BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul is a God

Since God has many definitions, and you did not clearly define what God was in this debate, I took it as I saw fit. For that reason, I don't need to respond to your points. I only needed to define the word God and put it to use in a way where Ron Paul can be a God. But because you are so insistent. .. According to the Bible, Jesus and God are one. 1. )He was born to a mortal mother and father. - Jesus was born to a mortal mother. (If you believe in Christianity) 2. ) All of his awesome-ness, although hard to conceive, probably could be replicated by mortals. - Jesus was mortal. Does a God necessarily have to be mortal? Again, it's open to interpretation. 3. )Although he has helped the creation of more than 4000 humans, there is no evidence that he ever did so solely on his own. - This is if you believe in monotheism. Many people believe in Theism, in which case there are more than one God, each God representing different things. Not all God has to create human life. God of Water, God of Fire, God of War, God of the 2008 Presidential election, etc. 4. )How could he have created the universe before he was born. Again, you clearly leave out the possibility in the belief of Theism. What about Greek Mythology where the God's where born from other God's after the creation of the world they lived in? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My reference to you saying that "Ron Paul is the pwn. " is to point out that you believe he is supreme as well as I. As for opinion, I disagree, Opinion IS everything. There are many different beliefs about God and Religion. But that is an entirely different debate. .. It is not a question of support, look at the the different religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Although they believe in the same God, they believe in different ways of worship, prophets, etc. Is one of them more right than the other because they garner the most support? I don't think so, it's a matter of a persons own belief. And if one wanted to believe in Theism, they could say that Ron Paul is the God of Freedom, Liberty, etc. And for the polls, I do know what I am talking about because I have recieved phone calls as my mother is a registered Republican, they have listed Ron Paul as other! You did not state where you source for the poll was, therefore I can not be held responsible. In all though, it's irrevelant because the most support does not determine which God(s) is/are correct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TWO MORE THINGS: YOUR TITLE FOR THIS DEBATE COUNTER YOUR POINTS, ALL YOUR REFERENCES POINT TO MONOTHEISM, BUT YOUR TITLE IS "RON PAUL IS A GOD. " IF YOU HAD WANTED TO TALK ABOUT JUST ONE GOD, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID "RON PAUL IS GOD. " YOU DIDN'T, THEREFORE THIS DEBATE SHOULD BE ABOUT THEISM. I realize this is a silly debate, and Ron Paul wouldn't want to be referred to as a God. :). That is all.
Ron Paul is a God

Your argument was quite muffled out, so let me show you, and the audience what you implied. Pwn = God Huh?!?! Whenever I win a debate, do I become a god? 'Nuff said... or not... Your whole argument is based off the idea that opinion is everything. However, this absolutely not true. What we must look at, is how many people support him, and if there is truly enough support for him to be the "highest", and most "maximal in degree", therefore allowing him to be supreme, and therefore a God. I put out the 9% statistic, and how my opponent attempted to counter argue, was by saying that he wasn't listed. However, he was. I was referring to future markets who are completely unbiased and clearly include Paul. What my opponent did here, was to blankly utter out statements in which he had no idea what he was talking about. Don't do this again in the debate, or future debates. Please. A note I'd like to point out at this time, is that my opponent has yet to address all but one of my five arguments. We are standing at a standstill because of this, and I do apologize for my short response. This is where the debate stands: ï¿½ My opponent has failed to bring but one argument to the table, clearly defeated by the above. ï¿½ My opponent seems completely unaware of four of my beginning arguments. He appears to be stalling. ï¿½ Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn.
Ron Paul is a God

Again dictionary.com gives for the word "supreme." 2. of the highest quality, degree, character, importance, etc. Which is open to a matter of opinion based on a persons own beliefs. You have stated yourself "Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn." By saying this, you have agreed that Ron Paul is in fact of the highest quality of the 2008 candidates. Therefore making him the God of the 2008 candidates, or presidential election as I stated prior. As for the polls, the phone polls often don't even list Ron Paul's name and define him as "other." And usually they only phone Republicans. Ron Paul has a lot of support from independents and democrats making the polls very much open to mistakes. (We will see on the third!) Bottm line, God is open to interpretation, therefore what God is; is also open to interpreatiton. And by the defintion I gave for "God." that you did not define in the beginning, in my interpretation Ron Paul is in fact the God of the 2008 Presendtial election. Now admire my photograph with Dr. Paul and succumb to defeat. :P. lol.
Ron Paul is a God

Perhaps it was foolish of me to not clearly define the word "God" as the instigator of this debate. I was actually referring to the word when it meant something to the effect of, "The creator of the universe; All-knowing; All-seeing; All-capable; etc." However, that being said, it is still fairly easy for one to argue that Ron Paul is not a "God", even in the terms of, "a supreme being according to some particular conception". A few glaring words shined, almost burning my eyes, asking me to study them. One of those words was "supreme". Princeton defines the word as: ï¿½ greatest in status or authority or power ï¿½ highest in excellence or achievement ï¿½ greatest or maximal in degree; extreme Acknowledging that consensus has been on the grounds that Ron Paul is the best candidate, it is not necessarily so that he is the most supported. In other words, a fine postulate it is to know that Ron Paul is the best candidate, but for a supreme to be supreme, we learned that he must be the "greatest", the "highest", the most "excellent", and the most "maximal in degree". Putting it simply, if Ron Paul was truly "supreme", he would be supported by many more fellows like ourselves. The fact that the highest, un-internet conducted poll only gives him a 9% chance, does not help his case. Secondly, what my opponent failed to do in his last round, was to give any notice to my arguments above. This puts him way behind in the debate, and gives my a head start. This is where the debate stands: ï¿½ My opponent has failed to bring but one argument to the table, clearly defeated by the above. ï¿½ I have brought four basic arguments to the floor that my opponent seems completely unaware of. ï¿½ Both my opponent and I have come to the conclusion that Ron Paul is the pwn.
Ron Paul is a God

Ron Paul was born August 20, 1935 in Green Tree, Pennsylvania to his mortal mother and father, Peggy Paul, and Howard Paul. In the same year of 1957, Paul graduated Gettysburg College with a bachelor in biology, and married Carol Wells. They presently have five children, and eighteen grandchildren. In 1961, he attained a medical doctorate from Duke University School of Medicine, in Durham, South Carolina. He was then drafted, and between 1963 and 1965, he served as an active duty flight surgeon during the beginning of the Vietnam War where he achieved the rank of captain. After service, he came back home as an ob/gyn at numerous hospitals delivering more than 4000 babies. His first stable political job began in 1978, as a representative for Texas' 22nd district. In 1984, he ran for senate but lost. He returned as a full time doctor. Then, in 1988 he ran for president as a libertarian, but not so surprisingly, he lost. Since, then he has been in and out of congress. Paul has never voted to raise taxes, believes that we shouldn't bomb other countries, believes in a stable budget, and is a strong constitutionalist. He has practically swept almost all of the online polls, won numerous text-in votes conducted by FOX after the debates, has authored more than ten books. But. Although definitely the best candidate. It is my strong belief that Ron Paul is not a God. ---- Here are some of my strongest points summarized: 1) He was born to a mortal mother and father. It is my belief that there is not enough evidence to prove he is a God. 2) All of his awesome-ness, although hard to conceive, probably could be replicated by mortals. 3) Although he has helped the creation of more than 4000 humans, there is no evidence that he ever did so solely on his own. 4) How could he have created the universe before he was born.
We shouldn't fear the feeling of fear

This is ridiculous. Saying we shouldent fear is like saying a fish shouldent swim, fear is an instinct that has been fine tuned in our brains via natural selection and evolution over millions of generations, and for good reason too. if we never feared anything then we would be more prone to taking non required risks and making rational judgement, this is why having the ability to fear is a good thing rather then a bad thing, and why those who have little to no fear tend to act more like a sociopath. And relating to my first point fear isn't something that cant be just switched off, like your sexuality, you cant just flip a mental switch at will one day and be like, i am now heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual and so forth, fear is powerful advantage to have since it makes us think of the possible dangers and thereby leads us to more rational decision making, and if you disagree with my points then i leave you with the following statement. Careful what you wish for.
Donald Trump Protesters Seek Restriction of Free Speech

Since you kept your arguments short I will as well. Rebuttals: "What is the aim of the protesters against Trump? 1) To exercise their free speech? Hardly. That is what voting booths are for and social networks. " - Pro. I disagree with this. They are just protesters. By our definition you accepted they are a "person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something; a demonstrator. " They don't seek restriction of free speech, they are just expressing their free speech. Those who protest Mr. Trump are simply exercising their freedoms. Those who oppose them are the ones who really are after the restriction of free speech. "There aim seems clear in their hate for Mr. Trump. " -Pro. I would agree, that's why they are protesting, to show that they do not support his thoughts, words, and actions. Not too restrict any free speech. They simply hate him and protest against him because they dislike him, which is lawful. Donald Trump is disliked by many people. In fact, he holds a 64% unfavorable rating, with only 29% of those polled supporting him. . http://elections.huffingtonpost.com... It makes sense that people would protest against him since he is so disliked. Final word: They are not protesting to restrict free speech, they are exercising their free speech by protesting.
Donald Trump Protesters Seek Restriction of Free Speech

Since Pro has failed to provide definitions, I will provide them here. Protesters: a person who publicly demonstrates strong objection to something; a demonstrator. Restricition: the limitation or control of someone or something, or the state of being limited or restricted. Free Speech: the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. I will provide my arguments in the next round. First round I will politely leave to acceptance. Max Lamperouge
Donald Trump Protesters Seek Restriction of Free Speech

Liberals protesting against Donald Trump should know the way to defeat him is at the voting booth and not silly violent protests. Such protests reveal growing flames of Nazism within the Democratic Party fanned lately by Bernie Sanders. Are Liberal Loons the new Socialist/Nazi Party? Trump deserves to be heard. If you do not like him, come up with intellectual discourse stating your claims with a measure of support and not simple groundless opinions. Liberals seek to restrict free speech simply because they do not like what is being said. Such dying ideology retards the intellect and we call it Politically-correct. Liberals are the New Nazis/Socialists? https://youtu.be...
The Incoherent Attribute Argument is Sound

Resolved: The incoherent attribute Argument against God's existence is sound. God will be defined as a singular being who possesses the attributes of, but not limited to: Almighty; Eternal; Holy; Immortal; Immense; Immutable; Incomprehensible; Ineffable; Infinite; Invisible; Just; Loving; Merciful; Most High; Most Wise; Omnipotent; Omniscient; Omnipresent; Patient; Perfect; Provident; Supreme; and True. [1] The argument shows that God cannot exist based upon incoherency: Whatever has incoherent attributes cannot exist. God has incoherent attributes. Therefore, God cannot exist. Incoherency is defined as contradictory attributes (i.e., you can't be invisable and pink at the same time). Good luck to whoever accepts this debate! References[1] The National Catholic Almanac (1968). Quoted in Tobin, Paul. Rejection of Pascal's Wager
i know what an algorhytm is

I believe my opponent does not know what an algorithm is. He has shown over a period of time to make his arguments based off of semantics and trollery. He appears in no way to be serious or to have any true desire to be on this site, so why would he bother to research algorithms or what they are. I can guarantee with 100% certainty his next response will be a bunch of nonsensical garbled language and will in no way offer any arguments or rebuttals that remotely relate to the topic at hand.
Abortion? (anti = is bad)

I may have made my point incorrectly, but I was acknowledging the fact microbes, weeds, and bugs are insignificant even though people devote their life to saving them. Where you were unsure of my "middle bit" about our mindset to preserve human life, I wasn't speaking solely of abortion, I meant everyone has that self preservation mind as instincts, we protect the human race. We try to protect other people above other animals, not just because we are special, but we are "us." Would you save a dogs life or another humans. See the world, we protect refugees, feed the hungry, protect the endangered, that is evidence enough. When you brought up Euthanasia we should have moved that to another debate because this is solely for abortion, but also Euthanasia is used to put someone/thing out of its misery. Abortion is a mothers choice to kill her child, two totally different things. ---- Since you are just attacking my point and not establishing solid points of your own I am not going to bring up more points unless needed. I suggest bringing up your own points before the final round.
Abortion? (anti = is bad)

Not sure why you're talking like I said microbes, or weeds or bugs are on the same level as importance as human life. I even said "that\s not to say a fetus is as insignificant as those things". I'm not really sure how to respond to your middle bit about people deep down having a mindset to preserve human life since that in of itself is another debate entirely. You don't really have any evidence to back up that claim at all. You bring up children not being up to take care of themselves until a certain age. I'm guessing you brought this up to being support to your argument about animals being able to take care of themselves immediately. This simply isn't true because a lot of animals are pretty much completely reliant on their parents till a certain age and that includes dogs, Which I'm assume you were referring to since that's the only animal that I've referenced. I brought up euthanization because it's a similar process to abortion and wanted tp draw the similarities to that and abortion. It was a bit of tangent but, I'm sure that the parallels I brought up weren't that hard to decode. Adoption nor adoption is a perfect solution was what I was trying to get across. Neither solution is really perfect and the choice should be put up to the parent.
Abortion? (anti = is bad)

I will ignore the bugs the weeds and microbes, and no they are not as important as a human life, and neither are animals, we love them like family, but they aren't us. Deep down we all have the mindset to preserve human civilization, and that presents a problem with the argument. Any person would almost always save someone in their family over a stranger or distant friend. The problem comes as you think first and foremost of the people closest to you, and when you try to compare them to a stranger or animal or any other thing with life you have more compassion to what's closest to you. Euthanasia is not part of the debate I will ignore that or if you want to start a seperate debate on that I will join it. When you say the baby had no higher functioning brain, that is true for the time, but remember a child's brain isn't fully developed until it is five or six. Also think most animals can take care of themselves almost immediately, while children develop no sense of fear until age five. Also if we say the child has no guarantee for life because it's brain is operating on a low level (while better than a coma patient) someone who is in a coma is unconscious and will not respond to voices, other sounds, or any sort of activity going on nearby, but a baby responds to many factors such as hunger, the mothers fear, and outside activity that like a coma patient, it cannot see yet it responds too(like a scary movie we cover our eyes and ears, yet we are still scared.) You were right in saying adoption is not a perfect solution, but also remember killing it isn't either. The problem with adoption is many people cannot afford it because it is government run and requires much upkeep driving prices up. You need to see though there are many private adoption services which have little fee other than remember, you raise the child, but the adoption itself costs almost nothing. Yes the life of a foster child is difficult I had a close friend that went through a foster home. The situation isn't perfect, but at least they will get to live. This kind of boils down to the fact that while some have different opinions, everyone should have a right to life. If i kill someone because I feel it is best I would kill a lot of people, that sounds rough but I am making a point.
Abortion? (anti = is bad)

Well, for me I've always been pro-choice. There is no doubt that babies are living things in the womb but, that's not really important. A lot of things are alive but, we give no care to them. bugs, weeds, microbes, are all irrelevant to us despite being living things. That's not to say a fetus is as insignificant as some of those things, it's just to explain how life doesn't equate to right to live. Sentience is the hallmark of life and to our knowledge fetuses have very little. The closest they've really come is having brain waves but, even a common dog has those. On the topic of dogs we have euthanization. A painless death for an animal that is almost never done for malice. You could argue that we shouldn't euthanize dogs as well but, not many do simply because dogs are nearly a commodity. We love dogs, we value dogs, and they do many things to enrich or even improve lives however, that doesn't mean that gives a free license for every dog to be apart of this world. I admit it is a bit morbid to compare dogs to fetuses but, I always believe that at the end of the day it should be a woman's choice to bring a baby to this world. It's their choice to roll the dice and see if they can bring someone to change this hunk of rock. While there is the option of adoption that isn't really a perfect a solution. If the argument was only focused on the child and the parent was a non-factor then I'd be pro-life everytime. Unfortunately, the world is more complicated than that. The life of a foster child is difficult and having to live with the guilt of giving up a baby for them to be subjected to that flawed system is too much for some. So, it's hard to really look down on someone for taking that choice instead. Neither is really good or bad and trying to police someone for essentially a lose-lose situation isn't right.
Abortion? (anti = is bad)

No matter what the circumstance, unless the mother and baby will die, abortion is bad, and if you are religious it is even worse. If you are raped or incest has occured what happened is horrible, everyone agrees, but the baby did nothing wrong, and it doesn't deserve death. There is no greater love than to give thy life for a friend. Many people who are pro choice, even and especially people that have children say they would give their life for their kids, and I agree they should, but then I ask why not their unborn baby, and they reply, "The child is unborn, why would I give my life for it?" I ask why does it matter if it had been alive for three months, or it won't be born for another three. The answer is always the same, it isn't a kid yet. I want to ask a question, if you kill a pregnant women you get two murder charges, why, because the baby has life, then what grounds do you have I ask, to kill that baby? If I go around and snap unborn children's necks, do I not get charged with murder? A pro choice man asked me once, "What about a three hundred pound white rapist's baby?" To that I reply, the baby is a baby, would you kill a kid because they are a boy and not a girl? Also, if you think a women sees that kid and thinks about being raped, a very heavy percentage will say, yes, they think about being raped, but they love that kid more than anything in the world. Also, why do people think pro-choice and pro-abortion are different things, One is saying YOU SUPPORT ABORTION, and the other says you SUPPORT THAT WOMEN HAVE A CHOICE TO ABORT A BABY, what's the difference, even more so if you are a man and there isn't a kiddo in you? Please explain if there is a difference, I would really like to know. The point of this debate isn't to argue, or to make everyone anti abortion, but to find the truth and come to a consensus as to what is right no matter the time spent debating.
Get rid of the penny!!

"Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost." Maybe I'm reading this quote wrong (please correct me if I am), but in that quote, you state, "...nickels would be worth more than cost." However, in this next quote, you state: "Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel." Thus contradicting yourself and the idea of profiting from the disposal of the penny. As you say, "the monetary advantage [is] null." Therefore, what good is disposing of the penny? You still haven't showed me an alternative for transactions from change and tax, as demonstrated in my McDonalds example. The only solution I can think of is changing the price of everything to end with a change value of a multiple of 5 (i.e. $1.25, $1.50, etc.). This would not only be costly and tedious, a flat sales tax would have to be adopted by every state ($0.05, $0.10, etc.). The penny should not be abolished, because it is necessary for sales transactions, and would do more harm than good.