes. There is enough evidence via the Internet, newspapers and various other sources to show that there is a correlation between the two; in 2012 a 13-year old boy jumped off a building's 24th floor and committed suicide after playing 'World of Warcraft' for 36 hours straight, a teenager went on a rampage and killed three men, two of them police officers, after playing Grand Theft Auto and a 17-year old boy killed his mother and wounded his father after they took Halo 3 away from his possession. There will also several cases of youth leaving their home, in 2013 a 15-year old ran away from his parents after his Xbox console was taken away - his dead body was found almost a month after. You may choose to argue that these unfortunate, tragic results are not directly linked to young people playing games, however Increasing reports of bullying can be partially attributed to the popularity of violent video games. The 2008 study Grand Theft Childhood reported that 60% of middle school boys who played at least one Mature-rated game hit or beat up someone, compared to 39% of boys that did not play Mature-rated games. As I stated in my opening, I fail to see how you could win this debate when you"ve offered nothing to the conversation as opposed to my use of statistical and factual information. A vote for me is a vote for freedom.
Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes

Do you even look at what you are posting? Were in that argument does it mention anything relevant to the question once again. Please just leave this argument as all you have been doing is commenting with copy and pastes and not showing your own facts. I don't believe you have actually commented one word which is not a copy and paste. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm.