BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

I will take the position that the Bible does indeed contain contradictions I will agree to use King James Version of the Bible to avoid any confusion. 2 Kings 2.11 "As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. " John 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. " No man has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven yet Elijah went up to heaven. Taking the chronological order of the Bible into consideration, Kings was written prior to John [1] If John were written prior to Kings one could argue that Elijah ascended to heaven after Jesus ascended but as this is not the case this is a clear contradiction. Genesis 1:25-27 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. " In Genesis 1:25 through 1:27 it is clear that God created animal prior to man yet in Genesis 2:18 through 2:19 it is clear that God created man first, then created the animals and brought them to Adam so Adam could name every living creature. Genesis 2:18-19 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. " Animals were created prior to man yet man is created prior to animals. This is a second clear contradiction. I now pass this debate to my opponent. SOURCE [1] . http://ichthys.com...
Dictatorship is worse than the nazi regime

Very well, then.I'll start.The Argument of SetsNazism is Authoritarian and had a strong dictatorship. Therefore, any aspect a strong dictatorship would have, Nazism would have. In that way, Nazism is guaranteed, as a subcategory of dictatorship, to be more deleterious than a strong dictatorship.Logic: If A is always B, but B is not always A, then if all B is negative, all A is negative. However, if all A is negative, B is not necessarily all negative. In the same way, if dictatorship is bad, then Nazism is bad. However, Nazism being bad doesn't mean dictatorship is bad.So, as Nazism is in the Set that is dictatorship, Nazism assumes the position of being worse, more harmful and, finally, more "deleterious."I'll keep this short, as my opponent has yet to really say anything aside from setting up the argument.
Dictatorship is worse than the nazi regime

Obviously, given that I don't have a preset argument for me, I will form my own. My opponent, as Pro, is arguing that "strong dictatorship regime is more deleterious than the Nazi regime." Now, and here comes another statement that might be rather obvious, I must argue against this. To clarify, my argument will be this: The Nazi regime's harmful nature is greater than that of a simply strong dictatorship.The beginning of my argument will simply be that clarification. Think of it as a free move for Pro. Not for handicap reasons or anything that blatantly arrogant, simply so that I can debate this at a pace I can do so more smoothly.So, in short, your move, Pro. To state the obvious some more. :)
Dictatorship is worse than the nazi regime

I think that strong dictatorship regime is more deleterious than the Nazi regime. Because, first regime consider total control. Authority, it can be one person or group of people, control all processes of people"s life even what people must wear, how they must speak. Almost all spheres of life are under total and strong control. Also, it includes radical method of punishments as a execution and the full recovery of the property.
America's Rules of Engagement in the Middle East Were too Restricting

I somehow disagree with my friend. America has policy to intervene any country she wants to and she always pastes her opinion over a particular issue about that country. She always looks about her benefits and all. Somehow she is misusing her status of being a superpower. Now if you want something then you in return you need to pay something. That's what America is paying as the lives of her soldiers. Or may be it is trying to show the world that it is right ,whatever she is doing. Or may be America's rules of engagement are so restricting just because to gain the sympathy of world and to carry on the politics on the corpses of her soldiers.
America's Rules of Engagement in the Middle East Were too Restricting

I will be arguing that America's Rules of Engagement that were enforced in the Middle East were too restricting. The R.O.E's that were enforced in the Middle East are as follows: "The rules of engagement (ROE) put into place in 2009 and the early part of 2010 limited air and artillery strikes in the name of preventing civilian casualties, and at times called upon soldiers to restrain from firing their weapons. The report in the Washington Times indicates that, upon approaching Taliban fighters, a ground unit would often have to convince a remote commander that the threat was armed before engaging." [1] Those are the R.O.E's put simply. Con will be arguing that the Rules of Engagement enforced on American forces in the Middle East were not restricting. B.O.P is shared. First round is acceptance, followed by presenting your case, then rebuttals, and finally closing statement. Good luck to my opponent, and lets have a great debate! [1] http://rt.com...
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1H

Note: the "1F" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com........................ 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com........................ 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going. Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysical supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysical supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise they'll be nothing to debate). THEN, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable. Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Is there a God

First off, I would like to welcome you to this website. I hope that your stay is pleasant and that your first debate goes well. Remember, it is not about who is correct or incorrect, but that we discover the plausibility behind the arguments; so that we can come to truth together. I will be supplying strict rebuttals; all statements are made impersonal and are simply for the sake of the refutes in accordance to their evidence. With that said, I'm looking forward to a good debate. Onto Con.
The handicapped should be given jobs on organic farms

~~~ I will negate the resolution that the handicapped should be given labor-intensive jobs on organic farms. Contention: My argument is that the individuals presented by my opponent couldn't do the work that he proposes effectively enough to justify their hire. Rebuttals: "Ploughing: a team of wheelchair-users could be harnessed together to pull a plough behind them to till the soil. " There's no way that a team of wheelchairs could pull a plough. Ploughs are very large and heavy pieces of equipment [1]. Your typical wheelchair looks like this [2]. There's no way that a thing like that can get enough traction to pull a beast of a plough. Cripples are also very stubborn and don't like being helped. "Seed drilling: blind people could be sent into the fields with spikes screwed into the bottom of their white sticks that will create seed holes in the soil as they walk around. " This is crazy dangerous. You cant just have the visually impaired walking around willy-nilly. They would run into stuff and step on things. If you couple this with putting SPIKES on their feet your farm will be lawsuit and injury-leave city. Not to mention that blind people would not know when they were done. "Sowing seeds: ropes could be tied around the bottom of mentally handicapped people's trousers (pants) which would then be filled up with seeds. Then holes could be poked through the trouser-legs and they would be sent out to run around in the fields, thus scattering the seeds. " Everyone knows that those of a slow persuasion do not have the kind of focus required to evenly spread the seeds. We're talking about a lot of waste with this idea. Also, the mentally retarded don't understand social mores, therefore they would be very hard to direct. "Bird scaring – I don't know what they're called exactly, but you know those really mental ones that go about shouting incoherently and waving their arms about? Well simply tie them to big posts situated in the middle of the fields and they would make ideal scarecrows. " These ones are usually locked up in the loony-bin. Hey are locked up because they're dangerous. Your plan calls for giving them some semblance of freedom. This is the point where escaping becomes a problem. I personally would not want an unstable looney running around in my neighborhood. "Harvesting – Another job for the wheelchair users. This time fix bread knives to the spokes of their wheels and send them out into the fields to reap the crops. " I'd like you to elaborate on this idea. I don't see how putting knives on wheels would effectively cut crops. Even if you show a way that it would work how would they effectively gather all of the cut crops. (I typed most of this argument on my iPod. I do not reccomend ever doing this Audience. ) [1] Video of a plough in Endland . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://wwwc.mentalfloss.com...
The handicapped should be given jobs on organic farms

We all feel sorry for disabled people and that's why we are happy that the Government uses our taxes to pay their rent, buy them brand new cars to drive around in and also provide them with a generous living allowance. (1) But sitting at home doing nothing all day is unhealthy and demoralising. What the handicapped need is stimulation, dignity and companionship together with plenty of exercise and fresh air. The fact is, working on a farm will give them all of those things in addition to the pride of knowing that their wages will be paid straight to the Government in order to help offset the cost of all the state handouts they get. Now, since organic farms use no artificial fertilizers or pesticides and avoid the use of polluting farm machinery such as tractors and combine harvesters, they are very labour-intensive. That's why hundreds of thousands of migrant workers have to be shipped into the country every year in order to satisfy the demand for agricultural labour from these farms. However, the handicapped could do the migrants' jobs instead and thus relieve the racial tensions that large influxes of foreign workers create within rural communities. Here is a list of the main tasks on an organic farm together with an explanation of how the handicapped could perform them: Ploughing: a team of wheelchair-users could be harnessed together to pull a plough behind them to till the soil. Seed drilling: blind people could be sent into the fields with spikes screwed into the bottom of their white sticks that will create seed holes in the soil as they walk around. Sowing seeds: ropes could be tied around the bottom of mentally handicapped people's trousers (pants) which would then be filled up with seeds. Then holes could be poked through the trouser-legs and they would be sent out to run around in the fields, thus scattering the seeds. Bird scaring – I don't know what they're called exactly, but you know those really mental ones that go about shouting incoherently and waving their arms about? Well simply tie them to big posts situated in the middle of the fields and they would make ideal scarecrows. Harvesting – Another job for the wheelchair users. This time fix bread knives to the spokes of their wheels and send them out into the fields to reap the crops. Now, in order to implement this scheme the Government should stop issuing employment visas to migrants intending to work on farms and also make the payment of agricultural subsidies (2) to organic farmers conditional upon them employing handicapped workers. In conclusion, this scheme will be help the handicapped regain their dignity and pride, save the taxpayers a fortune and also reduce the social tensions caused by mass immigration and I therefore commend the proposal to the House. Thank you. (1) http://www.direct.gov.uk... (2) http://farmsubsidy.org...
Hydroeletric power is an effective way to produce energy. The Pros outway the Cons.

First of all you are not debating my whole case. You are only picking one section of it, upon which you can try counter. The others - well lets assume you can't debate them and agree. So back to the fish - Sierra Club is one of the oldest and most radical environmental groups out there. I hope you know, statists can be manipulated very much to suite the intended need. The statistics of sierra club are grotesque, and the dams mentioned surely don't equate to the overall production of hydroelectricity - just a few dams. As I said, the loss of a few fish enable us to cut carbon emission to nearly zero percent. On a side note* If you view my opponents comments in the "discussion section", he is obviously not very articulate, but in fact rude, and disrespectful. It is also obvious he has no idea what he is talking about. Checkmate ... padlockcode.
Hydroeletric power is an effective way to produce energy. The Pros outway the Cons.

My Opponent still stands by the resolution Hydroelectric power is an effective way to produce energy. I am still oposing this topic, My opponent stands by the fact they only kill a few fish. dams kill about 80% of the fish. Science shows us that the dams – not over fishing – is the biggest reason for the declining salmon and steelhead runs. http://cascade.sierraclub.org...
Hydroeletric power is an effective way to produce energy. The Pros outway the Cons.

Hydroelectric dams are not expensive if you consider the sustainability. The only thing expensive about them is the initial payment. They produce as much electricity as other conventional sources without the greenhouse gas emissions at a much cheaper rate per watt. > "To support a dam you have to have a constant running rivers, most running rivers now days are big tourist atractons and their is almost nowhere to build them, dams are ugly giant things that kill fish, and stop water flow." < I'm not sure this sentence is logically comprehensible, but as I said: Hydroelectricity dams have separate passageways for fish. Even if a few fish die, so what?, there is no shortage or endangerment of them. As for the tourist attractions; most plants hide there structural turbines and so forth. Once again, if you happen to see a metal blade sticking out of the water, so what? No dams today pollute their water with chemicals that produce "deadly diseases". In conclusion, seeing some infrastructure in the water or seeing some fish die, is definitely not a reason to be against hydroelectricity. Hydroelectricity is sustainable, cheap, and effective.
Hydroeletric power is an effective way to produce energy. The Pros outway the Cons.

Hydroelectric is not an effective way to produce energy i stand by my above resolution Hydroelectric dams are expensive to run, and build such dams as the hoover costed over 2 million dollars. To support a dam you have to have a constant running rivers, most running rivers now days are big tourist atractons and their is almost nowhere to build them, dams are ugly giant things that kill fish, and stop water flow. another argument i make is that dams polute the water so it is not drinkable to anybody from the turbines that spin. and chemicals have to be used to clean the water, theese chemicals have been known to cause deadly diseases
Hydroeletric power is an effective way to produce energy. The Pros outway the Cons.

HOW HYDROELECTRIC POWER WORKS: From the dam's reservoir, water is directed in pipes called penstocks through turbines. The falling water spins the blades of the turbines, which are connected to generators. There are three types of hydropower facilities - impoundment, diversion, and pumped storage. Impoundment - uses dams/waterfalls. Diversion - divert a portion of a river through a turbine. Pumped storage - when the demand for electricity is low, a pumped storage facility is often used to pump water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir. when electrical demand increases, the water is released back into the lower reservoir, passing through a turbine to generate electricity. the same water is reused many times over. PROS OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER: - Most obvious pro: renewable energy resource. Can use sea water - infinite source. - Power dams generate enough electricity to repay the cost of construction, so they do not exhaust the economy/are an affordable source of energy. Very low operating cost and highly automated. - Water can be recycled and run through the turbines numerous times. - Humans can control the source/amount of water - not unreliable, like wind, sun, etc. Power is available on demand. - Can use falling water that occurs naturally - for example, waterfalls. Therefore, there is no need to build an above-ground plant, only underground generator system. Does not ruin beauty of the waterfall - Niagra Falls is utilized for hydroelectric power and vistors cannot see any of the mechanisms. - Does not contaminate or pollute water. Water is so clean that reservoirs can also offer a variety of recreational opportunities, including fishing, boating, and swimming. - Emits extremely small amount of greenhouse gases compared to fossil fuels. - Hydroelectirc power has received green power certification as issued by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute. Each facility must pass a series of rigorous tests to make sure the CO2 is minimal CONS OF HYDROELECTRIC POWER: - Dams can block fish passage to spawning grounds or to the ocean. * Counter arguement: Many plants now have measures in place to help reduce the impact on fish spawning, creating separate passage ways for fish to pass through. - The diversion of water can impact stream flow, or even cause a river channel to dry out, degrading both aquatic and streamside habitats. * Counter arguement: Diversion facilities are becoming less and less common as Impoundment facilities, which have no negative effect on the landscape, are becoming more common. Additionally, the amount of water diverted is hardly ever enough to dry a river. The amount of power does not depend of the amount of water but on the height the water enters the turbine from. - Impact on water quality by lowering the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. * Counter arguement: Many plants are taking measures to add oxygen back into the water before the water leaves the facility. SOURCES: http://www.enviroliteracy.org...
Hydroeletric power is an effective way to produce energy. The Pros outway the Cons.

Any one can argue that the source can be bad. thats not a valid argument I do not have to argue your whole argument, as for you never said this in your resolution. and also you say that i dont answer your whole case when you are the affirmative and i am the negative you have failed to answer any of my arguments in my last speech, the only thing the aff does is comment on my rude comment and say how my sources are unreliable and question my grammer this is not an answer to my negative case. My argument is not worth the amount of problems it creates, major money damages and such from the following sources. then i argue that your evidence is unreliable and should not be accepted. A month long fish kill at Bagnell Dam on the Lake of the Ozarks killed more than 43,000 fish with an estimated value of $3.2 million, shows a report by the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC). "This fish kill will have a serious, long term effect on the paddlefish population," said Turner. "It will take many years to restore the large number of fish killed over the last few weeks." http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu... It looks like the only way to save the Snake River salmon and to improve water quality is to punch holes in four dams and let the river flow free, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said this week. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... and from the survey http://wis.dm... 83% agree with me on my case And from my tourist case earlier i will explain this now One of the main rives that go into the grand canyon was recently damed, and undamed because people had been complaining that the water level has decreased. they undamed the river for this reason wasting 21 million dollars Unless the aff can argue all my points, vote neg
Police Profiling is the right thing to do.

First of all this has nothing to do with the status of how our country is united....well i shouldn't say that but not so much, but it is more really for the protection of citizens, and the police. Statistics show that the highest crime rate in this country is highest among black males between the ages of 17-24. Majority of the crime takes place in the inner-city a.k.a. the "ghetto" and the majority of the populace living there is Black. This however is not because of the color of their skin,but do to drugs, gang violence,money,and uneducated people.....not a race. If i am a security guard at an airport and i see a suspicious man with a dirka or robe thingy on.....and he may look Arabic, sure, im going to keep an extra eye on him,not because we are racist but because i'd rather double check anybody then to let another attack like this happen again,and for the safety of the others. If we want to unite as a country , people must stop commiting unjustified crimes..(not that any are),in the meantime, for the safety of others and myself.....i am going to keep an eye out for the people or areas that are most likely to commit crimes....not because of race.....but because of fairness and equality.
Rap Battle But You Flame Yourself.

My raps were so smooth, I spoke so loudI think my speech therapist would be so proudI'm in the air. Hanging off the cloudsI won this battle and I won it for the crowdMy dick isn't long, you could just check my filesBut if we're measuring winning I have you beaten for milesI'm spitting and shaking in all different stylesThis whole crowd is loving it, I can see all their smilesI flamed myself good, you might think notBut this is the first time people might consider me hotBecause my raps have the flow, they're just like the oceanIf beating you was my job, I would get a promotion.