BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

First off, thanks to Pro for holding off a day - had they not done that I'd have forfeited the debate. I'd ask the judges to award conduct to Pro for this reason.As promised, no rebuttal this round, that'll wait for round 5 and my summary.Premise of this round's argument:Jeremy Corbyn is weak on anti-Semitism within his party.Evidence comes in three parts.First, the lack of decisive action on Ken Livingtone.Second, the presence of extreme elements within the Labour Party that have come to the fore recently, and as such the logical conclusion that Corbyn's election inflamed these elements.Finally, Corbyn's comments toward Hamas and other such terrorist groups.Let's tackle them in order.[1][2]Ken Livingstone has made comments which are clearly anti-Semitic. This includes such things as his most publicised one - "Hitler was a Zionist", and further such comments which are against the ideals Jeremy Corbyn claims to stand for. The only action that was taken was a suspension of him from the party. Let's look at two examples from the two main opposing parties.First, David Ward, an MP for the Lib Dems who made anti-Semitic comments. He was immediately expelled from the party by the leader.[3]Second, Obaid Khan, who published tweets using Jew as an insult. He was also immediately expelled from the party.I'm not denying that there are certainly a few anti-Semites within the opposing parties, but where they rear their heads they are immediately kicked out. Ken Livingstone was simply suspended.Next, during the conference [5], a group known as the "Labour Party Marxists" distributed leaflets making oddly similar claims to those made by Ken Livingstone, including comparing Israel to the Nazis which is a textbook definition of anti-Semitism. They have not been expelled. No action has been taken.Finally, Corbyn's much politicised statement he made at a speech - being “I welcomed our friends from Hezbollah to have a discussion and a debate" shows that he has an incorrect attitude toward what is clearly a terrorist organisation. The defense that he uses - that this is language that you use to attempt to entice the other side to the table is weak.The conclusion that we can draw from this? Corbyn isn't an anti-Semite by any means but he and his closest advisors are weak on it. This is not acceptable in any prospective PM.R5 to be rebuttal and conclusion. Over to you, Pro.1.)https://www.theguardian.com...2.)http://www.telegraph.co.uk...3.)http://news.sky.com...4.)http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com...5.)https://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com...6.)https://www.timesofisrael.com...
Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

My opponent requested I wait at least a day so he will be able to respond and I have now done that. "It's also completely bloody nonsensical to claim that just because people can read and write that they are more likely to go to university. " That is not what I was saying. I was saying that when you have a better educated working class as you would have done by 2011 then more of them are going to go to university meaning you have more working class students. My opponent has once again failed to prove the rise in working class students entering university is due to the rise in tuition fees. If the highest tax rate is 60% it is nonsensical to claim it would effectively be 70%. It is true that Labour would cut some tax breaks but that would mean the full 60% would be paid. Not 70%. "Regarding the Stiglitz point, this is basically the foundation of most left-wing thought - that spending within the economy is a good thing. However, this isn't terribly relevant to to the motion at hand, which is whether Jeremy Corbyn will be a good PM. It's therefore not a relevant point that you're making here. " It is extremely relevant because Jeremy Corbyn's economic plan involves large scale investment, an economic strategy endorsed by Stiglitz. Whether Jeremy Corbyns economic strategy will work or not is extremely relavant as to whether he would be a good Prime Minister. You have previously argued it would not work and I was making a counter argument. My opponent earlier on presented capital flight as a certainty if Corbyn became Prime Minister. I was making the point that some very respected economists thought that increased spending would improve the economy. They also condemned the pro austerity argument and Corbyn is very much an anti Austerity politician. My opponent makes the point that the government cannot and will not spend the same amount of money on the rail as a private company as he did for tuition fees. But he offered no evidence then and he offers none now. My opponent claims that if more people are buying tickets and that is because only 3% of the ticket is actually profit. But if the railways was owned by the government then that profit could go back into the railways and the prices would be able to be lowered. This would be able to help pay for any shortfall in funding created by nationalisation. I would like to mention my opponent avoided my point about maintenance grants.
Jeremy Corbyn Would Make A Good Prime Minister

Thanks to Pro for a brilliant debate. I'm not going to really tackle the rebuttal in depth, because there's only two things that are valid.First, Obaid Khan was a Tory candidate. [1] Secondly, my opponents's arguments that other parties are "just as bad" isn't actually dealing with the issue at hand, it's just deflecting to other parties.Let me summarise the debate in three key areas.1.) Tuition fees and the university issue2.)Nationalisation/economy argument3.)"Issue of character" - and more specifically, how this is irrelevant to the debate.Tuition feesMy opponent has repeatedly alleged that I've provided no evidence that tuition fees send more working class people to university. Let me run through the argument one more time.- It can be observed that where tuition fees are introduced, working class attendance goes up.- Furthermore, in comparison to other countries where the primary schooling system is just as good and if not better including Germany and Scotland there is a noticeable difference per capita in working class university attendance-Therefore, it can be concluded that university tuition fees do significantly help in driving up working class university attendance.Let us expand further. We can surmise that because of tuition fees, the working class attendance is going up, and as such simultaneously abolishing one and introducing a maintainance grant loses the original impetus toward poor people attending university.Therefore, this is an expensive and illogical move, and a prime reason why Jeremy Corbyn would not make a good prime minister. The Opposition has clearly won on this point.NationalisationFirst, it doesn't follow that nationalisation decreases prices. The evidence, in fact seems to show the opposite - that it drives prices up and reduces quality of service. It also doesn't logically follow that nationalisations make things greener - again, the evidence suggests the opposite, and logic suggests the opposite - in that the government will wish to cut costs meaning that "green" business will be the first to go.The Proposition's assertions are negated, the Opposition have won on this point.CharacterIt is clear that there are two issues at hand here.First, is Jeremy Corbyn a man of character? We have the assertion that Jeremy Corbyn has been right in the past, and has had the courage to stand up to the government, et cetera, et cetera. This doesn't however fulfil any sort of normative judgement about whatever character is, and as such the Opposition win on this point.Second, we've heard nothing from the Proposition about how "being a man of character" makes Jeremy Corbyn in any way qualified to be a good prime minister. Therefore, the Opposition win on this point.It is clear that the Opposition have won on every point, and in the bargain fulfilled their BoP, where Prop has not. Vote Con.PS: Pro - I'd be happy to debate you in the future on almost any UK politics topic.1.)http://www.birminghammail.co.uk...
Highschool students would benefit from a longer weekend.

I would like to also clear a few things up. I am mainly talking about schools in the UK, as that is where I studied in high school and am currently studying in college, though I suppose it could be applied to schools all over the world in theory. Also, when I said they get a longer time in school overall, but a shorter time week-to-week I did not mean longer school hours. I meant, as they would have a Friday or Monday off of school to make up a 3 day weekend, they will have to make this up later on, meaning there are 52 days they are missing, and will have to attend school 52 days longer than they currently do, essentially adding another term to school time. My first argument is that an extra day off will benefit children both socially and economically. In theory, if Friday's were allowed off, high school students could spend this time socialising with friends, freeing up their Saturday which could be used to work. In the UK you can take on a Saturday job from the age of 13 [1]. You start high school at the age of 11 or 12 depending on birthdays. You can only take on a full time job at high school leaving age which is around 16 or 17, once again birthdays come in to this. Another reason an extra day at the weekend would be useful is that if exams are nearing, children will have more time to revise, or more time to relax depending on what they choose to do. Many children prefer to revise at home instead of at school. Children may also have more time to spend with their family, creating closer bonds. I would appreciate it if in this round Con made his first arguments, rebuttals and more arguments in round 3 and then final rebuttals in round 4 with conclusions. If you prefer something else I don't mind. [1] . https://www.gov.uk...
Highschool students would benefit from a longer weekend.

I accept. Pro's resolution is a syllogism:1. High school students would benefit from 4 days in school and 3 days out.2. At the same time, they get longer time in school overall, but a shorter time in school week-to-week, implying that school hours are longer, but there are less school days.-Pro has not specified any countries, so I assume Pro is arguing for every High School in the world.-Burden of proof is on Pro to defend her resolution, which must account for every high school student in the world. *I give the floor back to Pro.
The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

Im not christain and i dont want to push my ideas into your head, just saying what your fellow christains say, i dont care if its 1 day or a long one but lets deal with it...im talking about Ken Ham not Kent Hovind. the debate is Bill Nye vs Ken Ham. if you read the hebrew or english it doesnt matter it mantions 1 day, morning and evening, it doesnt sound like long period of time. here the same site refuting your arguments in great detail.https://answersingenesis.org... Exodus 31:12 says that God commanded Moses to say to the children of Israel: Six days may work be done, but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Therefore the sons of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant. It is a sign between me and the sons of Israel forever. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed (Exodus 31:15–17).Exodus 20:11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.clearly it shows it cant be long period of time, but examinig the 2 options scientifically both cant be real, they dont make any sense in scientific approach.
The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

Ok watch this debate Here this is their site (https://answersingenesis.org...) trying to explain why the earth is "6000 years old", and they are consistent because they believe actually what the bible says, its long you can read it i copying the first sentences... -----Where Did a Young-earth Worldview Come From? Simply put, it came from the Bible. Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.” Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake. God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.” For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth. Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to today. Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11.3 Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). So a simple calculation is: 5 days+ ~2,000 years+ ~4,000 years ~6,000 years ----------So you got to deal with the bible with "metaphorical" approach, or your fellow christains.
The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

You just said the Bible says the world is 6000 years old. I already addressed the issue in my first argument showing that statement is wrong. One of my links is titled "A Biblical defense of old earth creationism". I disagree with you on what "the Bible says". You have been taught an interpretation of the Bible which may or may not be the correct interpretation. When one man said the earth revolves around the sun, he was persecuted by the church (which was the government at the time) for disagreeing wroth the Bible. How about you show that the Bible says the earth is young. Let's start there.
The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

i said nothing on evolution or genesis... check his views.. actually he against the bible ALWAYS. the bible says homosexuality is wrong, he say its right. the bible says premarital l sex is wrong, he say its right. the bible says earth is 6000 years old, he says its not, the bible says God created Adam and Eve, he says humans are result of evulotion we are from apes, someone asked him is porn a sin, he is dancing around the issue. Jesus said mattew 5:28: But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." he says you can.so far from the little i read all his views are agaisnt the bible, he is trying to modernize the bible, he suits himself with the excuse "metaphorical" and not literally. you as a christian must condemn him not me. God knows how far he against his own bible.
The Genesis account, if true, excludes macro-evolution

http://godandscience.org... http://biologos.org... I saw you post that truth seeker always takes the position against the Bible when he was pro on a debate in favor of macro-evolution. I clicked on your profile and requested the debate to give you a chance to defend that position and possibly learn something new in the process that's how you got here. I contend that the Genesis account of creation and other Scripture that reference it are very non-specific. The burden of proof i carry in this debate is simply to show that the Genesis account can have an evolutionary interpretation. I don't not believe evolution took place. I have an open debate on that subject. I do not intend to prove evolution is either true or scientifically possible. With this understanding, I shall proceed with my simple argument. When reading the Genesis account, the statement for each day follows the pattern, "G-d said ... and it was so". It is really not specific to how it was made so. There is a verse in the BritHaDesha (New Testament) that says that He created out of nothing. It didn't say that He created out of nothing each day of the week. Overlooking humans, this allows for each day of the creation week to have more species evolve. To address humans, Adam and Eve could still have been created special out of the ground, independent of evolutionary processes. If what we think we observe is true, than there was a nonhuman species, the neanderthal, with which humans could breed. In fact, evolutionary theory teaches that humans and neanderthals evolved independently from a common ancestor and did breed with each other as supposed by certain similarities and differences in DNA (again, not that I believe it). In the Scriptures we see the first two children of Adam and Eve going to get wives for themselves. Cain had a wife, but we don't know from where. Was it his sister? We don't know. As for the age of the earth, some argue the science that supports old earth. If G-d used evolution, He didn't need millions of yeasts to do it. But there is plenty of evidence to show that the earth is old. That is another debate, but I'll provide a link for reading.
Santa Claus exists.

I'm "quite amusing"? That's what all the non-believers say... before they burn. You take my arguments so lightly, yet you do not understand how blind you are. Look into the light. By this I mean the Aurora Borealis lights which encircle the north pole because of the presence of Christmas magic. The Bible is sound evidence because Santa wrote it himself. And 1800 years is like a blink to Santa. The truly brainwashed people are the American parents, who have been tempted by Satan, the archenemy of Saint N. You obviously hate Santa because why else would reject his Christmas cheer all the time? Look around at everything Santa has given you: a roof over your head, a bed to sleep in at night, and yet you try to brainwash people with your skepticism! Why are you waging a war against the Creator? Beware, because if you piss off Santa, he'll $H!T in your chimney!
Santa Claus exists.

I must say that you are quite amusing btw. 1- The bible is not sound evidence (even if it is/was, it's most likely severely outdated by at least 1800 years) 2- American children don't "know" that santa exists, they are brainwashed into it. 3- I don't hate santa, I just know that he doesn't exist. How would I hate something that doesn't exist?
Santa Claus exists.

1. The Bible says Santa exists. Don't you read the Bible? The Word of God states that Santa Claus is the guardian of the happiness of children. 2. The average American six year old child knows that Santa Claus exists; are you not as intelligent as a six year old? As for the skeptical parents who believe Santa is a joke, when Santa unleashes his jolly wrath on Judgement Day, they will all perish in the pits of the far, far, far South Pole. 3. Why do you hate Santa so much? If you were to just accept Santa, your life would be a million times better. He is our Savior. He is represented in the Holly Trinity: the Father Christmas, the St. Nicholas, and the man who let me sit on his lap in the back of his sleigh fourteen years ago. He let me inside his toy bag and asked me which toy I liked best. I chose the vibrate-y one. Repent before Judgement Day and Santa will save you!
Santa Claus exists.

I have right to assume that this is a troll debate but I'll be answering like it's a serious one. Point one- "Scientists have discovered a hidden underground toy factory in the northern Polar Icecap in 1998" There is no way for me to counter this due to the fact that there is no source to it. Point two- "Santa Claus is the only logical explanation for why children receive toys on Christmas" Incorrect actually, as most people know, it's the parents who buy the presents to put under the tree. Part Three- "Santa Claus is the only logical explanation for why the cookies which are left out are eaten" As previously stated, It's the parents who eat the cookies. Point Four- "I saw Santa Claus when I was a little boy in 2000. He tied me up to a chair and did weird things to me. It was magical, just like he is" We cannot trust personal experiences in fourm of debate because of how easy it is to lie. Part five- No sources, deemed as invalid.
Santa Claus exists.

Santa Claus exists, and there is an abundance of solid evidence for it: -Scientists have discovered a hidden underground toy factory in the northern Polar Icecap in 1998 -Santa Claus is the only logical explanation for why children receive toys on Christmas -Santa Claus is the only logical explanation for why the cookies which are left out are eaten -I saw Santa Claus when I was a little boy in 2000. He tied me up to a chair and did weird things to me. It was magical, just like he is -The carcass of a reindeer with a red glowing nose was found in northern Russia in 1974
Cristiano Ronaldo is a better soccer player than Lionel Messi

In 2005, Lionel Messi Argentina to the title in the under-20 World Cup, scoring on a pair of penalty kicks to propel the team over Nigeria. In recent years, Messi has become one of the game's highest paid players, earning an estimated $18 million a year. In 2009, he steered Barcelona to Champions League, La Liga and Spanish Club titles and took home the FIFA World Player of the Year award. Born Luis Lionel Andres Messi on June 24, 1987, in Rosario, Argentina. Messi, who stands just 5-foot 7-inches, got his start in the game at the age of 8, when he started playing for the Newell's Old Boys, a team in Rosario. Recognizably smaller than most of the boys he played with, Messi was eventually diagnosed by doctors as suffering from a hormone deficiency that restricted his growth. Medication wasn't cheap: about 500 a month, and Messi's parents couldn't afford to pay for it on their own. So, at the age of 13, when Messi was offered a chance to play for Barcelona with the opportunity to have his medical bills covered by the team, Messi's family picked up and moved across the Atlantic to make a new home in Spain. Short and fast with a fierce style of play, Messi soon drew comparisons to another famous Argentinean footballer: Diego Maradona. Messi moved quickly through the ranks of the team's junior system, and by the age of 16 Messi had made his first appearance for Barcelona. He put himself in the record books on May 1, 2005, as the youngest player to ever score a goal for the franchise. That same year he led Argentina to the title in the under-20 World Cup, scoring on a pair of penalty kicks to propel the team over Nigeria. In recent years Messi has become one of the game's highest paid players, earning an estimated $18 million a year. He's justified the price-tag by steering Barcelona to a wealth of success, most notably in 2009 when the left-footer's team captured the Champions League, La Liga, and Spanish Club titles. That same year, after two consecutive runner-up finishes, he took home the FIFA World Player of the Year award. Even the great Maradona has gushed about his fellow countryman. "I see him as very similar to me," the retired player told the BBC. "He's a leader and is offering lessons in beautiful football. He has something different to any other player in the world." Off the field Messi, who got his EU citizenship in 2009, has tried to make a name for himself. In early 2010, he was named a Goodwill Ambassador by UNICEF with a focus on fighting for children's rights across the globe.To show Ronaldo is useless: http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...;Also, if my argument looks plagiarised: it is. http://www.biography.com...My opponent's entire argument was copied and pasted from the same site.