BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rone Paul Will Not Win the 2008 Election

I will gladly divulge the readings from the straw polls. The first thing you wanted, the results of the AOL vote: Ron Paul is winning. The second thing you wanted, or the results of the CNN debate: Ron Paul won (although I will note that the experts never picked him). As for the 3rd thing you wanted, the most dissapointing performance: Rudy Giuliani (although again, this is a statistic from the online people, the experts consensus was that Ron Paul didn't come off as presedential, and therefore did the worst). What I see from the last two things, is that the experts do not think Ron Paul will win, but the majority of online people do. Now, while America is a democracy, and the majority should win, I argue that the online majority is unfairly tabulated, and irrepresentative of the public. First off, the tabulation doesn't take into effect spammers, who flood the site with pro Ron Paul votes. This isn't neccesarily true, but it is a strong possibility. Not only that, but online counts don't take into effect the true opinion of the public. Also, the CNN link was just one debate, not about the actual election. This leaves you with the real only credible peice of information being the straw poll results. First off, the Ron Paul website. Well immediatly i looked for the link the story was based off of, because in a debate about Ron Paul's candidacy, I do not think that "ronpaulfan" is a unbiased source. Anyway, basically the real story acknowledges that the straw poll may be subject to spamming, and therefore not accurate. The link to the real story: http://www.freemarketnews.com... The second link basically is open to the same problem. But to prove this further, I want you to go to: http://www.freemarketnews.com... Now, this basically says that "There has been no evidence to suggest a correlation exists between straw poll success and success on election day. A better measure of success are scientific polls which currently show Ron Paul is polling at just 5%. " Hmm... basically Straw Polls don't really represent who is going to win! The BEST way to do it would be to look at the scientific polls, i.e. the ones I provided earlier, which revleader5 didn't respond to. Scientific Polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com...... It is clear to me that Ron Paul has many supporters online. It is also clear that many people online are the younger generations, ones which have the most absence of voting. Thus it is clear that just because Paul wins Straw Polls (which don't accurately portray the situation) it in no way means that Paul will win a nomination, much less the Presidency. Thank you.
Rone Paul Will Not Win the 2008 Election

First of Rone is not his name, it's Ron, it's probably a typo, but I don't want to hear Rone this and Rone that all debate, haha. Here are some links I want you to visit, explain how each is wrong. http://www.ronpaulfan.com... - Dr.Paul's name was removed from GOP Straw Poll and replaced with NONE, then NONE won it. Then they remove none and give Ron Paul 1 vote, without providing the capability of voting for him. http://news.aol.com... - The AOL straw polls takes a while to load, when it does, please tell me who is winning for the Republicans. http://www.cnn.com... - Who is winning every category except for most disappointing performance? Please tell me who is winning the AOL straw polls.(2nd link) And also who won the CNN youtube debate(3rd link) and just for good measure, who won most disappoiting performance from the youtube debate.(4th link)
Rone Paul Will Not Win the 2008 Election

First off, I'm not arguing that Ron Paul would be a bad president, I'm arguing that he simply will not get the nomination from the Republican party. Even if he did, he stands no chance of winning. First off, I would like to give a link to something that pretty much tells me where Paul is in the election race so far. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Basically, he isn't winning in any of the important states, and so there is nothing to suggest he could possibly get the nomination from the Republican Side. If he cannot even garner enough support to win a nomination, than I doubt he could win in a actual race. He may have avid supporters, but that doesn't make up for his lack of the majority support. Another link to show that he isn't winning anything: http://www.realclearpolitics.com... He has done admirably, especially in the fund raising department, and for that I give him props, but there is no chance he will win the 2008 election. I request you to show me any non-biased polls, showing that Paul is in the lead. I also request that they are current.
Barack Obama isnt good anymore.

Good point, however, America has not been debt free since around the 19th century. It is has bee accumulating for two centuries. Also, PolitFact (winner of the Pulitzer prize) has affirmed the statment that "our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years." http://www.politifact.com... Thus, I would say that Obama has not run out of fuel. He still has a few years to add on to the list of accomplishments I listed in the previous round(s). There's a common trend where people disapprove of presidents after a certain period. This happened with Bush and other presidents where some citizens turn a blind eye to the positives. The Clinton scandal influenced his presidency, and many forgot abut his accomplishments.I argue the same has happened with Obama even though he still has benefits to bring.
Barack Obama isnt good anymore.

Barack Obama certainly did reverse the Torture Policy, boost fuel efficiency standards, and increased support for veterans. Now he is going downward. I also believe that every president has made an accomplishment while they were in office. That includes James Buchanan and George W Bush. Have you ever realized Americas level of Debt? America's economic problem is combined with its debt problem. Barack Obama continues to push the United States into the path of European Union Style Decline. Our public debt currently stands at $16.85 Trillion, a per person debt of $54,000. If you recall at the Inauguration, Barack Obama said in his inauguration address that he is committed to a big spending, big government vision, and one that will force the United States Of America down the dark narrow path to economic ruin unless this is reversed. Next I will discuss Obamacare. accomplishments of James and George: http://us-presidents.findthedata.org... http://us-presidents.findthedata.org... Americas debt: http://www.brillig.com... Inaugural Address: http://www.whitehouse.gov...
Barack Obama isnt good anymore.

I do not deny the bad, but I also do not deny the good that has been done. "I was for Democrats but now i dont think i will be because of this 'Great' President. "It is normal for members in a political party to have their own contentious issues. Members of the same group don't always agree with each other. Thus, the statement you made is unwarranted. Now, I will talk about the benefits he has brought. Obama reversed Bush's torture policy. He boosted fuel efficiency standards, he increased support for veterans, and he improved America's image abroad. You can find more details about Obama's accomplishments in the following link: . http://www.washingtonmonthly.com...
Barack Obama isnt good anymore.

The " great" and honest president of the United States or should i say the Infamous president. Barack Obama seemed like an honest and trustworthy president when he was running up and was elected as president, but that all changed. The American people ( including me) are losing trust in Mr. Obama. A recent Quinnipiac Survey found that less than half of Americans (49%) view Barack Obama as "honest or Trustworthy". With the IRS Scandal his approval rating is at 45%. 76% of voters support the idea of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the scandal. Another survey By NBC News/The Wall Street Journal reveals public concern over the overall honesty and integrity of The Obama Amin. 41% of Americans believe that Barack Obama is responsible for the government handling Benghazi. In my opinion he is guilty of everything. I was for Democrats but now i dont think i will be because of this "Great" President. The links to the surveys: http://www.quinnipiac.edu... http://online.wsj.com...
Abortion

One of the most pressing issues of the 21st century- abortion. And it really is one. It questions our moral and ethical values. Even though many people people believe abortion should never be an answer, abortion should be legalised. This is because abortion because the woman"s choice is to be valued. Firstly, there are many questions to answer and doubts to clear. To what age is it even right? Technically the zygote, which turns into an embryo isn"t really human yet. They don"t have feelings, they don"t technically have rights yet. Yes it is sad, but a fetus wouldn"t even have organs at that time. We can"t look at this emotionally, we have to look at this rationally. There however, should be a line drawn, a certain age where you shouldn"t get an abortion, like 28 weeks, that is when the fetus has blood going into it and life birthed. If the mother wants an abortion afterwards, that"s her loss. Also, it"s a woman"s choice. It"s a woman"s choice whether she wants a child. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to endure 9 months of hell. It"s a woman"s choice if she wants to go through the pain of labour. What if the woman had potential to something great, but has to give it up for a child? She might even grow to hate on the child. If the mother got pregnant in school and had to drop out, would it really be worth it? The girl would be too young, too unknowledgeable to be a mother. She wouldn"t have even learnt about biology let alone being a mother. So it"s a woman"s choice. What if the child can"t be supported? The child could be born into a family without privileges, support, or a real certain future. It may be a single mother, it may be money scarcity, it may be anything. The child may have a bad future awaiting, and may even be put up into adoption anyway. If a mother can"t even look after herself, how can she be expected to take care of another human being? Also, mothers with addictions like drugs, alcohol and smoking would be imposing problems on the fetus, possibly defects, which is unfair on the fetus. Why should the fetus live with disabilities? Rape is also a huge issue. The mother, may have been raped and imposed with a child. A child could bring major psychological harm to the mother. A 10 year old girl in India, is wanting an abortion for her 21 week old. She was raped by her stepfather. Due to this, if the doctors don"t approve of her abortion, this means she may be psychologically damaged of carrying her stepfather"s child, the one that brutally raped her. Why should this even be allowed? Imagine yourself as a ten year old, carrying a child, while you"re still a child and still have lots to learn. Imagine a twelve year old girl as a victim of incest to have a daughter that is their brothers creation. The psychological harm would be unbelievable.This is why abortion should be allowed, with exceptions like date and reason. To a certain stage, abortion is not good. 28 weeks? Too old. But we do have to legalize it. We just need a few restrictions on it. How reasonable is having a world without abortion?
It is unreasonable to believe in something that has no reason to exist.

Fun little debate purely focused on logical conclusions. I want to argue that it is absolutely Illogical for someone to believe in something which has not demonstrated any objective existence. By that I mean that anyone who experiences something they can not explain through their current understanding and fills it in with god, aliens, big foot, ghosts, etc. is committing intellectual suicide. Basically just giving up on reaching a real conclusion based on what is ACTUALLY happening in our universe. The real question I pose is what mechanism other than those that we observe daily can we actually use to deduce that something exists? Since only a basic scientific understanding is enough to explain that our minds can trick on us every once in a while, the only TRUTH is that which applies to everyone and can be predicted in at least some practical way. SCIENCE BABY If you can't hear, smell, touch, see, etc. something and it can't in any measurable way affect your life, then why does it need to "exist"? If you can't use your belief (in whatever) to actually make predictions about objective (not subjective) effects, then you CAN NOT claim that it exists. Further you MUST accept that your belief is yours only and has no real world application, therefore does not actually exist. That is my opening argument. I'm easy about rules. 1. Basically just be respectable. 2. STAY ON TOPIC. I won't humor too many arguments outside of the premise unless it supports your argument, in which case clearly make the logical connection simultaneously 3. I've limited characters at 2000 because you shouldn't need a novel to explain your argument, if you do, then you're probably stretching a bit too far. 4. NO NEW ARGUEMENTS IN FINAL ROUND only response and conclusion Lastly, I understand I left the (CON) position a little vague, that's because you can argue it if you believe in any "supernatural" existence. and I'm leaving this open to basically anyone. March boldly into battle
It is unreasonable to believe in something that has no reason to exist.

Id Like to welcome sensorfire to this discussion. Now, This is a common stance taken by non "hardcore" religionists (because on some level these people are still logical) that don't want to seem crazy to believe in something which they can not prove. So they back-peddle into "well it helps in these emotional ways for me, and you can't disprove it, therefore religion is reasonable". There are a few problems with this line of thinking. Religion doesn't come free. Nice things after death are promised, which is nice to think about, but it comes with its own emotional cost. Without getting into all the extra stress that comes along with being involved in organized religion. There is the addition of demons, hell, prophecy, etc. to the psyche of the believers. This brings me to my next point. There have been NUMEROUS studies on whether or not death anxiety occurs higher in atheists vs. theists. In general these studies are largely inconclusive, but with a small inclination towards non-religious actually having less anxiety. And with Muslims frequently coming in with the highest amount of fear toward death (never atheists). I will link one study from 2011 posted in the journal "Mental health, culture, and religion" http://www.tandfonline.com... (Atheism does seem to correlate with suicide, but we cant prove cause and effect) Belief in god does not explain any real life effects, and only really adds contempt for "this" world. When really this existence has so much to offer. So many concepts to unravel, anomalies to study. So much of the natural world is overlooked when one believes in supernatural. It's kind of sad to think of how many people miss out on really cool understandings because "oh, it must be god". And what for aliens and bigfoot? Do they also in some way benefit the emotions of believers? why do we frown upon belief in Santa at some age? It's because we expect kids' logic to outgrow imaginary beings.
It is unreasonable to believe in something that has no reason to exist.

I'll take this on. Funny thing, I don't actually believe in anything supernatural, but I will debate the premise of my opponent's argument.I will concede the first thing my opponent says- that "filling in the blanks" with the supernatural and such is unreasonable. However, my opponent does not take into consideration a very powerful point- emotional reasons.It is very comforting for some people to believe that there is something after the pale of death. It allows for lost loved ones to feel less "gone" and more like someone in a better place who will be met again. It allows people to go peacefully into their own deaths. Such beliefs, so long as they do not cause anyone harm, cannot be considered "unreasonable".Furthermore, a belief in the supernatural can be psychologically helpful. Going to church, for example, can be part of a structure or order in one's life, which is important to many people, especially people having problems in their life. This could even prevent someone from taking their own life.Finally, these beliefs can create a sense of justice. Morals can be ascribed to a supreme being, and people can feel rewarded for doing good and can be consoled about problems in the world with the assurance that those who do evil will ultimately be punished.Perhaps scientifically, such beliefs cannot be considered useful or reasonable. However, on a personal level, this is very much not true.
Going to war with Iran is in the best interest of the United States.

Ah ceteris paribus, my old enemy. Of course all other things aren't equal as you've pointed out. Not only would a war be good for our economy, but it'd help us in other ways as well. A) We would have to pull out of Iraq. I think at this point it's generally agreed that we didn't have a reason to go into Iraq in the first place, and that up to this point our invasion has been a resounding failure. B) We would neutralize the threat that we face in Iran. Of course that threat is mostly unknown, but better safe than sorry right? C)Increased US soft power! Right now we have no global soft power. If we pull out of Iraq and go into Iran we'll be doing the world a favor. A lot of people are feeling kind of nervous when it comes to Iran, and going in their to make sure they're not developing a nuclear weapons program would be a service to the world. "You also have to consider the war in Iraq. Please tell my how a war with Iran is going to help our economy, when we've been at war with Iraq for 4 years now and our economy, in your words, needs a "kick start". Well following your logic, if war helps our economy, then that is exactly what the Iraq war would have done and would be doing right now." What we're doing right now in Iraq is occupying, and trying to repair their country. We're not really at war with Iraq, we're just the peace keepers. When we went in to Iraq in 2003 we crippled their country, you break it you buy it, and that's exactly what we're doing right now. We need to pull out of Iraq. That right their will save us money. Then we need to go into Iran, and we need to do it right. None of this total war business, we need to have a plan before we go in, and we need to do what we should have done with Iraq. And I can't fail to notice you don't site any impact to going to war with Iran, except for very general ones in your first argument, which you fail to mention afterwards. Well the impact of not going to war with Iran is eventual economic collapse. Our economy is spiraling downwards, and we need to shock it, and this is how to do it. And what exactly is the impact of the US economy collapsing? Well right now the only reason we're surviving is because China has invested heavily in us. They've bought US treasury bonds, and if our economy collapses then those bonds are worthless. China's a global superpower, and chances are they won't be thrilled about losing all that money. The threat of a Chinese military reaction is very real. Voters - I urge you not to vote on what you actually believe here. Instead vote on who had the better argument, going to war with Iran is an unpopular idea, but Willact didn't do a great job of explaining why. The impact of not going to war with Iran is possible war with another superpower, and as far as I can see from Willact's arguments, the downside doesn't come close to that. We don't have a ton to lose from going to war, but if we don't the consequences will be dire.
Going to war with Iran is in the best interest of the United States.

"However since we're in agreement that the US economy is vital to it's best interest, and since wars are great for a good economic kick start then it logically follows that going to war is in our best interest." That argument would make sense, except you have a basic flaw in your logic. This sentence would be true, ceteris paribus, but because a war has other effects besides helping an economy, the logic involved in this sentence is not complete. I would take the time to state why the logic is not complete, but I have addressed that in the first round, and since you have yet to address it, I do not feel the need to repeat myself. You also have to consider the war in Iraq. Please tell my how a war with Iran is going to help our economy, when we've been at war with Iraq for 4 years now and our economy, in your words, needs a "kick start". Well following your logic, if war helps our economy, then that is exactly what the Iraq war would have done and would be doing right now.
Going to war with Iran is in the best interest of the United States.

I fail to mention what is in the best interest of the United States because I thought that avoiding those downfalls I mentioned in my previous argument would go without saying as what is best for the United States. So if the economy is what is in the best interest of the United States, then the only way to fix it is by going to war? In order for that argument to hold, you would have to prove that the only way our economy has ever gotten better was through a war. Which is absolutely not the truth, so therefore, there are others ways of helping our economy and war is not necessary for that reason. It also stands to mention that economic collapse of the early 20th century was so much worse than anything we are experiencing now. Also, it is not a proven fact that the war alone pulled us out of that economic state, it is only a theory. If you also would like to speak about the economy, I won't even cite the amount of money we spent on the war in Iraq. Have you looked at the size of Iran? If you haven't I believe you need to. Then think about how much money it will cost the US taxpayer to run a war there. You want to REALLY help the economy and put money back in the people's pockets? Stay out of Iran As for a UN peace-keeping force, I think you know that answer. The UN did not support the invasion of Iraq, so why on earth would they support an invasion of Iran? There has already been a movement by the security council to condemn an unprovoked war with Iran. What is in the best interest of the United States is to protect the troops that are already stretched too thin. It is in the best interest of the United States to make sure we have completely left Iraq if we are ever even going to consider a war with Iran. It is in the best interest of the United States to leave Iraq and Iran alone and try to find the man who is in charge of an organization that murdered thousands of people in cold blood! Someone who is actually guilty of hunting us down on our own soil! No, instead we run around and worry about the possibility of nukes in Iraq, now with Iran. Have we forgotten about Bin Laden? How can we really help the United States? Cut the head of this insurgency off, find Osama Bin Laden.
Going to war with Iran is in the best interest of the United States.

You fail to mention what the best interest of the United States is. Right now the US economy is in a terrible state, what it needs is a jump start. The best interest of the United States is the well being of it's citizens, and its citizens can't thrive if the economy can't thrive. The solution? War, of course. War has been proven time and time again to help economies. Prime example: World War II, after the economic collapse of the 1930s FDR initiated his New Deal programs, which helped the economy, but what really saved us was the war. During war production increases, more jobs are availible and the economic state of a nation greatly improves. As for the lack of troops, well the answer's obvious, propose a UN peace keeping force and pull out.