BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Presidential Debate: Fixing the U.S. Economy

Hello readers, this debate will be about the U.S. economy. I and my future challenger will pretend to be presidential candidates. Our objectives are to explain to the public on how we're going to lower the deficit; "&" make the U.S.A. a stronger nation over foreign nations. As you all know, the U.S. deficit is dangerously climbing towards $20 trillion. Our nation is also declining in rankage when it comes to STEM fields. These are some serious issues that needs to be addressed. You, the audience, will elect the next president who you think will be suitable for office. My opponent can either be a Democrat, Republican, 3rd party member, or an independent. As for me, I will be an independent. For this round, it will just be for greetings &/or establishing rules. I only have one rule: 1#: Be my devil's advocate & try to win the <3's of the people! Good luck to my future challenger! My viewers, I hope you enjoy this debate!
God does have a plan, but we still have free will.

I have to agree that God isn't human at all. However he does have a plan for us. If God didn't have a plan, why would he have created the universe? If He had no plan, why would he want to make humans? If God hadn't planned out everything, wouldn't the human race already kiled itself? The reason that you don't see God in everything you do, is because He gave you the power to live, and decide. This is going off the assumption that God is all knowing. He knows all the decisions that everyone will make for all time. Based on the decisions that He knows you will make, He knows how it will end up. Saying this He has a plan because He knows. He alos knows everbody elses decisions, so He knows the future. This is the same as saying that, if you know how a friend is going to react to you saying something, you have a plan of how they react. They still have that free choice, but you have a plan of their reaction. Same with God.
God does have a plan, but we still have free will.

"God does have a divine plan for everybody. At the same time, God gives us all free will to do what we want. Some might say that this is contradicting. It is not, because God knows all the decisions we are going to make. He knows the decision we are going to make before we make it. If you read this correctly, the person is still makes the decision. God knows all the decisions in your life and has planned for them. He has planned everybody' decisions, so that they will be part of His big picture. So if you have read this the way that I want you to read this, you will notice that the person is making a decision." In situations like this, the socratic method is best used. But that's not possible in this type of debate so I'm in a bit of a pickle. A = Atheist B = Deist C = Calvinist I've decided to pick the middle road. I argue that God was responsible for the universe to come into being. However, our image of God is different from what God really is, and God really isn't like a human at all. I don't think God plans anything. He pretty much leaves everything up to us. To assume so would be to assume that God shares characteristics with us. We're not that special. Why should God be so similar to us? If God created the universe, then he can't be a meat-sack like us, can he? If you can offer some good arguments to back up all those claims you have there, I might be able to respond. You have a lot of claims to back up. But for now, I'm going by what I see, and what I don't see, and I don't see a God that meddles in my life or plans it out for me, or even cares.
God does have a plan, but we still have free will.

God does have a divine plan for everybody. At the same time, God gives us all free will to do what we want. Some might say that this is contradicting. It is not, because God knows all the decisions we are going to make. He knows the decision we are going to make before we make it. If you read this correctly, the person is still makes the decision. God knows all the decisions in your life and has planned for them. He has planned everybody' decisions, so that they will be part of His big picture. So if you have read this the way that I want you to read this, you will notice that the person is making a decision.
Gun Control

Gun control does not need to happen in America. Bad people will find a way to do bad things which is true for a lot of terrorist attacks. The daily wire writes "In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare. According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro, the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders." This is a piece of evidence that shows that it clearly did not help. Another thing people pro gun control like to use is the argument about Australia. a 2008 University of Melbourne study " concluded that Australia's temporary gun ban had no effect on the gun homicide rate. Crime Research Prevention Center president John Lott had similar findings. "Prior to 1996, there was already a clear downward trend in firearm homicides, and this pattern continued after the buyback," wrote Lott. "It is hence difficult to link the decline to the buyback." "Again, as with suicides, both non-firearm and firearm homicides fell by similar amounts," Lott continued. "In fact, the trend in non-firearms homicides shows a much larger decline between the pre- and post-buyback periods. This suggests that crime has been falling for other reasons. Note that the change in homicides doesn"t follow the change in gun ownership " there is no increase in homicides as gun ownership gradually increased." A lot of gun related deaths were suicide. The school shooting statistics also are not very accurate as they like to count any gun that goes off in a school zone a school shooting this means accidental fires, murders in any area of a school, and many other factors that should not contribute to these statistics.
We should put speed bumps in every farm in Britain.

Why speed bumps should be put on farmsby meFarm animals are like normal animals except from farms instead of the wild, but farm animals still have wild animal instincts like killing farmers and ripping city folk to shreds and scaring them off. We need to stop these wild pigs, chickens, ducks and cows and there's only one way to do it, and that way is installing speed bumps in every farm in Britain.Think of the lives saved! The number of deaths caused by vicious farm animals will plummet, and all because of speed bumps.Plus, we don't want those supersonic speed tractors crashing anymore [1]. Just recently, tractors caused monumental damage [2].I recently got attacked by a wild country folk human, and I can say from personal experience that nobody should have to go through that torture. Think of the annoying songs and germs you'd have to encounter!Thank you.Sources[1] http://www.youtube.com... first video[2] http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...
DEBATE.ORG CLASSIC: SEMI FINALS: Logical-Master vs Darth Grievous

Your right. I have no counter argument. I have no idea how I am suppose to argue this obviously flawed position, and would very much like to know what possible statments I could have made in my favor. Thus, I concede this debate to Logical Master, so that he may continue on and, hopefully, win this exausted tournament against theLwerd. Congratulations to my opponent, and I apologize for wasting your time. I will now officially be able to delete this account so I can finally leave this shamble of what was debate.org. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
Abortion should continue to be legal here in the U.S.A (first thing to pop in my head)

I will defend Con with an open mind. We will define "life" as "the period during which something is functional" (Princeton, prefer our definition because in collegiate context). LEADERSHIP ADVANTAGE My opponent's claims that the "tolerance of abortion" will lead to a better democracy is flawed and contradictory. Actually, abortion rates have fell worldwide (from 46 million in 1996 to 42 million worldwide in 2003) according to the World Health Organization report cited by Reuters. . http://www.reuters.com... Therefore, if our country legalized abortion and reversed the trend of recent years, we would be going against this trend which would alienate the rest of the world, therefore decreasing our leadership influence around the world. Turn-The refusal of a debate on the legality/morality of abortion will actually decrease the influence of our democracy around the world. Turn- when we have more members of our society, we will continue our nation's legacy with a larger population. . only this way can we continue our leadership around the world. Also, pro-life activists are not only bound to a religion. The morality of the value of life is a human value. When millions of Jews, homosexuals, disabled, and other minorities were killed by the Nazi party, it was denounced by most of the countries of the world. We continue to respect the value of life today. .this value did not originate in the institution of religion. POVERTY/OVERPOP ADVANTAGE For thousands of years, abortion was illegal or not used. Did we see the effects of food shortages? No, or at least not because of the lack of abortion. Turn-Your claim that America has the obligation to provide its people "with life and good health" is true. However, America also has the obligation to stand strong on the morals and values that our nation was founded on. I ask you, my opponent, how to you justify MURDERING YOUR CHILD? As for your timing arguments, prefer our counterplan (see below) ECONOMY/EDUCATION ADVANTAGE This is a complete contradictory advantage. When the a baby is born and not aborted, we have MORE EDUCATED MEMBERS of our society, this way they contribute to our economy and society as a whole. Also, when we have more members in our society, the world's economy will flourish and relations with other nations will be better, leading to a better world overall. How dare you say "morality is not an issue here since human rights are not taken through the process. " This ENTIRE DEBATE we are having is a human right for all people. We respect animals and our environment, why not our future children? COUNTERPLAN As abstinence is not realistic in today's society. .we provide the following counterplan: We can provide more forms of contraception to prevent un-wanted pregnancies, including birth control and condoms. This way, we can: 1) Solve all affirmative advantages (including poverty) and impacts through preventing these pregnancies. 2) Live up to our individuals and nation's moral values. I also reserve the right to clarify any above mentioned arguments.
Abortion should continue to be legal here in the U.S.A (first thing to pop in my head)

Abortion, the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy (http://dictionary.reference.com...), should be allowed in the U.S.A for the sake of preserving our democractic nation. Leadership Advantage: Only tolerance of abortion will allow our democracy to live up to its name and protect the rights of the United States Citizens. Even when majority of the population is against a practice such as abortion then it should not be banned; Where would the United States be if Religion had such dictation by the government? Definitely not the Super Power of the world. If the U.S. is not the super power of the world then leadership will only submerge making Nuclear War inevitable. Nuclear war over who will be the new preeminent power will take out the entire population, if not then most. Europe was pretty peaceful place before the rise of Hitler. More countries are developing nuclear weapons. Poverty Advantage: Allowing America to procreate at the accelerated rate in the status quo will only lead to disater. Banning abortion will allow the population to skyrocket thus producing less food for more people. If we can't feed our people then america has failed to provide its people with life and good health. Many families abort because of timing. Many parents wish not to live in poverty and that is the only outcome for those who are underaged and have yet to obtain the neccessary education needed to fully particpate in the labor workforce. Abort now or live in poverty. Once in poverty there is a cycle that begins and is nearly impossible to escape for generations down the line. Allowing People to grow up in poverty is as unacceptable as slavery policymakers have an obligation to prevent and keep it from persisting. If the Government prohbited dabortion then the governement basically fails to provide its citizen with there natural rights. Economy Advantage: When people terminte their pregnancy, they are doing so to better thier lives and not live in poverty which benefits the economy. When their is an educated workforce, Job opportunities are endless and is wealth. Morlity is not an issue here since human rights are not taken through the process. Human rights are rights given to people not fetus therefore any claim that the baby has any rights are unlegit. If their is any morality issue its allowing children to be born in poverty. I reserve the right to clarify anything.
Maturity and physical and online presence of youth in relation to an adult or young adult.

So I am a young adult and I am what you would call someone who is equal or smarter than some adults and I don't expect any special treatment, and that's because I understand that even if I prove my intellectual superiority I would still have to learn a ton of stuff before I can even compare my intellect to some. And yes I've had someone talk down on me because I'm younger than them, but isn't true wisdom just being quiet when someone talks down on you.
Maturity and physical and online presence of youth in relation to an adult or young adult.

Well, as I stated, this is about cases where children are smarter and can prove it. I stated that even when shown they are equal did smarter they are not treated as such or recognized as smarter because they are youth. Also, belittlement is not needed, you don't have to treat them like little geniuses to not belittle them, simply treat them with more respect, give them a chance to show their capability. You can see in cases between equals adults still hold themselves to a higher standard.
Maturity and physical and online presence of youth in relation to an adult or young adult.

1.Yes the youth is belittled but it's for a reason. The young needs to be taught to think and act like adults, this task would be practically impossible if all of them were, from the start, assumed to be little geniuses. 2. The young are taught from the ground up so that their mental structure could be stable and realistic. That is why we don't categorize them by their inborn ability to think or by their mental capacity.
Maturity and physical and online presence of youth in relation to an adult or young adult.

I believe that youth should be taken more seriously, even when presented with logic and proof of intelligence some adults still claim to be more intelligent and mature than youth. I argue that in some cases(nowadays probably half or more) of the times when children are belittled and told they are not on the same level as adults mentally is absurd, just because they are youth doesn't mean they should be told they can't have the same mental capacity as an adult.
the christian trinity is an illogical idea

The link, which was a new point raised in last round and wasn't even explained by Pro, explains that the trinity is interpretations and forms of God in the mind of the believer rather than actual physical father, son etc. Only the son Jesus was the actual physical form of God.If you read this link: http://www.everystudent.com... will see how the 'spirit' or 'core force' of god is singular but because it exists outside of reality and is not restrained by our dimensions and rules, it can take 3 forms with ease while maintaining itself as a constant amongst all 3.I conclude that the trinity is logical as long as god itself is considered logical.
the christian trinity is an illogical idea

Consider this:God's physical form was as Jesus Christ "the son". His 'true form' was raw invisible power with none of the human 5 senses being able to detect or appreciate it so the power transformed into a human but had to do so by beginning as a baby and growing itself up to adulthood before people would listen so he uses his powers to alter Mary's egg and have a baby with her without needing sex because he's all powerful and can bypass it (he invented the need for sex after all).When his human form dies, he has to come back to finalize the message and leave a true impact in the people's minds to understand his power was not fake or imagined but very supernatural and very real (the holy ghost form). These two forms of him are nothing compared to the third invisible untouchable form that is the 'father' form as the name suggest it is the alpha and superior form.
The death penalty should be abolished.

In this debate, the BoP is shared. My BoP will be that the death penalty should be abolished. My opponent's BoP will be that it should not be abolished. Death Penalty: "the punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. "Abolished: "formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution). "Forfeiture will result in loss of both conduct and arguments unless otherwise stated by the instigator (me. ) If I forfeit, this rule is vise versa. Plagiarism will result in a loss of all 7 points. Good luck to anyone who accepts! I look forward to a good debate!
A Modest Proposal for Lowering the Costs of Welfare

I would like to commend my opponent for raising such an incredibly modest and unobtrusive proposal for lowering the costs of welfare as forcing those on welfare to eat their own children. In fact it is because this idea is so ridiculously ingenious that I must... Unfortunately propose something rather more sinister...All parents of children on welfare are to hunt and eat the children of parents NOT on welfare, then immediately offer their condolences and replace those children with their own and an agreed adoption plan... Which only requires consent of the great president.. Mr. Ballack Seminigga Obama Bin Fartin http://1.bp.blogspot.com...Now ONTO MY REVOLUTION OF A RESOLUTION!!First of all, it would be undoubtedly foolish to not accept the fact that by encourage parents on welfare to eat their own children we most likely would leave them unnecessarily fat and obese since each parent has several children (ooh those horny b@stards!) and humans are just SO FATTENINGLY TASTY (just ask your mom how I tasted last night) and it is thus the inevitable conclusion that...WE ARE OFFICIALLY BOUND TO CONSIDER IT OUR DUTY TO ENCOURAGE WIDESPREAD CANNIBALISM BUT NOT IN AN INCESTUAL FORM... Think of it this way, would you rather be raped by your mother (I sure would after last night) or my mother?... OF COURSE YOU WOULD RATHER MY MOTHER BECAUSE YO' MOMMA SO UGLY... Well she's so ugly I can't even make a f*cking joke out of it... It's just I was kinda high and drunk last night you know?... OH RIGHT! I AM MEANT OT BE DEBATING!So because raping another person's child is SO MUCH MORE MORAL I EVERY RESPECT than raping your own EATING shall be applied the same logic :) in fact why not let the poor kids be raped while they chew on them... Whole new meaning to eating pu$$y eh ;)By allowing parents on welfare to eat privileged children and by enforcing an adoption program for many of these poor, uneducated lazy fart's children to be adopted we officially enable a super mode because just like when your mother sees my cock after many nights with your dad's, when these children see the privileged world, they will appreciate it SO MUCH MORE. So thus, they will inevitably be motivated to work their not-so-lazy-anymore-a$$es off and thus shall ultimately solve any and all welfare issues.Thank you kind sir, It is now my duty to engage in masturbation because I mentioned your mother too many damn times in this debate.-Gossip Girl Guru xoxo
The Internet is more of a source for bad than it is good

Hello. I was really debating whether or not I'm really against this but, I'm sure as most people can say, The internet, No matter how unnatural to the lizard brain of the human race it is, Actually does some good. I have to say your analogy to a heroin addict is highly realistic and logical. Kudos to you! But, Even if it may be the case for most of what the internet would call "neckbeards" these people sometimes use their close attachment to the internet to find a great purpose in life. There's no contest in finding the answer as to why those who are "internet addicts, " live unhealthy lifestyles. Their lack of physical activity definitely is the reason for them becoming the stereotypical internet trolls that live in their mom's basement. But, Some of these people as I said earlier can do some good or find purpose in life that the active and social world wouldn't. For example lets have a hypothetical Jason we'll call him. Jason first started using the internet in 2006 at the age of 8 and now at age 18 in 2016, His strong attachment to the internet has practically raised him. YouTube personalities like Markiplier or UberHaxorNova in exchange for teaching him how to curse, Gave him a comedic personality to make friends for the first time at school. By the time he was a teenager in middle school he had begun to take some political opinions that oppose his parents after looking around and finding some obscure ideas from people like Xexizy, Armored Skeptic, And learned history from Feature History and History Buffs. By the time he's a freshmen he is now an atheist and a socialist. After his senior with some help from friends and advice from online friends he played with on Steam, He comes out to his parents as a homosexual. I'm sure that there are hypothetical situations that make much more since but if you TL;DR'd then here is the basic summary. The internet gave Jason an anonymity and place of privacy where he could learn who he was and how to express his thoughts. While in contrast if he had been an extrovert and got his news and political views from the media, His parents could scold him and tell him to watch "x" news instead, Limiting his access to alternate opinions. In a nutshell all i'm saying is that even if they might end up living an unhealthy lifestyle, It could help them become a better person or find out who they are.