BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree.

Regarding clsmooths method of helping you out: I am most assuredly not a pro-welfare statist, regardless of my positions on war and the step of school vouchers toward eliminating public schools (the fact that public-school advocates are afraid of vouchers destroying their programs is very helpful in this judgment, as well as the fact that NO OTHER VIABlE PLANS have been brought to my attention.). As for Galt's position, see the position of the author who regarded him as the ideal man, and thus obviously agreed with him- Rand specifically stated that vouchers (discounts on taxes for those not using public schools, not giveaways of money) were for her like me the first step toward abolition. However, it is a moot point, I did not use the name John Galt :D To state "it can't be resolved because it isn't really known" regarding God isn't in tune with the nature of the god usually described, who as an omnipotent being would have to be able to create something more powerful than himself despite the fact that nothing more powerful than himself is possible, and is thus self-contradictory, enough for the matter to be established as a known. Arguments from ignorance are not reason, they are a fallacy :D. But since you seem to want to concede...
Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree.

I didn't realize that about the flag burning so that issue is resolved as well. However I believe that my belief that God created the world is not one that I base on emotion or feelings. My reasoning is that there are to many things in this world that cannot be explained beyond any doubt by any theory. Whether my belief and reasoning is correct or yours is correct is not something that can really be debated because nobody knows for certain if god exists. Therefore I will respectfully concede this debate. Thank you for helping me straighten out some of these issues.
Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree.

First off maybe I misinterpreted the reason why John Galt abandoned the generator, but as I understood it he gave it up because he didn't want the looters to have it. He wanted to bring them down and it would have taken longer if they had the generator. And I don't think that a law should be passed to not allow people to burn their flags. My own personal view is that burning an American flag is a horrible act, but I don't want to force anyone either way. As far as social security goes, you got me. I was flying through the survey thing and just checked it. I am going to change it right now. With the abortion thing, my own personal belief is that it is wrong. If a woman gets pregnant it is because of her own actions (The only exceptions are rape and incest) and her and her mate have to deal with the consequences. Would you argue the same point if it were a child that was already born, and then the parents decided that they did not want to take care of it anymore? Should that child live for itself? As for my Christian faith, I do not ask others to live for me and I do not live for them. It is my individual choice to believe what I believe, which I do not feel is incompatible with the ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged. I may not be as strictly dedicated to the ideals of Atlas Shrugged as you understand them, but I believe that I should earn my own way, keep what I earn, and use it to make myself happy. As you know in Atlas Shrugged, to sacrifice is a terrible thing. I do not feel that my belief in God, my decision to not burn the American flag, and my and my future spouse's decision to not have an abortion are sacrifices because they are what will satisfy my happiness. I like to view man as a heroic being, and that is why I chose John Galt as my user name. (Also……I just really like the book!)
Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree.

John Galt, the main character of Atlas Shrugged, was a man who would brook no compromise on the question of his life and his liberty. The essence of his code of action consisted of the following oath: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for mine." As a consequence, he respected property rights to the extent of abandoning the first version of his proudest invention because he didn't own the material it was made out of- yet you would presume to expropriate the material a flag is made out of and the decision of the owner as to what is to be done with it, by means of passing a law against flag burning. You would presume to expropriate the property of every producer in the name of providing for a collective retirement plan called "Social Security." You would presume to force women to live for the sake of another, and another that isn't even conscious yet at that. You would presume to hold above reason the Christian faith, which demands that man live for the sake of his fellows. What business have you naming yourself John Galt?
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

I agree we may have a weakness in politics and caring about politics but many studies show that we are far better in the workplace. A research done my CompTIA showed this: "Millennials are far more likely than Boomers to seek out training and career development, to tout their technology proficiency to employers, and to work collaboratively with and learn from tech support. They are quite proactive in developing their own careers and selling their tech skills to employers." Also, your generation has a much harder time with understanding and working new technology.
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

I think you make a valid point. I still don't feel convinced that Generation Me (that's your generation) has what it takes to become Generation We. A study comparing the same age groups of three generations concluded the following: " Millennials were less likely than Boomers and even GenXers [that's my generation btw] to say they thought about social problems, to be interested in politics and government, to contact public officials, or to work for a political campaign. They were less likely to say they trusted the government to do what's right, and less likely to say they were interested in government and current events." The study goes on to say that even in terms of environmental issues your generation makes little personal effort -- considering all the water bottles I place from the trash can into the recycling bin right next to it, I tend to believe this statement. If you believe your generation is up to the task, what particular talents, qualities and accomplishments does Gen Y have to offer?
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

Yes, I believe my generation has the ability to contribute and recover the country from your generations downfall. The parents and teachers of the generation before Gen. Y failed us in the world competition of education. Although this may be a downfall our generation has already showed contributions to society in the workforce. I have first hand experience of working with others of Generation Y and the weight of contributing to the revival of the United States has made us harder workers than any of the hippie generation.
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

My questions is simple: do you think your generation is prepared to effectively contribute to society? It seems as though a generation raised with such unrealistic and at times delusional notions of their own abilities is ill equipped to be positive contributors. Instead, complaints range from this generation's need for constant affirmation from employees/teachers/parents to a sense of "it is our right" and is thus "owed" to us. Is your generation then up to the task to be a great generation, thus proving the naysayers and doubters wrong?
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

I suppose it wouldn't be entirely fair to point out your grammatical errors as a relevant point to reinforce the 'trophy kid' syndrome. Instead, I'll focus on the blame attributed to teachers, parents and media for creating the monsters, I mean, self-indulgent, narcissists you have turned out to be. I agree with the unfairness of your situation. The economy alone warrants a great deal of concern -- none of which Gen. Y is at fault for. However, if you believe your generation must be the ones to step up and revive the economy, you'll need to take accountability of your own role in perpetuating the stereotype. It is unfortunate to hear the description of 'self-entitled' so often linked to Gen. Y. Here's hoping you can prove such critics wrong!
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

This Generation Y few up in a world of believe we can be anything we want to be. This is from the beliefs the older generation has instilled in us. The past generation bash my generation but look to us for the revival of the American economy. This generation of "lazy" people have been taught these ways by the generations before us. Our teachers, parents and media is the reason to blame for this prejudice. However throughout history the clash between generations has been ever present as a new wave of workers seek to establish them selves in society.
Millenials: "trophy kids" and naricissists

Your generation, titled Generation Y or the Millennial Generation, are notable primarily for exhibiting profound traits of narcissism and self-entitlement. Perhaps it is because of the well-meaning intention of parents and educators to encourage self-esteem, but what this child-centered approach has resulted in is a generation characterized by unrealistic expectations due to inflated ideas about their own talents. So let's hear it Millennials ... What can you say to this?
Logic Amendment

This debate is on whether to add the amendment to the Constitution: All laws shall in relation to the law's goals and in relation to other laws which are present or not be considered constitutionally valid if and only if it conforms to rules of logic. This meaning that if you apply one reason for making a law, you can't not apply it to another potential law unless you have a sound logical reason for making an exception, which would then have to be applied consistently itself. Also, what ever objectives the law is trying to obtain would have to be shown to actually happen. For example, a law against marijuana is to reduce marijuana use. If that is shown not to work then the law is unconstitutional.
Logic Amendment

Thank you. Sorry I was busy with the holidays.Boost the EconomyIf we actually were required to follow logic and hence abide by the data and the results of studies then it would solve a great deal in our economy. We could've nipped trickle-down economics in the bud once the results showed the gap between rich and poor was growing rather than shrinking and revenues were declining rather than increasing.War on Drugs Would've Ended SoonerThere is a wealth of data showing that the war on marijuana has been a failure. Allowing a court of law to examine and weigh the facts and making this court's decision binding could have ended the war on drugs a long time ago. This would've saved money, and it would've saved lives as innocent bystanders are sometimes killed by the black market or even by law enforcement making an error.We Can Base An Assault Weapons Ban On Whether Or Not It Actually WorksPeople right now argue that an assault weapons ban is a bad idea suggesting it won't actually work. By putting it right in the Constitution that a law has to be shown to work in order to be valid. Then, we can say "OK then let's pass the bill, because if you turn out to be right then the data will show it and invalidate the law." If an assault weapons ban actually would work then we should have one. Even Scalia in Heller said it wouldn't violate the 2nd amendment. Indeed, I don't know at this point what my own stance on an assault weapons ban is, I'm still researching it but it would solve a lot of problems if we could institute a ban that is automatically invalidated should the scientific data show it conclusively not to be effective.Let The Courts Decide Global WarmingGlobal warming science and its detractors would both get a fair hearing in court. The evidence for global warming is in my opinion overwhelming and the court decision would quickly put all this "skepticism" to rest and institute needed environmental regulations. And if I'm wrong and a thorough analysis of data shows that global warming is a myth, then that's fine. If that were the case then I wouldn't want environmental regulations anymore. On top of that using the court system means even if (and I think it's likely) the court ruled global warming was a real problem each regulation would have to stand on its own merits, and so the best, most effective ones would be applied and the ones that are just bandaids would not.There are innumerable other reasons. Simply, logical public policy means a better, happier, healthier, wealthier, safer America as opposed to making rules by dramatics and emotions, which is especially prevalent today and is often encouraged by the media.I do not promise perfection. No matter how logical and rigorously scientific we try to be mistakes will be made and there are often temporary blind spots in data before testing, but by relying on logic less mistakes will be made and they will be less serious and furthermore they will be more correctable. It's possible that at first data would've suggested for example that marijuana prohibition was a good thing, but by now such a law would've been repealed based on new data.
NASCAR is a sport

The definition of coordination is "Harmonious functioning of muscles or groups of muscles in the execution of movements.". That sounds like it has a lot to do with athletics. In fact coordination is the key to athletics in every sport; soccer, basketball, tennis, etc. Where do you draw the line? According to you Nascar and Golf are not sports because the athletes are not always in great shape. By this logic baseball also is not a sport since many baseball players have big guts and cannot move well. I challenge you to tell us: What other sports that are widely accepted as sports are not sports? and where do you draw the line? Are you simply trying to rewrite the definition of sports? My theory is that you look down on Nascar people. You are a snob and you are just trying to feel better about yourself by bringing it down. You could never drive Nascar, it's a sport that goes way over your head.
NASCAR is a sport

Whoever said golf was a sport? There simply isn't enough athleticism involved in NASCAR for it to be a sport. its not just a matter of strength but one of physical exertion and ability. NASCAR isn't primarily dependent on atheltic ability. Under your interpretation things like darts and shuffleboard become sports. NASCAR isn't an athletic activity. Coordination is a mental ability. There is virtually no atheleticism involved and therefore isn't a sport.
NASCAR is a sport

I didn't say NASCAR wasn't hard. Just because something is difficult does not make it athletic. Playing the guitar is hard. Taking Calculus 4 is hard. That doesn't make them sports. I couldn't step in and do it well at all. But, that doesn't make it a sport. Also, holding a steering wheel is hardly physically challenging. Out of shape middle aged guys can do it with one hand, so its hard to argue that it is uniquely physically or athletically challenging. The reason they came out sweating is because they drive hot machines in hot conditions. This equivalent to people sweating in saunas. NASCAR is in no way atheltic and therefore not a sport.
Sherlock Holmes is the best detective novel of all time

Okay I haven't read many detective novels, but I read a random issue of Nancy Drew and it was pathetic. Nancy Drew is an idiot compared to Sherlock Holmes. The Holmes' method of deduction is fascinating and almost borders on the supernatural. And as for the main character getting captured, Sherlock Holmes is too clever to be captured, and he is an adult. Can Nancy Drew live incognito for 2 years despite being a famous celebrity? Is Nancy Drew a master of disguises and can turn into anything ranging from a sailor to a priest? Can she tell the difference between 155 types of ashes of cigars, or tell the height of a person by the length of their stride? Holmes is unbeatable.
Man and the universe are in harmony.

Pro claims that the supporting evidence they gave in their first round refutes my contention regarding how we have not identified all of the universe. However, this is not true: "Universally, we have a relationship, and Man can conceive all the universe including himself" Completely false. Again, we do not know of all of the universe. Pro claims that they can aknowledge the presence of all stars, but that's pure personal speculation rather than actual knowledge. These isn't a clear idea of all planets and stars because of the overwhelming size of the universe, not to mention the fact that different properties and/or materials we aren't familiar with could exist as well. Pro has no grounds to assert this. Let's look at the remaining portion of his argument: "On this one to one basis, Man and the universe are in harmony. Where as you would respond "what?" , I understand harmony between the universe and Man, and this is what educators fail to teach. Each of our senses can help us to acquire knowledge, some knowledge can be understood only by certain senses. All knowledge can be contrasted to overall sense" He just makes bare assertions that amount to gibberish here rather than actually demonstrating how man and the universe are in harmony. Whether people are educated about this is also irrelevant. My opponent has completely failed to meet his burden of proof. Thank you.
Man and the universe are in harmony.

Con's counter lacks substance, and most of it is contradicted by the supporting evidence in my Round 1 argument. We are in harmony with the universe; that doesn't mean we can speak of every individual factor. Harmony is between the cohesive human and the overall universe, and, cannot be contrasted to only the tongue. Again, I cannot name, or speak of, every single star, but I am capable of acknowledging the premise of every star, planet and more. The expanding universe and the cohesive human are in harmony. This harmony cannot be contrasted into words, but can be acknowledged by humans.
Man and the universe are in harmony.

Astronomers do not know what 96% of the universe is made up of, so my opponent has no grounds on which to assert that we are in harmony. http://www.space.com... If we don't understand the vast majority of the universe then asserting that we can draw whole parelels between ourselves and the universe is at best a baseless assertion. Even if my opponent was correct that part of the universe is in harmony with humans (which isn't clearly explained to begin with), stating that the entire universe is in harmony with us makes no sense. For these reasons, I negate. Thank you.
Man and the universe are in harmony.

RESOLUTION: The way that each factor of our body communicates with the other factors of our body, is equal to the way the total factors of our body, or ego, communicates with the universe. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: Universally, we have a relationship, and Man can conceive all the universe including himself. On this one to one basis, Man and the universe are in harmony. Where as you would respond "what?" , I understand harmony between the universe and Man, and this is what educators fail to teach. Each of our senses can help us to acquire knowledge, some knowledge can be understood only by certain senses. All knowledge can be contrasted to overall sense. Our sense is of multiples; we can understand multiples by sense, and how the sense of them all relates to ourselves.
My 101st Debate: Universal Health Care

PrefaceThis is my 101st debate. Uchiha has been eager to get this debate done, and I look forward to taking it up with him. Hopefully I can have more luck defending UHC this time than previously. Uchiha may not accept this debate before 1:00am, DDO time, on Nov. 8th, or he auto-loses the debate. I thank him in advance for accepting, and look forward to an interesting discourse.Full TopicA just society ought to provide universal healthcare for its citizens.TermsOught - moral desirabilityUniversal Healthcare (UHC) - "refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all its citizens. It is organized around providing a specified package of benefits to all members of a society with the end goal of providing financial risk protection, improved access to health services, and improved health outcomes. Universal health care is not a one-size-fits-all concept and does not imply coverage for all people for everything." [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Universal healthcare benefits need only be extended to those without insurance, and need not necessarily be extended to those who have or opt for private schemes.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. challenging a core assumption of the resolution, arguing outside of the grounds provided by the topic, etc.)6. No trolling7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive Cases are PresentedR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeThanks......to Uchiha for this debate! I am sure it will be a fun and memorable discussion.
Mormons are Christians

So because my religion doesn't follow the creed in which you believe, I'm not a Christian? Despite the fact that we follow the teachings of Jesus in the Bible? Interpretations vary between all denominations. And, I see no other definition of Christian given by you. Just because my religion don't follow a certain creed put forward by some priests, that doesn't disqualify us. Your basic argument is that I believe Jesus Christ in a different way than you, therefore you can declare that I am not a Christian. The definition of Christian isn't "Following the teachings of Christ and all of those creeds which He didn't say". I don't really know where this despising of Mormons came from, or why its so paramount to deny us the title of Christian, but by the simplest and most straightforward definition, we are Christians.
Mormons are Christians

Mormons are not Christians. Christians believe in the Apostles Creed. It states "I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen." Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity. Therefore if they do consider themselves Christians, they are obviously heretics. Joseph Smith and his family were known swindlers, so it isn't surprising that he made up the entire religion in his head. A lot of the verses in the Book of Mormon are directly quoted from the KJV Bible.