BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the universe had a beginning

what was there before the beginning: Go back further still, beyond the moment of creation"what then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? The same astrophysicist notes that some scientists, including Hawking, have begun considering the so-called multiverse theory. This theory accepts that our universe is finite, but it suggests that ours is just one of many universes. The whole multi-universe may be eternal, according to this theory, even though our particular universe is not.until the late 1910"s " those who didn"t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.The Genesis account of creation and the big bang theory both speak of everything coming from othing. Suddenly the Bible and science agree (a discovery somewhat embarrassing to materialists). Smoot admits, There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing. The evidence had begun to add up, and some scientists weren"t liking the sum
the universe had a beginning

The beginning of the universe was the beginning of time. There had to be a beginning. If there was no beginning, there would be no middle, no end, and that means we would be stuck in the absence of time. Time goes one way and that is forward. With no beginning, there is nowhere for time to move from. Saying there was an infinite amount of years, means that there would have to be an infinite amount of years to get to today. That means today would never have come. Infinite- Having no boundaries or limits With no beginning, there can be no middle, and no end. Now here"s an example. Let"s say I am 1 mile away from my school. That means I am 1 mile away from my school and that it is possible to get there. Now let"s say I am infinite miles away from my school. That means it would be impossible to get there.
Barack Obama isn't that bad

Ok, so Here's why Obama is a very bad president- Obamacare- Why should half the population hate a law if if's ok? "He continuously reaffirmed that that was the case, despite the fact that more than half the population thought the bill was in violation of the constitution. * When it came time for the court to decide whether it lived or not, the President's lawyers argued that it was legal because it was a tax and congress has the power to tax people." National Debt-Over doubled in a few years. "We've accumulated more debt in the past 42 months than all of the previous 232 years of this republic. That's impossible to overlook." Unemployment- It has been increasing since he first took office. Dishonesty- He has lied about many things that were clear lies. http://sos.tblog.com... Now, on to my favorite reason- Freeing of terrorists- Obama freed 5 terrorists in exchange for ONE traitor. http://conservativetribune.com... Good luck to my opponent
Barack Obama isn't that bad

Barack Obama isn't a bad president considering all the other people this country has put in the White House. Many say that U.S. interference in Afghanistan and Iraq was Obama's fault, but it was actually started by Bush. People complain about him spending trillions on the war, but in truth, Bush used uncharted funds that were never documented. Also, If Obama had removed all U.S. troops in the Middle East, Afghanistan's government would've collapsed a few months later. They were still in the gradual state of repair, and they needed somebody to guard the border while they reconstructed the country. (Al Qaeda/the Taliban would have attacked earlier if the U.S. hadn't been there.) Another bad presidential candidate was Mitt Romney. He was pro- rich, pro- 1%, and pro- discrimination. He wanted to shut down Planned Parenthood because he didn't want abortion. Planned Parenthood provides free STD testing and care. He won't kill a bundle of cells, but he will kill teens suffering from STDs.
The United Nations is a useless organization in that it does not live up to its mission statements.

I'm not saying that what's happening in Syria isn't a tragedy, because there is no denying that it is. In every single way shape and form it is. But you're original statement was that the United Nations was useless and now you've started to argue the merits of what's occurring in Syria? The reason the deaths by chemical attacks have caused so much more of an uproar so to speak is because it breaks one of the rules of war. Murder by guns, knives and other forms of assorted violence happen every day. I'm not saying its a good thing, but it doesn't resonate to the level that a chemical attack does. Think of it like this, the reason every is putting so much emphasis on it know that there is chemical weapons involved are very important. One Is because noone wants a repeat of the holocaust which was truly a horrific event that claimed the lives of too many people. Also, these chemical weapons pose much more of a threat to our safety than a few guns and knives do. It has obviously become very clear that the people of Syria can't resolve this situation themselves, but involving every country in the United Nations is not a good idea. Once we form alliances and bonds, as soon as one nation is attacked, that sets the stage for another world war. And yes each country has its own agendas, but the safety of their people as a whole has to come first. I honestly don't know if this situation can be resolved peacefully, but I believe it's in our best interest to try. I f we resort to violence and think we fix this problem, we could just as easily be putting a proverbial band aid on it. Whose to say a few years later the Syrians won't have another issue with their government, and blame the results on the actions that we took. People like al Assads group won't think twice before acting against there own people if we wipe them out because they'll all be gone. But then they will become martyrs for every wannabe terrorist out there. Believe me I'm not saying we should let these actions go unpaid, but hate can't solve what it began. We need to get the whole of the United Nations together to come up with a more peaceful solution that will end that tragedy and not put other countries in harm. Maybe then people will start to have faith in the system again.
The United Nations is a useless organization in that it does not live up to its mission statements.

Lets not forget that the Syrian uprising has killed over 100,000 of its country's men, women, and children in the last 2 years. A reported 1,400 of these deaths are caused by chemical attacks. Yet chemical attacks continue to be the only basis right now as to why the UN is actually doing anything about it. Meanwhile knives, guns, and bomb explosions still account for the remaining 98.6% of the casualties. Chemical weapons should not be the reason to intervene in Syria but intervention should be a must, its in no way a small issue. The people of Syria have demanded the al-Assads' resign from power since Hafez al'Assad (Bashar's father) took presidency back in 1971, and as well as the Ba'ath party who have remained to dominate its people since 1964 via a coup d'etat. What were minor peaceful demonstrations in response to the "Arab Spring", government corruption, and human rights abuse were quickly shut down as the Syrian army open fired on unarmed protestors in the middle of the streets; torturing prisoners, unwarranted arrests, and countless other atrocities. This didn't stop the Syrian public from continuing their quest for change, and thus Al-Assad began launching large scale military operations on towns and cities of these protestors. There is no question that the UN should interfere with Syria, but the issue becomes about economics and politics. Then the economic side is that the Iraqi war cost about 4 Trillion USD and the money isn't there for another war. Looking back at Iraq, Hussein's atrocities were much worse than Assads (killing 220,000 children in his camps alone, using chemical weapons, etc.), and look how little support Bush/Blair got when they went into Iraq. Not only that but the opposite political parties used the war as an attack point against Bush/Blair during the next terms election as and these were major issues both political parties aren't in power any more. I admire Obama for wanting to go into Syria, as the Democrats are going to get hit hard next term about this decision and I think he is relieved that the congress overturned him because he wanted to did the right thing. The issue boils down to this: 'Is the UN doing enough?'. No they are not, I know that the countries each have their own underlining agendas. Russia is allied with Syria which is probably the next biggest threat Israel has, with the first Iran; and US is obviously going to protect its interests in Israel. The United Nations should be exactly that.. A united group of nations, agreeing on the same decision when such atrocities happen. And mind you, I'm not a trigger-happy war freak but the UN should use force when necessary. It will show that the U.N. really lives up to its treaty's, that the people in need can depend on them, and so that regimes like al-Assad's will think twice before acting against its own people.
The United Nations is a useless organization in that it does not live up to its mission statements.

Although what you are saying does make sense, the United Nations doesn't just have to help solve every small problem that every country has. And that comes back to us, countries that aren't directly affected by the conflict in Syria shouldn't be expected to rush and risk their safety for those who are. That will just turn this conflict into something much larger than it already is. Also, one of the main purposes of the United Nations is to develop a strong relationship among countries. So maybe were not solving every issue right away, but were building the basis for ties to other countries that could help in the future. Furthermore even if every country doesn't agree on every topic that is being brought up, they are still being heard. The main reason that the majority of wars start Is due to lack of communication. Before a country goes to war usually thingy will pull their representatives out of that countries embassy. The United Nations makes it so that every nation has a chance to have their issues heard and eventually resolved in one way or another.
The United Nations is a useless organization in that it does not live up to its mission statements.

The United Nations is a useless organization in my opinion. I feel that after its founding immediately after World War II in 1945, its mission to maintain order, peace and security amongst the worlds nations and population have resulted in complete failure. The U.N.'s main objective in its formation was to defend human rights and promote better living standards, which on the contrary has turned a blind eye to. The 192 countries in the U.N. have merely used the council as a forum for debate, more often than not having split opinions on several topics throughout the years. Furthermore, majority of these nations act as if hindered by more dominant / militarily stronger / politically backed countries, such was the case when the USA declared his war on terror; literally throwing the statement "You are either with us, or against us". And we all know what disaster that proved. In cases where the decision on situations isn't as unanimous, we always see conflict increase, either amongst the UN or the situation itself worsening. Such is the case with the current events taking place in Syria, with most of the world literally split between having to choose between the Russian Federation's solutions, and the leading western nations solutions. The UN is weak in that the separate countries listed in the organization are not willing to get their "hands dirty" with conflict because they themselves have conflicts of their own. I will cut this short as I know there will be a response shortly; but may I remind that it is the obligation of the strong to help the weak in dire crisis. In Syria, there is much hesitation to this which is ridiculous.
The Burden of Proof is on Pro.

1st off, Pro fails to provide us with definitions or rules. He never stated that Con *couldn't* come up with the topic. He never asserted a argument for him to uphold his BoP. 2nd of all, Pro concedes the debate by saying "I never said the burden of proof was on me to prove that I am god. Con asserted that. Therefore the burden of proof is on Con to prove that I said that as well as the burden of proof is on him to prove that it's not on me."
The Burden of Proof is on Pro.

The burden of proof is on the person that asserts the statement. I have asserted the statement. Therefore I have the Burden of Proof I never said the burden of proof was on me to prove that I am god. Con asserted that. Therefore the burden of proof is on Con to prove that I said that as well as the burden of proof is on him to prove that it's not on me. I would like to ask Con to show me a picture of a cat cuter than this.
9/11: All conspiracy theories about 9/11 are painfully false.

I appreciate your arguments. Although the arguments are very sound and source traced, I wonder the validity of these sources. That is, some of the sources, or the sources where my opponent's sources came from, may have been either made by government funded researchers to purposely aid in covering up the true facts. My sources are directly from the manufacters of the steel used in the buildings, the manufactors of the airplanes, expert demolition crew members, and eyewitnesses. The manufactors of the steel said that their beams were tested to take in excess of the peak temperatures of the fires inside the world trade center buildings. Boeing says that the pictures and videos of the second WTC plane did not fit the appearence of their airplanes. Expert demolition crews say that a controlled demolition would look very similar, and a few things can be done to completely destroy, or keep something in tact. Also, consider this: Since the 1993 bombings of the WTC, there has been bomb sniffing dogs patroling the buildings every night. A few months before, parts of the buildings were closed off inside for construction. The areas of construction changed for those few months. And a couple months before the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center, the bomb sniffing dogs mysteriously stopped, not doing a single patrol. Also, the four planes involved all have a documented landing on the days of the attacks with a no incident report for each one. Also, some of the supposed planes in the attack were big planes, but with a small amount of passangers. When airlines have a low amount of passangers, they will not fit them in a plane that is meant to take double the capacity of the plane. They would compensate and make them smaller.
9/11: All conspiracy theories about 9/11 are painfully false.

If anyone out there believes an alternate reality of the events of 9/11 and thinks they can prove it, I challenge you. If you believe the US government was behind it, it was a controlled demolition, there were no planes, it was a space beam, Larry Silverstein did it, or it was done so we could go to war in the middle east, or any other crazy theory, please prove it.
Psychiatry(pro) versus con's career of choice

My opponent has yet to offer any rebuttals yet, I suspect they will in the last round, as that is all the last round should be used for, as agreed upon. Though, I suppose they may just use it for conclusions, but I would recommend they do some rebutting in that round, otherwise they will be at a disadvantage since I've already done rebutting, and will do so now. RE: Forbes article and earning a lot of money as a copywriterIt should be noted that the forbes article says "sometimes getting paid as high as $1 per word for blog posts." As the information I provided shows, the average salary a copywriter makes is $47,000 a year. Sure, there are a few who make 6 figure incomes, or 7 figure incomes, but they are such a small minority. They are outliers. You're much more likely to have a 6 figure income as a psychiatrist, as the 25th percentile even gets a 6 figure income for psychiatrists. I don't really see any other claims in this round by my opponent that make a copywriter seem desirable. A lot of it was spent on showing how copywriters are different from editors, but that doesn't really tell us why copywriters are a good thing, or better than a career in psychiatry.It should be noted that my opponent hasn't explained why copywriting is better than psychiatry, which would be something that would bolster their argument if they did do that. Anyways, due to that I don't really see anything else to rebut, I will end my arguments here.
Psychiatry(pro) versus con's career of choice

I am challenging hawaiianxx to this debate. I would like Hawaiinxx to comment on this debate what career they are choosing to argue for, so that I may update the topic to reflect their specific career of choice. Please don't accept the debate until I've updated the debate to reflect which career you're arguing for. I would like to make my opening arguments in round 1, but in order for me to do so, I will need to know which career you are arguing for, Hawaiinxx. Rules of debate1) No ad hominem, personal attack, or insults, be civil. 2) The first round used for argument should not contain any rebuttals, so since I am posting arguments first, con shouldn't post rebuttals to this argument in round 1. They will get to do so in later rounds, just as I will3) The last round(round 4) should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this round, but new statistics and facts can be brought up, only in rebuttal though.If any of the above rules are violated, this is justification for voters to give the point in conduct to the one who didn't violate the rules.
People should not have the right to carry, buy, or keep guns.

UM, I NEVER SAID THAT POLICE OFFICERS CANT HAVE GUNS!Do you even read my arguemnts?In my second mandate I say this-"Guns will only be able to be obtained by police officers or other law enforcement branches with consent from either the chief of police or the head body of that organization. "This says the police officers get their guns, but the unstable ones or the ones that can't do their job will not be allowed to keep their guns.So in other words, every police officer gets a gun. Only those that can no longer do their job will not keep their guns.Today, police offficers are dissmised if they cannot do their job.So there goes pretty much all of your arguments...U still haven't covered ANY of my argumets or my CLEARLY stated two main assumptions.I don't need to back up any of my arguemts because you haven't torn them down.
People should not have the right to carry, buy, or keep guns.

okay, i think i get it now. I do see some things wrong with your bill. Your bill takes away guns from people, as well as lower class police officers,(unless consented from a higher up source grants them)but their have been many cases where a smaller amount of police officers have come across a much bigger amount of thugs. Guns give the police a big advantage, but if you take away the guns, the police lose a lot of protection. And though the bill will create a unit to confinscate guns, their will always be illegal sales of guns. So police will not only be going against unarmed people, but also people armed with guns, while they have close to nothing. For example, around last year uprising in baltimore had a huge problem with riots and uprisings. They called in about 1,000-3,000 police officers to help. Thousands of people were rioting, and some people and police were hospitalized. ~http://www.cnn.com...~ If the police didnt have guns, they would have probably been beaten and killed. Their have also been many terrorist bombings from ISIS and some unknown groups. Police would have a extremely hard time keeping control and diminishing these types if things without guns. The bombings and killings would also become more likely.
People should not have the right to carry, buy, or keep guns.

First of all, id like to say that in the fourth&fifth round is when i will try and disprove his bill. For now i will simply give my argument. I disagree with the bill. I will state facts why. in 2013, 33,804 people died from motor vehicle traffic accidents " and 33, 636 died from firearms. With your way of thinking, should we not then try to ban cars? They are dangerous and can easily kill us. Guns may be used as a form of offensive strikes. But they are mainly used as a form of defence. People also use guns as tools to hunt, without guns, how would that happen? Our food rates may even go down. I propose a diffrent bill. Every person that ownes a gun should get a card, much like a credit card. But the diffrences is that everyone time someone buys a gun or bullets, he swipes his card. The card registers the gun and how many bullets one person buys. Every single person is only allowed to buy so many bullets a month. The card would register it. So whenever someone is in question of their guns and bullets, their card may be swiped by the police. It also holds ones gun permit. If the police find a gun on someone, they can scan the type of gun and the guns serial number, and find who owned it. Then they can investigate. Along with that, every year a gun owner must do a stress test.(a stress test, as it says, tests ones stress, allowing them to tell if the person gets angry easier.) If ones stress test it too high, their guns can get suspended for a time until the pass the test.
swag is sooooo lame

"Swag. A copycat of wanting to be A gangster or a rebel. " Non-sequitur and bare assertion. "Swag. Many people, like you, uses swag to prove a point showing their ignorance and lack of intelligence. " Non-sequitur and bare assertion. "See how I'm using swag over and over again? " I see. "It's getting old like the people who uses it and its really annoying. " Stop using the term then. "Swag can't get you a job, maybe McDonald's but you have low expectations there. Who even wants to have their pants of their bottom or baggy clothes? " Who said swag involved baggy clothes necessarily? "Acting uncivilized shows a really sorry person and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get that. " Who said having swag was uncivilized? I forfieted one round by accident, but the other two rounds were not supported by anything and I clearly showed this. Regardless of one's personal choice on the issue, this debate is not leaning in my opponent's favor.
swag is sooooo lame

Swag. A copycat of wanting to be A gangster or a rebel. Swag. Many people, like you, uses swag to prove a point showing their ignorance and lack of intelligence . See how I'm using swag over and over again? It's getting old like the people who uses it and its really annoying. Swag can't get you a job, maybe McDonald's but you have low expectations there. Who even wants to have their pants of their bottom or baggy clothes? Acting uncivilized shows a really sorry person and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to get that.
swag is sooooo lame

Pro is Con, and Con is Pro (the starter of this debate clearly made an error). I got swag becaused I'm swagged out. Swag is not lame because I am not lame, and I have swag. The starter of the debate clearly is not swagged out; as he cannot even tell the difference between Pro and Con. For this reason, he is envious of those who are swagged out so he claims swag is lame. If swag was lame, he would not be envious of those with swag. The resolution has been NeGaTeD............Swag.