BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CNN is Fake News

Lets get the definition of fake news out of the way. Fake news according to the Cambridge dictionary is: "false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke:" https://dictionary.cambridge.org... Rather than making a coherent argument that CNN is fake news my opponent has chosen instead to simply post a bunch of links. You don't debate by posting links from reddit, you debate by using sources to articulate arguments in your own words to prove a conclusion. In fact the one thing my opponent does say about his links is that, "Now, I am not checking if these are real, nor am I saying these are fake." My opponent has not even checked his own sources or even verified their validity so why does he expect you to trust them? In fact using sources that you haven't checked is the best way of creating fake news yourself. Lets now address the links my opponent posted: http://i.redditmedia.com... This one shows a CNN headline conflicting with another one. But no context is actually given about the story and you certainly can't form any conclusions by just looking at headlines and not investigating the details of the story. http://i.dailymail.co.uk... In this one two CNN reporters on video are talking to each other in the same location. How does that prove the story itself is fake? This is a video of a CNN reporter removing a man from a floating truck with no arguments as to why its fake. = In this video it is claimed that CNN lied about Ted Cruz refusing to do an interview even though he did. But the video leaves out the possibility that Cruz did an interview with CNN but then refused at another point to do another. Being weird doesn't mean the stories are fake. Another point to make here is that simply having a few fake stories does not make an entire organization fake news if the vast majority of stories are legitimate. All organizations will make some mistakes and nobody is perfect. Also being biased doesn't mean the stories themselves are completely fabricated. It would be better to argue that maybe CNN is biased or sometimes inaccurate but to claim that they are as a whole fake news and generally publish fabricated news stories is totally without evidence.
CNN is Fake News

Now, I am not checking if these are real, nor am I saying these are fake. Because in that case, the examples would be fake news. I'm just throwing examples here, then go ahead and argue. But first, we should get this out of the way, what is fake news? I believe fake news is news that was intended to be fake. Time for the examples. http://i.redditmedia.com... http://i.dailymail.co.uk... = Those are a couple of the examples I could find easily. Fun fact: CNN is also kind of weird
Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all.

alright.. lets do this traditional LD style. Resolved: That an oppressive government is better than no government at all. First thing are my definitions: -Oppressive: cruel, harsh, or tyrannical. -Government: natural and political law. The manner in which sovereignty is exercised in each state. -Is Better: to be greater in excellence or higher in quality. I provide the Value of Social-Well being, or a state of affairs where the basic needs of the populace are met. My Criterion, Thomas Hobbes Social Contract theory. A brief overview of Hobbes social contract. First is that man is inherently evil. Second is the State of Nature- "the natural state.. hypothetically, men are naturally and exclusively self interested." Given these situations where there is no government or power able to force men to cooperate we would live in a state of Anarchy. Because there are thieves, criminals, and crooks throughout the world there is the need for a government. That by having a government whether it be oppressive or not it is better than a state of Anarchy and Chaos. Hobbes points out that men are reasonable which allows people to escape the state of nature and create a "civil society." By creating a civil society they are creating the basis of government. By having a government we are achieving Social-Well being, and stepping away from the state of Nature. Thomas Hobbes alone sums up this debate saying that government is necessary and that it "is better" as the resolution states. Cont 1: John Locke In John Locke's social contract the case is different. Where man is inherently good, but still John Locke justifies the need for a government. That is that a government is designed to punish those who transgress the law of nature, and create Civil Authority. That without government, man would be in a state of war in a perpetual onslaught of each other. Other than man being inherently good, it is much similar to the Idea that Thomas Hobbes brings. Cont 2: Plato Plato argues that "human beings-given an opportunity to do so without being caught and therefore suffering any punishment or loss of good reputation- would naturally choose a life of injustice, in order to maximize their own interests." Although Plato agrees that Justice is better than Injustice. In this debate it is more towards an oppressive government rather than no government at all. Also why we for a society.."Individual human beings are not self-sufficient;no one working alone can acquire all the genuine necessities of life." therefore the need to create communities or a basic form of government would succeed in specialization and promote efficiency. This is better than no government at all. The need for a government is undeniable. Around the world whether it be from the United States to a tribal group in Africa. There is an established order in who is the ruler, who are the "guardians", and who the people are.
iPhones are a Scam

First off, I don"t think the word "scam" is the one you"re looking for in this argument. Apple ultimately offer a product that works, and works very well. Of course they use all their advertising knowledge to push people into buying the latest model, but that"s the whole premise of a for-profit company. So a "scam"? Most definitely not. (Also, the "EXPLODING" remark in your second paragraph... I"m not going to spell out how Samsung - a major competitor - went viral for that exact same thing. Manufacturing problems exist, this does not constitute scamming.) It"s not how powerful the hardware is, it"s how the software uses that power. There"s no point iPhones don"t have to be overly powerful if they don"t have to be. Because a lot of hardware and software is produced and assembled in-house, they can be optimised to work perfectly together. This is why iOS can work so much more smoothly on an iPhone compared to Android - developed by Google - on a Samsung device. "iPhones have a long history of breaking within a year of getting it." I"m not sure where you get that information but I know people that have had iPhones for years and haven"t had any reason to upgrade. We all know of the battery situation that just went on with Apple, and I think they handled it rather professionally and fairly. What they did was wrong (in that they weren"t transparent - but technically they were right to do what they did) but they owned up to it and now offered cheap battery replacements while not slowing their devices down. Apple do receive many components for their iPhones from different companies. However I really can"t see how this contributes to the scamming argument. Many big companies out source certain parts of product developments to more specialists companies in that field - like screens, like cameras. Furthermore, many companies that use all in-house development have spent years buying out small, specialist companies that work under the banner of the larger company to develop their products - a more quiet version of out sourcing. Overall, I can"t see how iPhones could be considered a "scam," of course Apple are going to say their phone is the best, just like every other phone developer. It"s their job to sell and make the biggest profit possible. Their customers are not forced to buy the latest model, they"re not forced to take out additional insurance, and they"re not sold products that don"t do what they say on the tin. I"m pretty deep in the Apple ecosystem (which I"m sure would develop into a separate debate) but I don"t hate other devices. I"ve seen that Samsung screens are beautifully coloured and bright, and I know that Google Assistant and Alexa are much more powerful than Siri. However, iPhones just work so well on their own and with other Apple products that I can"t see myself changing anytime soon, and I really can"t consider these devices a scam. Thanks! This has been my first response to a debate, so cheers for that! Looking forward to the rest of it. P.S. Apologies if that was a bit long, I guess I"m taking liberties with the 8,000 word limit!
iPhones are a Scam

Buying the new iPhone every year is like paying $50/week for a magazine subscription to the exact same issue. To put that simile into perspective: iPhone 4, 4S, 5, 5S, 5C, 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, 7, 7 Plus, 8: DUAL-CORE PROCESSOR, 2GB RAM iPhones are a scam, they leave out any type of features or performance you want because it was cost too much, and spend all profits on advertisement and production. They have brainwashed millions of Americans into believing it's the best phone ever made. The iPhone 4, WAS, the best phone ever made, for it's time. Every phone afterward, they added the most minor detail possible; an inch to the screen, an extra 0.1 GHz to the processor, and a deliberate defect that can destroy the phone with something as little as a software update, like the iOS 11.3.2 update for instance, that overloaded the iPhone 6, 6S, and SE and made them heat up and die, and made the network LTE band on the 7 and 7 Plus break. But, let's not forget to mention the iPhone 8 Plus, that is EXPLODING, and still on sale. More to the reason for all of these defects is that the Apple Care program is offering you an easier way to have your $700 phone deliberately broken by the manufacturer so you can pay to have it repaired, after they take your device and replace it, the old device is used for spare parts, and the used parts are then integrated into their newer, more expensive models, like the 8, 8 Plus, and X. Yes, people, they are made of USED PARTS. Furthermore, it being the only company that uses (and is allowed to use) the iOS platform, whenever review sites do benchmarks and tests between iPhones and android phones, iPhones always tend to "soar through" because technically, they are making continuous minor updates to the original processor to try and run the original software (that hasn't had any features added in years) faster. When you compare it to a Samsung that has quadruple the cores, its not really a fair fight, seeing as it is running Android firmware, with Samsung specific extra features, and is running several processes and features at once instead of just the benchmark app they are using. Comparing an iPhones performance to a Samsung is like comparing a Fiat 500 to a V12 Formula 1 racer, and saying the Fiat won because they were testing gas mileage. "The iPhone has better parts" iPhones have a long history of breaking within a year of getting it. Samsung's and other higher quality Android devices have lasted 4-5 years of moderate use easily if taken care of. It's rumored the new "A11 Bionic" in the 8 Plus and X is actually made by Qualcomm, it's CONFIRMED that the OLED screen in the iPhone X is made by Samsung and the "revolutionary camera" was made by Sony, the same camera, in fact, that is in the Galaxy Note 8.
The Bible is reliable

Murder is wrong under certain circumstances but justified in others. To generalize murder to claim there is a contradiction is a logic fallacy. Just about every country I know off work on the same principle. Murder or killing someone in self defense is not a crime. Murdering or killing someone for malicious reasons is considered murder. There is no contradiction. A contradiction will be that it is said that killing someone in self defense is justified but then in another place it is stated that killing someone in self defense is NOT justified. First off, you misrepresent my position. I stated "Even if", not everyone thinks that there are too good to be true stories in the Bible. I did not say it is a fact, it is a conditional statement. I said "sounds too good to be true" I did not say IT IS too good to be true. Something may "sound fanciful" to you but not to me. "The Quran is nearly as old as the bible". This statement is not correct. The Quran was written about 600 years after the New Testament and about 900 years after the Old Testament was completed. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... "So why don't we just believe in the Quran since it too was transmitted accurately". Believing in something and the reliability of something is not dependant on each other. I stated: "The Bible is actually a collection of books that was written by people who did not know each other in some cases but yet in whole forms one unified book that compliment and confirm each other. Prophecy is an example of this.". The Quran cannot make the same claim. "and sounds too good to be true." Not everything in the Quran is too good to be true, but then again it might "sound too good to be true" to you. It contains factual statement as well. I cannot argue against something I did not advocate. "and it's followers claim that there is no solid evidence to prove the Quran has ever been altered/editied". The Quran have been through a revision period. http://www.bible.ca... "So why don't we just believe in the Quran since it too was transmitted accurately and sounds too good to be true". Because the God of the Quran and of the Bible is not the same God. The OT and NT says God has a Son. Islam denies that Allah has a son. It's obviously not from the same source. Muslims claim the Bible was Allah's revelation but that it got corrupted. The logic fails because that means the Muslims quote a corrupted book every time they to prove that Islam is the true religion quoting the Bible. Secondly, you have a god that is not able to preserve his words (in the OT) to all people that casts serious doubts on his abilities and power (Allah).
The Bible is reliable

The bible is very contradictive. For example, God ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations and kill those who committed crimes(Samuel 15:3 & Joshua 4:13). But then other verses tell us, "You shall not murder" and "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death". The bible itself is very confusing and takes alot of time and work to fully understand it. "Basically, my contention is that the Bible was transmitted accurately which makes it reliable. Even if some of the stories in the Bible sounds too good to be true it does not mean it was not transmitted accurately"How do you know? There are other books out there that claim they're based on true stories. Most of these stories even have a mythical fantasy beast that sounds too good to be true. But according to you, just because it sounds too good to be true, doesn't mean it's not real. For example, the Quran, a book used by muslims. The Quran is nearly as old as the bible and it's followers claim that there is no solid evidence to prove the Quran has ever been altered/editied. But, the Quran is a book very different from ours. It rules are very different and they worship differently. So why don't we just believe in the Quran since it too was transmitted accurately and sounds too good to be true.[SOURCES]http://www.gotquestions.org...
The Bible is reliable

Basically, my contention is that the Bible was transmitted accurately which makes it reliable. Even if some of the stories in the Bible sounds too good to be true it does not mean it was not transmitted accurately. The Bible is actually a collection of books that was written by people who did not know each other in some cases but yet in whole forms one unified book that compliment and confirm each other. Prophecy is an example of this. People argue either that there are contradictions in the Bible or point out the "genocide" found in the Bible. War and genocide does not prove the Bible is unreliable. However, contradictions can question the reliability of the Bible. Some try to point out that the Bible contains scientific faults which would fall in the category of contradictions with so called learned knowledge. Evolution would be such an example. However, evolution without it's origins (how it started, cosmology) ends up being adaptation. People try to split evolution from it's origins to try and built a case that cannot be argued against, but as I pointed out, it because adaptation. The origin theory is a theory. It cannot be proven by scientific methods and cannot be verified using the scientific method, so in short, how can the Bible contradict something that cannot be proven? The Bible warns against science "falsely so called". Others point out events that seem to contradict who God should be and what He should and should not allow. I find that most of the time people who argue this way does not have a good knowledge of Bible theology. Having said all that, let me hear your arguments!
Dreams of the future

You're making the same mistake that many make - you are confusing the purpose of an individual to the purpose of a species; they are not the same. Of course you are right when you say that you create your own purpose. The difference is as follows; we have two worlds and for the sake of simplifying let's call them two jigsaws. The first jigsaw is inhabited by a species that can see accurately, they complete the jigsaw in no time at all, leaving them nowhere to go, but to extinction. On the second jigsaw is a species that cannot see accurately; it struggles, but its struggle gives it purpose, which in turn feeds its intelligence, intelligence gives the individual purpose. You also use the word proof when I refer to an energy that keeps the balance in nature. Science works in a different way, it weighs up the facts and tries to come to an answer, and if we don't succeed the first time we try and try again. The way I worked out the numbers relating to the emotions was by dismissing the impossible. (Supernatural) It was then quite easy to work it out. We do see into the future; if you decide to buy a pair of shoes a week from today, you are seeing into the future, and this is the only way nature can function too. (The balance in nature) I think that about answers all that you wrote, but I would like to add more. Darwin put together, in an elaborate way 'The Origin of the Species' He painstakingly put into place all the evidence that went into establishing the way that evolution divided and started species, from the beginning to the present day. The world that Darwin researched is the conscious world where we can see and measure ability. The subconscious is a vastly different world to research; too find in a world where ability cannot be seen is almost verging on the impossible, that's why a little bit of Sherlock Holmes deduction is needed. (Science) Just let me add this other equation; biologist David Black arrived on the Galapagos Islands in the late 1930s, he discovered finches of all sizes and shapes, and all were proven to be the descendants of one species. He found the finches with the big beaks eating the same food as those with smaller beaks. He assumed that the birds had evolved that way as there was no evidence to prove otherwise. On this assumption he thought Darwin had been wrong. Darwin had stipulated; different food different species. The species had evolved due to the type of food the birds needed. Later Black found out that at this time of his visit, there had been a drought which explained why different birds were eating the same food, so he decided that Darwin had been correct. Had Darwin been right, or had Black been right the first time? When referring to the dreams of the 'future' and their connection and the purpose that connection gives, surely variety is what is most important in intelligent evolving and not the food? Food is important but it must come second to variety?
Dreams of the future

" life is unable to see accurately" What can someone do about that? We should work our best in the present hoping for the best. "life has to have purpose and this would have destroyed purpose." We decide our purpose. "There has to be an energy that instigates this balance in nature." Is there any scientific proof. "on a scale of 1-10 the emotions felt by the dreamer would be 4. A dream that is dreamt at the time of the atrocity would scale in 9 or 10. This would be because the future dream was in the stages of being planned; the second with a 9 or 10 ratio would be because the atrocity would be happening at the time it was being dreamt. The dreamer would be experiencing the emotions of the perpetrator. What I am trying to say is, life is connected, life is just one energy and not the individual makeup of differencing pockets. " Again you have given no source or proof. There is only one conclusion : Your future depends on you only.
Dreams of the future

Dreams of the 'future' are not what they appear to be. Dr Donald Hoffman discovered that all life is unable to see accurately; this gives us purpose which feeds our intelligence. The one stumbling block with this is, if all life is in the same boat, then why hasn't all life evolved to the same level? Of course this would have led to our extinction; life has to have purpose and this would have destroyed purpose. There has to be an energy that instigates this balance in nature. Dreams of the 'future' need more researching. If you take a dream of an atrocity that seems to happen in the future; on a scale of 1-10 the emotions felt by the dreamer would be 4. A dream that is dreamt at the time of the atrocity would scale in 9 or 10. This would be because the future dream was in the stages of being planned; the second with a 9 or 10 ratio would be because the atrocity would be happening at the time it was being dreamt. The dreamer would be experiencing the emotions of the perpetrator. What I am trying to say is, life is connected, life is just one energy and not the individual makeup of differencing pockets. Eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. The subconscious works 24/7 never stopping. At any one time, half the life on earth is sleeping, this is when the subconscious takes over command. The balance in nature could only happen if all life is connected - one life, one energy.
Dreams of the future

I am only a layman, but I have been researching evolution for over 40 years. I have reached the conclusion that quantum waves which surge in the brain to different levels of trauma, guide the classical attributes that nature needs to keep a balance. Quantum particles react to each other over any distance, if related to the same event. If life started as one then it still is. These particles relate to all life. This includes migration, hibernation and mutation etc. I believe that there is a natural design in nature. This would explain the demise of the dinosaur. The smaller and more vulnerable life would have had to learn how to survive in this environment. The scaling down of most of the predators would have allowed this more intelligent life to survive. Then there are the primates; the reason for there evolving to reach the same heights, was not needed, after all, intelligent life had been accomplished.
President Obama is bad 4 the US

Seeing as how my opponent simply re-posted Round 2, every point that I made in Round 2 has gone unchecked. My opponent failed to even attempt to rebuild his case. I see no reason to further elaborate on my case or negate his. In conclusion, you should vote for me to win this debate because my opponent: Failed to defend his case after Round 2. Failed to attack my case after Round 2. Never showed how Obama is bad for America, only that my opponent disagrees with Obama's policies. Falsely accused Obama of being a fascist. And contradicted himself by saying that we should give money to those in poverty and then saying that we shouldn't help those in poverty because it hurts the rich.