BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Renaissance was the Most Important Event in Medieval-Modern Era

(Heh, I sound like a scholar. ) However, some ground rules:My BoP will be that the Renaissance was the most important event from 700-1900 C. E (Medieval Era-Modern Era). The opposition's BoP will be that the Renaissance was NOT the most important event in the Medieval-Modern era. Important will be defined as "having the biggest impact on the world. "Medieval-Modern will be from 700 C. E to 1900 C. E. The Renaissance is the rediscovery of Ancient art, and the event that lead to new modern discoveries, such as the discovery of the U. S or Leonardo da Vinci creating some bad-*** robots. Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ARGUMENTS ONLYRound 3: REBUTTALS ONLYRound 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed. )Rules:Plagiarism not allowedForfeiture not allowedSpamming not allowedTrolling not allowedBreaking structure of debate is not allowed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points. By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Under NO circumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed. Good luck to the opposition.
Herbert Hoover, Forgotten Progressive: the 31st President Was a Big Govt. Market Interventionist

As per his comments (#4 in comment section), he said, "I will not argue that he was an all out Keynesian. I will argue that he had many Keynesian policies and that he saw big government intervention - the antithesis of laissez-faire and "doing nothing" - as a way of dealing with the economic crisis…In many aspects Hoover was a supporter of Keynesian big government (though Keynes isn't necessarily relevant to the resolution). By big government market interventionist I don't mean someone who intervenes just once, I mean someone who opposes the natural economic cycle, thinks government intervention is a good way of dealing with economic problems, and pushes for it. " Likewise, my burden will be, not to show that he was an absolute Laissez-Faire supporter, but that he took very little action and did not engage in much "big government" policy as a solution to the economic crisis. While not truly limited to just the crisis (I imagine that both of us will reference policies he stated prior to the crisis), I believe we can both agree that the crisis is the main focus of this debate, and how he handled it. While in the comments, Big Government and Small Government are loosely defined, as they are vague terms to begin with, I believe that it should be up to the voters to decide who captures the essence of them with their arguments. I would also like to quickly define some terms. Keynesian Economic – "Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. " [1] This is characterized by deficit spending in tough times, and government savings in good times (since the policies are only designed around tough times). Laissez-Faire economics – "laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies. " [2] This is characterized by reducing government action and maintaining balanced budgets on what the government does do. Since no arguing will be done this round, I will pass to my opponent. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Religious Freedom/Restoration" Law (Indiana, Texas, Idaho, etc)

"The Constitution of the United States and the Indiana Constitution both provide strong recognition of the freedom of religion but today, many people of faith feel their religious liberty is under attack by government action," Pence said in a statement after signing the bill. (http://www.npr.org...)Freedom of religion. It’s a great idea, one that I’m not going to deny. But there comes a point where it has been taken too far. The quote above is from the governor of Indiana after signing the bill himself.The only big problem that I personally have with this law is that it quickly changes to discrimination. Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.This “law” allows businesses and people to discriminate groups of people that are gay, colored, of mixed heritage, and other types of people that have been discriminated in the past. Oh, you’re gay? I don’t have to serve you, it’s part of my religion.Oh, you’re of Mexican and African American heritage? We don’t have to accept you in our community, my religion does not support that.It’s funny, gay marriage is allowed in Indiana. And all states have passed the Civil Rights Act. Especially in the situation of gay marriage; I’m not saying you have to agree with their decisions, but we have to provide people with common courtesy. I can’t yell “I hate everybody and I am going to shoot this whole place up one day” on street corners and say it is protected under the 1st amendment. I am limiting other people’s freedom, and that’s exactly what’s going on here. By businesses not serving customers that don’t agree with their religion, we are limiting their access to common needs such as dining and other products. And that’s not okay. We cannot just shun these people from our community.Oh, you are gay? You can’t come to this hospital.Are we really denying treatment of an innocent person just because the people they love happen to be the same gender?In all honesty, this law should not exist. You have religious freedom protected under the 1st amendment. Is that not enough?
"Religious Freedom/Restoration" Law (Indiana, Texas, Idaho, etc)

I am actually interested to hear why my opponent opposes a law that by her definition "prevents state and local governments from 'substantially burdening' a person's exercise of religion unless a compelling governmental interest can be proved[sic]."The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle on First Amendment grounds.Since I can scarcely think of a reason that anyone would want the State or local government substantially burdening the exercise of their religion without cause, I will let my opponent begin the arguments.
"Religious Freedom/Restoration" Law (Indiana, Texas, Idaho, etc)

You can just launch right into your debate and have the first word. This is an open debate, but I'd really appreciate an engaged debater who really cares about this topic. It would also help if they were a student or around my age (simply because I want this to be more of a looser debate with more focus on what you have to say instead of seeing which competitor can rack up the most sources) Sources are important however so if you have them you MUST (for others voting based on citing sources so it's not unfair) put them in paragraph and the link in parentheses... I'm sorry this isn't "professional" to some standards. Forgive me or turn up your nose, it really doesn't matter to me. Unless I'm breaking some kind of rule, which if that's true, inform me. I'm a goody two shoes. For example: Cheeseburgers are good (mcdonalds.com) and blah blah etc May the best competitor win ;) This law: prevents state and local governments from "substantially burdening" a person's exercise of religion unless a compelling governmental interest can be proved.
should all guns be banned

Your arguments are interesting. I will do my best to go over them and defend my case. Harm 1: My opponent brought up a good counterclaim, yet the argument stands for a few reasons. It is true that even if we banned guns, criminals could still get their hands on them. First, let me point out that this is not including the fact that we will threaten them with 6 months of federal prison and a fine of 250,00 dollars if caught carrying a gun. But that is aside from the point. Clearly, if there were no guns at all, there would be hardly any crime at all as 68% of crimes involve guns. But that's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that there would be a decrease in crime. This can be proven in that states that have guns banned have a 2% increase in murder rates and at least a 9% increase in rates of rape, aggravated assault, robbery, auto theft, burglary, and larceny. Criminals can still get their hands on guns there and a lot of time will but that does not mean that others won't. Some will be deterred by the threat I mentioned and will hand over their gun causing crime to decrease. Harm 2: It doesn't matter if firearms are not a leading cause of most deaths. There are still a good amount of people that are killed with firearms and even if it is not as large as other causes those lives still matter. It is the government's job and privilege to protect the citizens of the US. Even if it does not make a drastic difference, there would be no harm in doing so. Harm 3: Self defense if the primary reason we have guns. But if we aren't using the guns at an efficient rate, then what is the use of having them? For one, there won't be as many criminals that have guns making it where there will fewer situations when you have to deal with them. Plan: My opponent is basically saying that the threat we would make would be no more than a communist government. I'll tell you what a communist government looks like. Sending your kid to a school where they don't feel safe. Forcing your kid to go to a school where they can be shot at any point. Not being able to tell your kid that you guarantee them they will come back alive, as there have been over 1600 shootings in the US. That's a communist government. All of my advantages are reflected from my harms. So as I have addressed the harms, I have dealt with my advantages as well. Another thing. My opponent cited his source for everything at procon.org. It is a biased website that has contradicted itself many times. According to Reddit.com, it has indeed contained inaccurate information. Here is a link to the website. https://www.reddit.com...
Naruto Battle! Naruto vs Pain FOR REAL

(MC Shane "The Bridge" Instrumental) This guy is legit, he never rap about martial arts Your from japan, don't make me broke my hearts That's why your gonna die by the tsunami Like 2011 earthquake that whips you down by the HIV Let me guess, your from Sendai the mighty odyssey gets down last longer, your mom is gonna die go to the grave, tell your momma if you scared about rap if your the girl like me name Mad are u, come sit my lap Your brother Super Robot War is such a Tom Boy Pokemon is for babies, you can gave him a Toy I don't give a damn, about a West Ham This is boxing, I'm about to go Wham! Your spice girl must be like Lady Gaga it sure does mean Odyssey for the mother******g win without Mad Are a He scares about Earthquake, He scares about Raiders cause Odyssey 16-mile gets down for the traders
Naruto Battle! Naruto vs Pain FOR REAL

I guess I'll go first then. Naruto, without all the help that he got from practically everyone, would not stand a chance against pain. Naruto had quite a while before the battle to prepare, along with all the information about pain that jiraiya had gathered in his battle with him as well as all the information that konoha gathered during its destruction. If all that information had not been relayed to naruto before the battle, he would have ended up just like jiraiya. TOTALLY OWNED. On top of that, naruto showed up to the battle with a small army of toads and two shadow clones lying in wait, charging sage mode chakra. Remove the pre-battle preparations (the already summoned toads and the two shadow clones charging sage chakra at Mount Myōboku) as well as eliminate all outside help from naruto's friends and tsunade's slug, who basically gave naruto a play by play on how to fight pain and told him ALL of his abilities and how to dodge and counter them, NARUTO WOULD NOT EVEN COMPARE TO PAIN'S SKILL AND POWER. And thus, he stands no chance. He wouldn't even last as long as jiraiya did.
Naruto Battle! Naruto vs Pain FOR REAL

The battle between naruto and pain was not legit. Naruto would not had won if he had just showed up and fought pain as he was. So that's how this battle is going to go. Naruto (with all of his abilities up to the conj destruction arc) vs pain (all 6). They will simply fight as they are, no pre-battle preparations or strategy. This fight will be to the death. Naruto so cheated in the last fight. State your reasons why naruto would still win given these conditions and defend them.
subsidies/loans, not insurance

I have not "Hijacked" Anything. I have stuck to the original topic in this debate. assuming that the gov does health stuff, it should be giving loans and or subsidies instead. We are assuming that the government is doing something in the realm of Health. Your initial post is arguing for the use of loans or subsidise as you feel that loans and subsidies would be better and more cost effective. My point simply put is that loans and subsidies are inferior to other forms of government controlled health care, I have put forth the argument that subsidies and loans will in the end shift the burden of payment onto those that cannot afford it and this in turn will increase the income to debt ratio of the populace. I have in previous postings used the example of a Universal Insurance program as one alternative that would be more effective than loans or subsidies. This does not constitute anything more than arguing a point using an example. My opponent has seen fit to withdraw from this debate. She has cited not one fact regarding her argument.
subsidies/loans, not insurance

Health care is a huge profit driven machine, Subsidies or loans simply increase the profit margins for the insurance companies and place a new burden on taxpayers and the general public. The idea behind government run health care is that all citizens should have adequate access to treatment. Privatisation has broken the system. Loans and subsidies will only increase the gap between the haves and the have not. A federal and truly universal insurance program would have the potential to eliminate the greed that has caused health care costs to skyrocket while providing the treatment people actually need.
subsidies/loans, not insurance

assuming that the gov does health stuff, it should be giving loans and or subsidies instead. the problem with insurance is that it's a hand out to the insurance companies. instead of copaying the poor who can't afford insurance and giving, the the gov should simply subsidize either the catostophic situations, or if the gov does it, co pay at the doctor too. or loan money in both situations, that doens't have to have interest perhaps, or paid in a specfically fast way. this would be much more cost effective.
God Doesn't Exist

So, a Calvinistic Christian would say no, God is sovereign and He has a greater plan. Here's what I'll say: If you are familiar with the story of the Garden Of Eden then you know that we, as humans, chose sin. We gave Satan power and he uses it. Satan DOES all the crappy stuff, God allows it because we chose it. But God also knew we would need a Savior, so He sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us so that after this life we could live in eternal happiness with Him (the way He had originally intended for it to be).
God Doesn't Exist

To give you some context as to where I'm coming from, I am a Christian. I do love God and I love to talk about to Him. (so thank you for starting this debate) Most of these debates end with, "How can you prove it?" So, I want to start there and then move on. So this dude that lived a while back was killed ( yes, Jesus (bear with me :))) Everyone saw it, He was stabbed through the heart with a sword. He was dead. Three days later some of His friends and family claimed to see Him. Everyone kinda assumed they were losing it because, you know, grief can do that to a person. But over the next 40 days over 500 people said that they too had seen Him. Even people who had supported His crucifixion. Why would they lie about seeing Him after He had died? He also did a whole bunch of pretty lit miracles. These have likewise been verified by multiple sources. Also, the Bible has been proven to be true time and time again, so why would they only lie about Jesus? I would like to ask you a questions, what do you believe in and why? :)
God Doesn't Exist

So I actually disagree with your first paragraph... Just because God exists doesn't mean that life will be perfect. In no religion is that the case. While God can be in full control He chose not to be. Imagine being Him, would you rather people choose to love you or be forced to love you. He gave us one rule, don't eat the fruit of that tree. Pretty simple, but we ate it. We made a choice. Now why did He give us that choice: I can't say for sure but from what I've read in scripture who wants a bunch of robots bowing down to their creator. Not everything has a simple answer and so these questions are important ones... so important that they divided the church in half. Calvinist vs. Protestant. Sometimes when looking at Christianity, you have to simply look at the core of it, see if you agree and then do your best to see what the rest of the Bible is trying to explain. I have really enjoyed this conversation and would love to continue it in whatever forum you prefer. :)
God Doesn't Exist

Assuming you have agreed to my definition of God, he/she/it WOULD maintain an evil-free existence by definition, he/she/it wouldn't give us free will or the freedom to sin but GOOD will or God's will. No hell, or no Earth, just heaven. And to let you know about what I think the purpose of life is, as a gnostic atheist who is majoring in cognitive science, I believe that we live in a fallen world because we live in a godless world. But do I want a God to exist? Absolutely, which is why I think the purpose of life in a godless world is to try and build a god so the heavens are brought down to Earth and hell is extinguished, so to speak, hence a technological singularity. That is my "theology" btw, I think putting God in the past is putting the puddle before the storm. I however have no faith, only hope since I don't know if it is possible to build a God just yet. Messege me if you want to continue the discussion in private or public.
God Doesn't Exist

I'm a little unclear as to what exactly you are asking but yes I do believe God COULD make a perfect, evil-free existence. I also believe He has. Hear me out: when you were younger and you did something wrong your parents would punish you. In the same way we (or at least the Bible says we) chose to sin. So this (sin and evil) is our punishment. But, because God loves us He HAS made an evil-free life for us (heaven). This life is so short when compared to eternity. This life is kind of like a time out. I really hope I'm answering your question and I'm sorry to have frustrated you. :)
The Biblical account of Noah's Ark is false.

For my first point, I argue that most aquatic life would die, because of the salt water mixing with the fresh water. This would kill any aquatic life that could only survive in one kind of water. Secondly, I question why Noah would have to send a dove to find land. If he and God were on speaking terms, why didn't he just ask God? It would be faster, easier, and possibly more reliable than the dove. Thirdly and finally, according to Genesis 7:19, God said that the flood waters would cover the mountains by a depth of 50 feet. The altitude of the waters would be 29,055 feet. Noah, his family, and the animals would all either freeze to death or suffocate at that altitude. I welcome my opponent's rebuttals.
The Biblical account of Noah's Ark is false.

I have more arguments, so I will use this round to use those. I ask the question, what would the animals have to eat after the flood? All of the plants would be wiped out by the flood, so the herbivores could not have eaten, and every time a carnivore ate an animal, they would make an entire species go extinct. Secondly, according to Genesis 8:20-21, Noah sacrificed clean beasts to God as thanks for letting him survive the flood. However, according to Genesis 7:8-9, Noah was to take only 2 of every animal, so by killing an animal, he would make an entire species go extinct. Thirdly and finally, how did the animals get back to their habitats after settling on the mountains of Ararat? I welcome my opponent's rebuttals to my arguments.
The Biblical account of Noah's Ark is false.

NOTE: When I'm quoting something, I may be paraphrasing, even if I use quotation marks. My opponent asserts that speciation could have occurred. I did not take this into account, and I admit that my opponent is right in this aspect of his opinion. I thank my opponent for this thoughtful rebuttal, and I will move on to his other rebuttals of my arguments. My opponent, while not agreeing that "Noah's ark is 'suspiciously' similar to the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh", agrees that they "share striking similarities". I thank my opponent for being intellectually honest and acknowledging this. However, my opponent asserts that he finds the Genesis version more plausible, because of the dissimilarities. I don't know how my opponent came to this conclusion, but I'll move on. In addition, my opponent asserts that Noah's Ark may have been a result of oral tradition, and that they may have come from a common source. As for the former, I argue that Noah's Ark was a result of oral tradition, but I also argue that this only weakens my opponent's argument more. If the story of Noah's Ark came from oral tradition (which I believe it did), then many details would have probably been distorted. The version of the story we have in Noah's Ark would probably be at least somewhat different to the initial flood myth it originated from, so it would be impossible to know what the story was originally. My opponent also argues that the common source could have been the flood itself, but I disagree. I ask the question, why would God have Noah's flood occur, then have the flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh be written, then have the story of Noah's flood be recorded? Why would he have the false flood myth be recorded first, if it would mislead us? Thirdly, my opponent argues that when God told Noah to bring 2 of every animal, he meant at least 2 of every animal, not exactly 2. However, I ask the question, why wouldn't God, already knowing how many animals would be needed, just tell Noah that 7 of every clean animal, 7 of every bird, and 2 of every unclean animal in the first place? And now, I will make 2 main points, as I have already made my counter-points to my opponent's assertions. First of all, going on the issue of the clean and unclean animals, I argue that Noah could not have even known which animals were clean and which were unclean, because the cleanness of certain animals was not defined until the writing of Leviticus. Finally, according to Genesis 8:8-11, Noah sent forth a dove to find land, and it returned with an olive leaf, indicating that land had been found. However, I argue that the flood would have wiped out any olive trees, so no leaves could have been found. There could have been seeds that survived, but it would have been impossible for them to grow leaves within a week.