BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The cover of the July 21st issue of the New Yorker is just satire.

Getting right into the debate. .. My opponent refutes my previous argument by stating that the percentages of people that responded to the polls equates to about 72 million people. While this may be true, it needs to be realized that there is another 228! million people who don't believe the lies about Barack Obama's upbringings. The fact that there are just so many more people who understand Mr. Obama's past makes the people that don't irrelevant because they are so deeply in the minority. To refute: "If the 72,000,000+ people see the cover of the New Yorker as a truth as opposed to a satire, then how can he justify his point, which is that the New Yorker is JUST satire. " I justify my point with the idea that the New Yorker cartoon is just that, a cartoon, which helps push the idea that the whole 'Obama's a secret muslim' thing is just a bunch of crap. When looking at the cartoon, one sees the extremely big afro that Mrs. Obama is sporting, along with the AK-47 slung on her back. Those two things alone should be enough indication that this cartoon is simply satirical, because something like that would never ever happen in real life, and I think if one confronted an "Obama's a secret muslim" person, pulling out the New Yorker and saying, "So you think its gonna look like this if he wins? " would be a stronger argument than any bickering could ever do. Because its so goofy looking, it becomes obvious that it would never happen, and so it is satire against those who think that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim or other nonsense. "In regards to my opponent assertion that the magazine will not sway anyones opinion, that is simply speculation! !! " Its no more speculation than saying that it will, my friend. Neither of us have conclusive evidence for either side, so all thats left is to speculate. Next Point: The New Yorker throwing around misleading cartoons is not going to help sway swing voters. I disagree with the idea that the cartoon is misleading. As stated before, the cartoon is so goofy and, well cartoony, that it is extremely difficult to take it seriously, and so I think that it will be hard to have ones opinion on a presidential candidate misled by a cartoon of a woman with a huge afro and a Kalashnikov on her back, fist bumping said candidate in Muslim garb, while an american flag burns and Osama bin Laden's portrait looks on. Its just too much to take seriously. In conclusion, I feel that because the New Yorker cartoon is simply a satirical piece because of its inherent cartoonish nature, and also because it pokes fun at those people who believe that Senator Obama is or was Muslim/ plans on destroying the United States.
The cover of the July 21st issue of the New Yorker is just satire.

Opponent began by listing a series of polls regarding the publics opinion about Sen. Obama's religion. Lets look at them from another angle. 13% of the population thinks Obama is muslim. That is approx. 39 million people!!! 24% thinks he was raised muslim. Thats approx. 72 million people!!! That means that in this country, 72 million people are not going to look at that cover as a satire. Furthermore, the cover itself is going to add to this number!!! I ask my opponent this... If the 72,000,000+ people see the cover of the New Yorker as a truth as opposed to a satire, then how can he justify his point, which is that the New Yorker is JUST satire. It is not in fact JUST satire, because to a very large group of people, it is a truth. In regards to my opponent assertion that the magazine will not sway anyones opinion, that is simply speculation!!! There is no ground, and no evidence to say that it will or will not. Also, the common man WILL see it! He already has. Its in the news. Its in magazines. Its in newspapers. Its in the new yorker. Its on the internet. Its everwhere. The publicity surrounding this cartoon has been a carrier to the bigscreen! Everyone knows about it. Everyone has seen it. My opponent continues on, by stating his main point. His point however is grounded in that of a black an white world. The problem is that public opinion of Obama is not black and white. People like Obama, people hate Obama, AND people are unsure about Obama. How about the swing voters??? Obama needs to be appealing to those who are unsure about their feelings. The New Yorker throwing around misleading cartoons is not going to help sway swing voters. Moving on, my point in posting the readers comment, was not to say that McCain would win, but to say that the cartoon has the capacity to hurt Sen. Obama's campaign. Nothing more. Undoubtedly Obama does have an edge over McCain. Lastly, as far as your personal defense of the cartoon goes. That is simply your opinion and nothing else. To you the cartoon may have highlighted the ridiculousness of some people...but to others, it has only highlighted a sensitive spot for Obama.
The cover of the July 21st issue of the New Yorker is just satire.

I dont argue that the new yorker intended it to be anymore than a satire of those who critisize obama. I do, however, believe that this cartoon was very much in poor taste and a VERY stupid move for a liberal magazine so enamored with sen. obama. Intellegent people, or people familiar with the foolish alligations that Obama is a muslim and/or unpatriotic may get a laugh out of it. People like you Sweatingjojo, have to ability to see the humor in an add like this. I certainly understand that it isnt more than a satire. Clearly, however, many people aren't seeing it that way. Think of the common uninformed man. Say he is walking down mainstreet. He has no idea of the conrtoversies surrounding Sen Obama. He sees the New Yorker sitting on a newstand. He sees this cover. What does he think???? He may say, "silly political exaggeration!" ...but then again... that image may find its way into his permanent memory and when november 7 rolls around...is he gunna vote for Obama or McCain??? Not the "muslim and his terrorist wife". The truth is that, this image is having an adverse effect on people. People are taking it in ways that they shouldn't. Because of this, it is harmful to Obama's campaign. Anybody who doesnt read the inside article, is getting the wrong impression. While i was watching a news report on the article earlier this morning, a readers comment was read on the air and i think he put it the best. "The New Yorker will get publicity and a profit, something they need. Those who understand the satire will get a quick giggle. Then McCain will be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States." It was a joke...but one in a hidden context that many wont understand and on those grounds...this satire was very foolish and in poor taste. It was a very very dumb thing to do.
The cover of the July 21st issue of the New Yorker is just satire.

I'm sure many of us have seen the cover of the current issue for The New Yorker magazine. I will set it to my profile picture in case one does not already know. There has been quite a stir over the picture, some people saying that it is offensive, others saying that its simply satire. That is how I feel, that it is simply a satirical cartoon, and it helps expose the mindlessness of those that would believe Senator Obama is a muslim/unpatriotic. I'm looking for an opponent who believes that the New Yorker cover was offensive/ in poor taste/inappropriate. I'm not interested in a grammar semantics debate, so if that's how you roll, please don't roll that way over here.
Roblox is a ripoff of Minecraft

You have a point, but you went in the wrong order. "Roblox has block people which is from Minecraft." This sentence is correct, because both games have block people, but also incorrect. because Roblox came BEFORE Minecraft. So the correct sentence would be: "Minecraft has block people which is from Roblox." Oh, and don't forget that Roblox wasn't always called Roblox. It was originally Dynablox. Also, Roblox was first thought of back in the late 1980s. Minecraft can't beat that.
Roblox is a ripoff of Minecraft

First of all, Roblox actually came BEFORE Minecraft. Roblox was released to the public in 2006, while Minecraft wasn't released until 2011. ON TOP OF THAT, Roblox was in development SINCE 1989, while Minecraft WASN'T EVEN WORKED ON UNTIL 2008-2009. If anything, Minecraft is the real ripoff.
The Many Worlds Interpretation can resolve the problem of Hell

Thanks for the quick response treyprice. ==Rebuttal== R1) The Double Spit Experiment This is an experiment in quantum physics where we get a refraction pattern from light passing through two slits. Then we shoot just one electron, and we still get the same refraction pattern, as if it passed through both slits simultaneously. Then when we try to measure which slit the electron goes through, the refraction pattern disappears, since by observing the electron, we fix its location in space time. My opponent claims that God is not affected by quantum physics, otherwise, if he was, he would affect quantum physics as being a universal observer. However, this would disprove God's omniscience, since he cannot know the location of electrons, or this would mean that we wouldn't ever get a refraction pattern from the single electron. It is my opponent's burden to show how this doesn't contradict God's ability to know all. Even if you assume that God is in both theoretical worlds simultaneously, the one where I go to hell and the one where I don't, as an observer, I personally will know which world I reside in and if I reside in the world where I go to hell, this still precludes the other from existing in THIS world, so God is still the one damning me to hell in this world. This still buys into my argument about empirical vs. logical possibility. My opponent wants to remain agnostic about all possible worlds, but only one of them will be the real world, as far as we are concerned. So it doesn't matter if in a possible world I'm not cutting your ears off for refusing to tell me who stole my cookie, empirically, I'm doing it for real in this world. My opponent never answers my argument that God must be necessarily omnibenevolent, meaning he is omnibenevolent in ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS. My opponent still concedes that there are possible worlds where he is not omnibenevolent. Look to his own Schrodinger's Cat example. Until we open the box, we don't know if the cat is dead or alive. However, we have already opened the box in this case - we know whether we have accepted Christ and if we have already gone to hell, we know the outcome already, so empirically, one of the possible states ceases to exist. Lastly, if my opponent is right, this defeats the purpose of God letting people choose whether to accept Christ or not in the first place, since he uses his omnipotence in other worlds to alter the course of events and change our brain psychology sufficiently so that we are essentially forced to accept Christ. Lastly, my opponent must assume a communal hell, that is the dumping ground for ALL possible worlds, meaning that if you're saved in one possible world you're saved in them all. This would defeat the purpose of hell to begin with in Christian doctrine, since it would have to be empty for my opponent to properly resolve omnibenevolence. This makes absolutely no sense.
The Many Worlds Interpretation can resolve the problem of Hell

Thank you for accepting my challenge Bluesteel My opponent's argument that it is possible for God to be omnibenevolent in another world while not in this world depends on the idea that God is subject to the Quantum events which is logically impossible since if God can be affected by Quantum events then he must also affect them through his observation of the universe, which would not allow the interference pattern that was seen in the double slit experiment. My opponent is correct in saying that God would not be omnibenevolent in this world unless recent discoveries in quantum mechanics are taken into account. In the traditional Christian worldview, a person can be saved or damned, only one or the other, based on their decision of whether or not to accept Christ. However, recent discoveries show that all possible outcomes play out which renders the traditional worldview logically impossible, so at the moment someone is told about Christ, both outcomes, the person accepting and rejecting Christ, play out. Which also resolves another logical problem in Christianity, if a person sins their entire lives and then accepts Christ on their deathbed and goes to heaven, how can God be just? When quantum mechanics is taken into consideration, it shows that everyone who is given the chance to accept Christ simultaneously goes to Heaven and pays for their sins.
The Many Worlds Interpretation can resolve the problem of Hell

Thanks for the topic treyprice. There is empirical possibility and logical possibility. There are other worlds which are LOGICALLY possible, but the only world that actually exists is this one. Since the logically possible world where I accept Christ DOES NOT exist in this world, then I am damned to hell empirically, in real life, according to Christian Doctrine, meaning that God is not omnibelevonent, since he wants me tortured forever (my opponent concedes to this point in Round 1 - that if a person is damned to hell, God cannot be omnibenevolent; don't let him change this advocacy later). In addition, God must be necessarily omnibenevolent, meaning that he is omnibenevolent in ALL POSSIBLE worlds. Otherwise, we could conclude that God is omnipotent, for example, just because it is POSSIBLE for God to be omnipotent in a possible world, even if he is NOT omnipotent in this one. But omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence all imply necessity - existence in all possible worlds. Even if my opponent is right, God would still not be omnibenevolent in THIS world, which disproves God's existence in this world (since he is defined as omnibenevolent). And because the definition of God is as necessarily existing (Plantingua's ontological argument), meaning existing in all possible worlds, then if God does not exist in this world, he does not exist in any world. So my opponent cannot extrapolate then to other worlds, since God would not exist in those either. To show why this is a horrible approach, it justifies torture. If I said "tell me who stole the cookie or I'll cut your ears off," that creates two possible worlds, one where you tell me who stole my cookie and one where you don't tell me. In this world, you don't tell me and I cut off your ears. But this is not a mean thing to do because there is a possible world where I didn't do this. That doesn't make me any less bad of a person.
The Many Worlds Interpretation can resolve the problem of Hell

(this is my first debate, so please tell me if I make any grammer or spelling mistakes) For centuries, one question has perplexed Christian thinkers, how can God be omnibenevolent while sending people to Hell? 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." shows that God wants everyone to be saved, God is also Omnipotent and his will is always done, which is a contradiction unless explained through the Many Worlds Interpretation. The Schrï¿½dinger's cat thought expirement shows that the cat was both dead and alive simultaniously until it was observed, which forced it to take one state or another. In practical terms, every outcome of every possibility is played out, from whether an electron spins in one direction or another, or whether a person chooses to be saved. So logiclly, whenever someone is told about Christ, he or she must make a decision whether or not to accept him and like every other event in the universe, both events play out and only the observation of the event forces the person to be saved or not, so everyone who has ever been told about the Gospel is simultaniously saved and not saved. Sources http://www.biblegateway.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
no one knows who wrote the bible

actually if you read the Bible it tells you who wrote the books but I guess you didn't read it. God told the people what to write and they did what He said. 1.Moses 2.Joshua 3.Samuel 4.Ezra 5.Jeremiah 6.Nehemiah 7.Mordecai 8.Job 9.Sons of Korah 10.Asaph 11.Heman 12.Ethan 13.Hezekiah 14.David 15.Solomon 16.Agur 17.Lemuel 18.Isaiah 19.Ezekiel 20.Daniel 21.Hosea 22.Joel 23.Amos 24.Obadiah 25.Jonah 26.Micah 27.Nahum 28.Habakkuk 29.Zephaniah 30.Haggai 31.Zechariah 32.Malachi 33.Matthew 34.John 35.Mark 36.Luke 37.Paul 38.James 39.Peter 40.Jude here are the authers for you in order. If you don't believe me look it up in the Bible.
Texas will slip into a recession due to falling oil prices

Thank you, Con, I apologize for the late response, and I may not be able to write a full response due to a fever, but we will see.You see, you claim that the Texas economy has shifted more to other industries, and this is true, but Oil and Gas still remain some of the biggest industries in Texas. You see, the Oil and Gas industry is outpacing most of the industry, even in this job crisis we can observe today. The ripple effects are everywhere. Think about the role of oil in your life, it is not only the source of many of our fuels, but it is also critical in making lubricants, chemicals, and many other things that we come into contact with every day.The industry is also responsible for almost $1.2 trillion in annual GDP and supports 1.3 million jobs in manufacturing alone. If you think about the law, accounting, and engineering firms that serve the industry, the pipe, drilling equipment, and other manufactured goods that it requires, and the large payrolls and their effects on consumer spending, you will begin to get a picture of the enormity of the industry.To visualize the supreme rule Texas has over the industry, just take a look at this graph. As you can see, Texas makes around four times the gross product and around five times as many jobs as Oklahoma, the next biggest state.I hope you now understand that, if oil prices do drop enough to warrant a loss of these assets of the industry, it would be disastrous.
Texas will slip into a recession due to falling oil prices

Now due to historical evidence I can understand why my opponent believes that Texas will fall into a recession, however the economy of Texas has changed since the last recession caused by oil. I live in Austin and the economy here is not based on oil or the oil business, but is instead a service based economy (economy in which a service is provided for currency. ie: banking, shipping, tech support ect.). In fact our economy will do better here in central Texas due to the large amount of tech companies and the fact that plastics will be cheaper due to falling oil prices is a huge boost for tech companies. Now in places like the Houston area this could be a big deal, but even there refining is not as big as it used to be. In fact in Houston a service based economy has taken hold and refining oil is becoming less and less a part of Houston's economy now that shipping and other industries are beginning to grow. In north Texas , Dallas is a huge urban metropolis with a service based industry. So due to Texas's move away from a oil based economy, I believe that falling oil prices will have little to no effect on our economy.
Homework should not be banned!

you said yes sources in the comments so I will use some. I will use my arguments, as I cannot rebut. C1: Time consuming According to a 2004 national survey of 2,900 American children conducted by the University of Michigan, the amount of time spent on homework is up 51% since 1981. [1] So time for homework is rising every every year. An admittedly less scientific poll of parents conducted this year for AOL and the Associated Press found that elementary school students were averaging 78 min. a night. [1] So you will say that's only a little more then an hour. But in all realities it is a lot of time they could be reading making friends. My second source: more homework means kids have less time for other activities. There's less opportunity for the kind of learning that doesn't involve traditional skills. There's less chance to read for pleasure, make friends, play games, get some exercise, get some rest, or just be a child. [2] SO they really have less time to be healthy. C2: No proven benefits And high school, some studies do find a relationship between homework and test scores, but it tends to be small. More important, there's no reason to think that higher achievement is caused by the homework. [2] This is logical, how does random work help? There is no evidence to demonstrate that homework benefits students below high school age. Even if you regard standardized test results as a useful measure (which I don't), more homework isn't correlated with higher scores for children in elementary school. [2] Yet teachers themselves don't uniformly agree on something as basic as the purpose of homework (reviewing vs. learning new concepts), much less design or amount or even whether it should be graded. And the result can be inconsistency in assignments and confusion for students. [3] c/p from source. The other footnotes are mostly word for word. This shows there is no set purpose nor benefits as it may confuse them. "Kids who do 60 to 90 minutes of homework in middle school and over two hours in high school actually do worse than average in standardized tests," his essay read. [4] so this = negative effects. C3: isn't it like slavery? Part of his essay reads: "Homework is assigned to students like me without our permission. Thus, homework is slavery. Slavery was abolished with the passing of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So every school in America has been illegally run for the past 143 years." [4] I see no reason to keep going. Vote con http://www.time.com... [1] http://www.scholastic.com... [2] http://stophomework.com... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4]
Homework should not be banned!

Sorry for I was out of town. As I have said that round will not count. Anyways lets continue. As the third round rules state:Pro will rebut Con's arguements and add new arguements, this can not be done. Last round I had accidently forfeited so I must state a new arguements. Next round Con can add new arguements.My new arguements are:Reason why homework shouldn't banned is that it helps you learn some stuff. Don't you want to become a doctor or a pilot? If you don't have homework, and play 24/7 or so called play all day, you might become a hobo or even homeless when you grow up.Homework also helps you improve your life. How?? Well here is some reasons:1) Teaches about nature (science)2) Learn from other peoples mistakes instead of doing it over again3) Calculate easily when shopping (reccommended for girls :p)4) Not become a hobo5) Get married happily (some people dont want to get married :p)Also homework doesn't take like 5 hours. Normal school periods are about 5 and homeworks are 5 different types. They should be done within 2 1/2 hours. Without homework you wouldn't become smart, or if you are already smart you will become dumber, you will not know how to heal yourself (science), you will not know why you died, you will not know what the price with the tax is (mathematics), you will not know why moon fell onto earth (that might happen someday), you will not know when the heck is your birthday which is really embarassing.I thank my opponent for following the directions. As I have said earlier, if one of the debaters forfeit, the round is cancelled if it is a good reason.I apologize for forfeiting a round since I could not be on a computer. Judges, please do not count that round. As your reasons should not be FFing. Thank you so much and...VOTE PRO!!!!