BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God exists.

Ave.Topic: God exists.Position: Con/AgainstCategory: ScienceRounds: 4Voting Period: 2 WeeksTime to Argue: 24 hoursArgument Max: 6,000 CharactersVote Comments: YesI am taking the Con position. It is my burden to show that god does not exist. It is the burden of Pro to show that god does exist. The winner of the argument will be the side that demonstrates their case beyond a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if 51% of the evidence favors one side, that side should win arguments.There are four rounds in this debate. The first round is for acceptance of the rules and framework. I will present my opening statement in the subsequent round, and the next rounds will be devoted to rebuttals.The voting period will be two weeks.Each side will have twenty-four hours to post each round. The maximum number of characters is six thousand.Using pictures in order to demonstrate concepts is allowed. General expectations of conduct should be followed.God is defined as the cause of the initial state of the universe.The initial state is defined as the cosmological singularity.The cosmological singularity is defined as a state of T=0 where all of the laws of, space, time, and nature break down.Vale.
Obama has harmed the US greatly

My opponent has failed at proving Obama has hurt the US greatly. Firstly, he has only provided a few key arguments that only suggest minimal harm to our country. Secondly, he has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims. Since he has the full burden of proof in this argument, he must have proven that Obama has harmed the US. He has failed at doing so, and should therefore lose the debate. I understand that time and availability can be cruel when debating, so, if he’d like to debate this with me again, I’d happily do so.
Obama has harmed the US greatly

I agree with the definitions you provided. I would like to point out that if Obama has harmed the US slightly, but in many areas, that amounts to great harm. If you pull out a few bricks from a house, but you do so in all the corners, a few times on the sides, some near the roof, eventually you've greatly weakened the house.Because you will only have one round for rebuttals, I'll limit this round to just three brief arguments.Obama has caused so many people to lose jobs, we now have the lowest labor participation rate we've had since 1978.Obama supported a $700 billion corporate welfare bail-out for banks, putting more burden on low and middle class Americans. Obama signed a renewal of the Patriot Act, intruding on millions of Americans' freedom and privacy.
Obama has harmed the US greatly

To properly debate this subject, I first must provide a few definitions. (Note: Both are from The Merriam-Webster dictionary.) 1. Harm: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc. 2. Greatly: to a great extent or degree : very much This definitions are important for I shall be arguing that Obama has not harmed to US greatly. To put it more simply: Every US President has, in some fashion, harmed their country. It would be ludicrous to think otherwise. Therefore, there may be some validity in my opponent’s arguments. HOWEVER, in order to prove his assertion, he must prove how Obama has GREATLY harmed the US. This will be far more difficult. So, with that in mind, in the next few rounds I’ll provide rebuttals looking for two things: 1.) Actual harm to our country. 2.) GREAT harm to our country. If neither are supported in my opponents assertions, I shall point them out. I have not done so already because I needed the round to clarify definitions and the debate structure. I’ll post full rebuttals in the following two rounds! I look forward to a fun and engaging debate.
Obama has harmed the US greatly

Obama isn't called the food stamp president for nothing. There are now 65% more people receiving food stamps than when he took office. [1] Having so many people getting food stamps hurts the economy. One way being that it's a large expense on the taxpayers.Obama has also reduced incentives for economic growth in a few areas. First of all he took away important welfare requirements signed into law by Bill Clinton. Second, he made the absolutely partisan move of forcing the ACA on the American people. The bill discourages businesses from expanding and even causes many to downsize or cut their employees hours. He has also added 106 new business regulations, at a cost to Americans of $46 billion annually. [2]The ACA raises premiums significantly and forces people to buy insurance or face fines, this includes a lot of young people who probably did not want to buy insurance.Obama has hurt us on national security. First of all, he made a horrid deal with Russia that hugely reduced our nuclear stockpile. (START) The deal benefited Russia far more than it benefited us, if it benefited us at all. Now more recently, he has signed a deal with Iran essentially trusting them not to run a covert nuclear weapons program. Would anyone argue that allowing a sponsor of terrorism, in a region were Islam is rampant, to be close to having nuclear weapons, is in the best interests of the United States?He has increased our national debt by $8 trillion [3], causing the first-ever downgrade in the U.S. credit rating.I have more but I'll save it for later rounds due to time constraints.1) http://www.fns.usda.gov...2) http://www.heritage.org...3) http://www.cbsnews.com...
Homework should not be banned

= = = = =INTRODUCTION= = = = =Greetings Debate Dot Org (DDO). Greetings ladies and gentlemen; hello to the judges, the audience and my opponent. My name is TheLastMan and I represent the Pro position in this case. As such, it is my job to demonstrate that homework should not be banned.This debate is about ban on homework. I shall be arguing that homework should not be banned from school. It is not sufficient for my opponent to only refute my arguments, but must also present a case. The burden of proof is shared.Definitions:Ordinary dictionary definitions are used for this debate, with context determining the appropriate choice from multiple definitions. Homework: Preparatory school work done outside school (especially at home). Should: Expresses an emotional, practical, or other reason for doing something. Example- You should not kill your mother. Ban: Expel from a community or group. --I have sufficiently defined the resolution, no semantics please.= = = = = GUIDELINES = = = = =AcceptanceThis round is for acceptance, clarification of the resolution, and definitions. If my opponent does not agree with my basic interpretation of the resolution, he is to negotiate changes in the comments before accepting. Arguments begin in Round 2.= = = = = DEBATE FORMAT = = = = == = = =1. First Round is for acceptance2. Opening Arguments/Rebuttals3. Rebuttals/Arguments4. Closing statements/Rebuttals No side can present new arguments in the last round.By accepting, my opponent agrees to abide by all conditions and rules. This is a serious debate, no semantics. No trolling.
Jehovah's witnesses

Thank you again mate for answering my questions, tho I still have some concerns that I would like you to clarify as well: 1- It is not clearly stated about the punishment, like if I chose Satan to rule the earth or whatever place he will rule what will happen during that time? And will the people who choose Satan still be alive when Jehovah will rule? And it is not stated how bad people that disobey Jehovah will be punished. 2-By being the children of god do we have 2 dads? 3- Why did Jehovah choose jesus and no one else, how come Jehovah allow such thing to happen to a person who resembles him? And for something that he is not guilty about? 4- By reading the bible what makes you believe that JW is the truth? Since it is not the same good old bible. Resources ; http://christianity.stackexchange.com...
Jehovah's witnesses

And still the fact that jesus died because of our sins isn't clear to me. How come Jesus the son of Jehovah die in such a way? And because of us? I do have more questions indeed. -Will Jehovah punish me for not believing in him? Or everyone is equal ? And if so why should we believe in him? As there is no hell as you mentioned before - And by being the children of Jehovah, do we have 2 dads in this case? - Is their a clear script that this is the right branch of Christianity? And what makes it the right religion? And thank you so much for answering my previous questions, bless you.
Jehovah's witnesses

Thank you for accepting the challenge I really appreciate it. But I have some questions concerning your beliefs and I would like you to answer them if you don't mind. 1- If everyone is going to heaven, then whats the need of the day of judgement? 2- Does Jehovah love kids, and if so why does he only have jesus? 3- And if Jehovah truly loves Jesus why didn't he save him from being murdered on the cross? 4- It is written that the name Jehovah witnesses was adopted in the 1930s, Why wasn't it used or known before that time? And from where it is originated, since it isn't mentioned in the bible? 5- In what way JW is related to christianity ? Resources: https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Witnesses?wprov=sfsi1
Jehovah's witnesses

Hi, nice to debate with you. i will also list the thing we believe in as well, then we will continue from here on. 1: We believe in the one and only God who's name is Jehovah. 2:We acknowledge all the prophet including , Solomon, Joseph and etc. 3: We believe in the day of judgement. 4: We believe in heaven. 5: We do not believe in Hell, or that our God Jehovah aprove of such place. 6: We believe in Jesus as our king, and as the son of Jehovah. 7: We do not believe in the teaching of the trinity. As you have already notice, our religion is also the most hated, most known and most noticeable on all media, not in a good way, so i will appreciate it if we keep things civil and as clear as possible. As i will not be fighting your religion to prove it is wrong or right rather i will state the why we believe what we believe and how we are truly Jehovah's organization. the words from our father Jehovah is what we study and meditate on it. if you want me to compare any aspect of anything i will also not hesitate but only at your request.
Jehovah's witnesses

I started this debate not willing to hear any hateful comments, I just want debate with one of jehovah's witnesses to prove my point of view. In this round we will state what we believe in: 1- I believe in one and only god 2-I believe in prophets including jesus, solomon, joseph and etc. 3- I believe that the prophet Mohammed was the last prophet sent by god 4- I believe in the holy Quraan and believe that it's the last book sent by god 5- I believe in miracles 6- I believe in the day of judgement 7- I believe in heaven and hell
Jehovah's witnesses

Thank you for answering my questions But my question was about the death of Jesus and not about Adam. -And by being the children of God, does it mean that we have 2 dads? -What's the point of creating the human beings while there is no heaven and hell? It means that god is not treating people equally. Like I would rather not believe in Jehovah and not go to temples and never go in a mission and get the same thing as the ones who believe, right? Then why are you all spending time and effort to spread this religion? Sometimes we should accept the fact that people should be treated based on what they did in life. Thank you for debating with me I had lots of fun. Best regards, Aicha
Walter White was bad, Jesse Pinkman was good.

I'm going to forego using this round for opening arguments as it's traditionally used for. I'll just engage in rebuttals and wait until next round as to make sure the debate doesn't get too tedious. I do encourage my opponent to just forfeit the debate in his next round and we can make this a tie, but he's arguing for something that is impossible to win with. If he insists on continuing the debate than I'll proceed to go through the motions and defeat him. Good luck.
The Modal Ontological Argument Establishes God's Existence

If something is possible (in Modal terms), then we say it exists in some possible world (which just means a possible reality). The argument is that God is at least possible, thus he exists in some possible world. However, God is defined as maximally great, and it would be greater to exist in two possible realities than one, and greater to exist in three than two (and so on and so forth). So a maximally great being would exist in all possible worlds, because if it only existed in just one, the being would not be maximally great. Our world, or reality, is obviously possible (or we could not exist). Since the maximally great being exists in every possible reality, that would include our real reality. The argument then concludes that a maximally great being, God, does indeed exist in the actual world. What I was going to argue was whether God was possible or not, as I believe that the logic of the argument is valid.
The Modal Ontological Argument Establishes God's Existence

IntroductionThe Modal Ontological Argument is as follows: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists.[1] No petty semantics. If one accepts this debate then they accept the type of modal possibility relevant to this debate.Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the Modal Ontological Argument is sound. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his/ her opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."Source[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
The US supreme court should not exist in the way it does now

I forgot to say that me and my opponent have shared BoP. If not abolished completely, the supreme court needs to be reformed. Contention #1- The Supreme Court has too much power. Its judges can literally declare certain laws as unconstitutional whenever they see fit, even when the laws it declares unconstitutional have nothing to do with the constitution. For example, the rulings on gay marriage and abortion. Contention #2- The Supreme Court does not have enough judges. The supreme court has nine judges. In many rulings such as the ruling on gay marriage, the outcome could have been changed by the vote of one person. If the supreme court should continue to exist, it will need to increase its staff to a number where this doesn't happen nearly as much. One person, no matter how qualified, cannot make decisions as major as the supreme court does in a functioning democracy.
The US supreme court should not exist in the way it does now

Con didn't speak formally enough in her last round, and was very sarcastic. That was the problem. "While 60% of Americans support gay marriage, only 45% of congress does. [9][10]""While 61% of Americans support marijuana legalization, barely 3% of congress does. [11][12]"If American citizens do not like a certain representative because they disagree with them, they can choose another. That's a democracy: Citizens choosing government. "The Supreme Court already reviews 130 petitions a week, and even then they only have enough time to hear about 80 of these cases over a period of NINE MONTHS. And on each of the active days in those nine months, they spend five hours a day listening to cases. [7] If you are honestly suggesting that we ought to dump that Herculean task onto Congress on top of the mammoth amount of work that Congress already does, then I think that calling this idea ludicrous is not an overstatement. " The resolution was not that we need to get rid of the supreme court, but rather reform it. "In addition, "guessing"? Each Justice has years of legal experience, and spends most of their time reviewing precedents of cases as well as the cases presented by the people who appealed. This can take weeks. [7] That's hardly "guessing". " This was hyperbole. The Supreme Court still doesn't know for sure what laws mean. The 14th Amendment as not created for gay marriage. We should have created a new amendment to legalize it. As for Con's sub points, sub point C never existed, subpoint D has little proof, I adressed subpoint G (lower president's veto power), and sub point H I also adressed (they will be able to decide on any decision that is in the public eye for long enough).
The US supreme court should not exist in the way it does now

First of all, I request that the voters of this debate give ME conduct points, and not Con. In his last argument, she did not speak appropriately in the context of a debate. "Oh, so now the Legislative branch needs to seep power away from the Executive branch too? Are you trying to set up an oligarchy? Because that's how you set up an oligarchy." She also called my arguments "ludicrous". This is NOT formal language, and should not be used in the context of a debate. Also, Con didn't respond to many of my arguments. Now, I didn't ignore Con's argument of Judicial review. "If an issue is a hot-button topic for long enough, it WILL eventually be put in front of the supreme court."The argument of judicial review is irrelivant because of this "Second of all, and even worse, you are honestly suggesting that when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the congressmen who passed it should have had the foresight to include clauses on abortion and gay marriage, neither of which even existed as issues at the time. Congress does not have time to ponder every single possible case that might fall under the jurisdiction of an amendment at some point in the next 200 years. We do not know what issues will be appealed to the Supreme Court in 2135, and it would absurd to attempt to pass amendments speculating on that. In addition, congress is already gridlocked and has enough trouble passing laws as it is. Do you really want to clog up the system further?"I was not suggesting this. I was suggesting that we should make additional amendments that clarify laws, and that we shouldn't just have nine people guess what the laws mean."Yes, but Justices serve life terms and so avoid the influence of the sitting president. It's not as though Obama was able to choose all nine justices in 2008. In addition, while the Justices are not democratically chosen, the President is. If the country leans more toward the Democratic party, then isn't the sitting president appointing a Democratic judge an extension of that?" The fact that justices serve life terms is a problem BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO REMOVE THEM.Also, regarding my opponents rude and misguided comment about me wanting an oligarchy, here is the definition of "oligarchy". a country, business, etc., that is controlled by a small group of people.IF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLLED BY THE PEOPLE, THEN THE GOVERNMENT IS A DEMOCRACY.If I'm not mistaken, I win this debate.Source:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
should high school students recive "recess" but not play like children

My opponent has utterly contradicted themselves. They argue that recessed high schoolers should not play like children. "Not playing like children" is a certain extent in which high schoolers are allowed to behave during recess. However, in their opening argument, they say high schoolers should have recess but NOT to a certain extent. This means there should Be no extent at which recessed highschoolers should behave. My oppenent is arguing for and against themselves.
Birthright citizenship.

Actually, there is a 45th amendment, but that doesn't matter. If my opponent would have checked his notifications, he would have seen that as soon as I submitted my arguments, I realized my error in saying "45th amendment" instead of "14th amendment" and duly posted that I had made a mistake in the comments section. I do see that he didn't address anything that I stated in round 4 except my error, so I will assume that he has submitted to my point regarding my sources. I believe that, throughout the entirety of this debate, I have both clearly and thoroughly made my case against birthright citizenship through showing the economic burdens, the moral burdens, and the legal burdens that birthright citizenship places on America and its citizens.
Birthright citizenship.

My sources contain no falsehoods, only interpretations of the 45th amendment's statements. Also, they correctly reveal my standing on this contentious topic. No news source is completely unbiased. For example, one would argue that Fox News is a more conservative news source and CNN is more liberal-leaning. If I'm not supposed to provide any sites that could be a bit biased, there would be a grand total of 0 websites available for me to list as sources, especially regarding this topic, which is one where republicans and conservatives disagree on nearly every single facet.
Birthright citizenship.

I have already addressed the issue of the 14th amendment. It clearly states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." What this means is the government, specifically the senate, can choose who becomes a citizen based off of various facets of the case, such as economic costs, legal issues, and so forth. It does not say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens." The founders purposely added "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to allow the government to have some control over things such as birthright citizenship. Sources: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.breitbart.com...
Birthright citizenship.

My opponent states that birthright citizenship is "a constitutional right according to the 14th amendment". The 14th amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The key phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This means that birthright citizenship isn't guaranteed by the law, and just a simple bit of legislation passed by congress and signed by the President would be able to reverse birthright citizenship without changing the law in any given way. Birthright citizenship is not a constitutional right by default, and can easily be reversed if the leaders of the country decide against it. My opponent also suggests that deporting illegal immigrants that are anchored here by birthright citizenship is "cruel". I refute this statement. The parents of the child are fully aware of their actions and know that the act being attempted is fully illegal. Mu suggestion is that we help these immigrants obtain legal papers through the due legal processes and, if they refuse, they are deported. Sources: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.breitbart.com...