BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A pregnant mother 21 shot and killed - yeah right- yet again another reason why god cannot exist

There is absolutely no possible way that god according to the horrific bible exists unless you believe in pure 100% hate and evil. Today with headlines reading here in Orlando (where else) "Pregnant woman killed, 2 kids wounded in Pine Hills shooting, sheriff says" Now this supposed christian god is good for only two things... 1. Hate. 2. Evil. Religion is and was created to explain the unexplained. Then through the unexplained comes power, then fear and then comes control. This christian god is giving all the power to the killer to take the life of the pregnant woman. And obviously there's the absolute fear that the killer instills. Of course with that fear there is the almighty control of the subjects and in this case the death of the pregnant woman and the fear he decimated, oh yeah that control with the surrounding subjects as two kids were also wounded. god KNOWINGLY created this killer knowing what was going to happen trillions of years in advance which is 100% pure evil and hate. Well that's only true IF and only IF god is god. god KNOWINGLY created this pregnant woman TO BE SHOT AND KILLED and knew what was going to happen trillions of years in advance. Of course that's only true IF and only IF god is god which is 100% pure evil and hate. This god also knew that that two kids would be wounded by some bullets trillions of years in advance which is 100% pure evil and hate that is IF and only IF god is a god. god KNOWINGLY created the families, friends and loved ones to grieve, and who knows how long they will grieve as there's no time limit on grieving, and this god knew that this was going to happen trillions of years in advance which is 100% pure evil and hate that is IF and only IF god is a god. Oh and oh yeah with a very big "duh" sign pinned to those who believe - there's 0 to prove that your god even exists. One thing that is for sure is that ALL guns from around the world are needed to be gotten rid of. No exceptions. None. Its a step in the right direction, just as ALL religion is, that is IF and only IF you want worldwide peace. There are a few other things that need to happen. Rules: Prove that YOUR god is a good guy and does not give the go-ahead in allowing others to kill each other and is a loving god. DO NOT bring in the "free will" issue. I'm really tired of that truly idiotic lame argument. Free will does not exist if you believe in YOUR god. Besides, you'd only hurt yourself here especially as free will favors and empowers the evil and hate, just as your god wants it.
The Orlando gay club shooting was a hoax.

Some Pulse club goers have said that there were possibly 2 or 3 gunmen which was later debunked [1]. Law enforcement officials have said repeatedly that Mateen was the only shooter, and Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer reiterated that point. Dyer said some witnesses might be confused because of the volume of gunshots they heard or saw [2]. If this were a hoax, the "crisis actors" would have been coached to provide consistent and therefore believable stories. The names of all of the victims have been published and their family members have come forward. These people can easily be searched and found on social media with family and friend contacts, whom can also be searched [3]. If these people did not really exist or did not really die, they would be unknown and unable to be found or have completely manufactured histories. Federal authorities have recovered video from security cameras inside Orlando's Pulse nightclub that shows shooter Omar Mateen firing his assault rifle and systematically killing 49 people [4]. In order to pull off a successful false flag, you would need hundreds of actors - some of whom were preparing their entire lives to pretend to die or be related to people who died in this event. They would also need the full cooperation of a ton of police and media outlets to not reveal what was happening. My opponent will have the burden of explaining how this is possible or likely. [1] http://www.snopes.com... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [3] http://www.npr.org... [4] http://abcnews.go.com...
Hillary Clinton is a better choice for president of the United Staes than Donald Trump.

Not using fear or violence? That's bullshite. BLM protesters block off highways, and use violence against whites for their own agenda, that's terrorism. More whites are being killed, and do you see them protesting and destroying stuff? No, my argument is not invalid, do you see white protesters storming through cities, looting, beating, and destroying for political reasons?. I'm going to end this here due to a lack of time and the impending election. Thank you for this, and good job.
Hillary Clinton is a better choice for president of the United Staes than Donald Trump.

Okay, so first on your definition of terrorism, the BLM movement is not using fear or violence to respond to the murders by policemen of the young black men but are responding to these murders by standing up to show that Black Lives Matter too. This is not terrorism. Also, you say that more white people are killed by policemen but if you look at it closely, you'll see that there are more white Americans than black Americans and if you look at how many of each have been killed, you'll see that yes, more whites have been killed, but that's because there are more whites in america than blacks. Here's an article from the Washington Post that explains it: https://www.washingtonpost.com... So your entire argument about more whites being killed than blacks is invalid. Okay, so on taxes. In the article you gave about Hillary's tax plan, she said that she was going to raise taxes on the middles class but it also says in that same article that she misspoke and meant to say that the middle class would NOT be taxed. Hillary definitely does not want to raise taxes on the middle class. Trump on the other hand wants to lower taxes on the upper class and that is a really bad idea because the taxes on the upper class already aren't that high. He's literally just doing that so he and his rich white friends can get more money. Okay, I actually gave a site that lists all the times that Fox has been biased and you say that the other news channels are biased in Hillary's favor but they're really not, they just go off of what Trump says. Here's a page that keeps track of all the sexist things that Trump has said: https://www.hillaryclinton.com... Here's another one with just a general list of all the things that he's said and done that make him completely unfit to be president: http://www.slate.com... So as you can plainly see, Donald Trump is completely unfit to be president and the only other good choice is Hillary because she has real plans to fix the problems of today. Thank you, I enjoyed this debate.
Hillary Clinton is a better choice for president of the United Staes than Donald Trump.

Alright, thanks for the sources. 1) The National Border Patrol Council has endorsed Trump, which is the first time in history that they've endorsed a candidate. Trump has stated on numerous occasions that he will be letting people into the USA, but not just anyone, like Hillary would. It's not "unconstitutional", the USA was founded on the idea of "legal" immigration, not floods of people storming across the border. In the state of Texas alone, more than 1000 immigrants have been accused of child rapes. Black Lives Matter hasn't killed anyone, yes, but they've destroyed property, targeted white people for beat-downs, and overall been violent in the extreme. The definition of terrorism is as follows: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. This is exactly what the Black Lives Matter movement is doing. In 2015, more whites were killed by police than blacks, but do you see white people running and screaming down streets screaming "White Lives Matter"? 2) Hillary made it clear that she intends to initiate massive tax hikes on middle-class families if she is elected. Once again, this will cripple the American economy, and frankly, Trump has more economic experience than Hillary does, due to him leading countless successful businesses. 3) How are you talking about Fox News being biased, when almost every other news company, especially CNN, has a clear bias to Hillary? Give me an example of Trump being xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, and racist. Hillary called black people "super predators". Her plans are by far worse, and will only lead to more division in the USA http://www.ibtimes.com... http://www.bpunion.org... http://www.breitbart.com... http://www.newstarget.com... http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.atr.org... http://www.weeklystandard.com... http://www.politifact.com...
Hillary Clinton is a better choice for president of the United Staes than Donald Trump.

Please provide the sources for all the information you listed. Immigration: Our country is built on the idea of *legal* immigration, not people storming the borders and getting free benefits that our own people lack, benefits that illegal rapists get, but not the men who fought and were wounded for our country. We need strict regulations because we can't just let anyone walk into our country. Hillary supports Black Lives Matter, a terrorist group that beats up white people because they're not black. Black Lives Matter also destroys property and is a poor excuse for a movement, MLK wouldn't be proud. Minorities: You say that 10 years doesn't matter, but 10 years ago, Hillary had a much different stance than the one she currently holds. Another point, Hillary has said many worse things about people. Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization and no person should ever support them, they beat up whites, destroy property, and are a general nuisance for all people. Donald is correct in stating that we need more law and order, people have begun to run rampant in the streets, and that limits productivity, which is what America needs. Gay marriage is an immoral and wrong thing, as the country has many references to God. He didn't say all Mexicans are rapists, but many of the ones spewing through the border are rapists. Taxes: Donald proposed massive tax cuts that worked with Reagan, and Reagan was noted as being one of the best presidents of all time. Hillary's running mate wants to increase taxes on the middle class, which would certainly bring down America' s economy. Hillary wants to let in refugees and illegal immigrants, as well as open up jobs to other countries. This will result in millions of Americans losing their jobs because the countries want cheaper labor. Donald's plan is to keep jobs in America, which will stimulate the economy. Sources: http://www.nationalreview.com... http://www.realclearpolitics.com... http://www.infowars.com...
Men who Cheat on Their Partners Should be Castrated

"I am so sick of hearing about men cheating on their wives and they just get off scot free. " Women and men have the right to leave their cheating spouse if they desire. Mutilation is morally wrong, with the exception of chemical (not physical) castration of sexual predators (but that is another debate). My opponent does not give any reason why it is needed to castrate men and the only reason I could see is the masochist, egocentric and narcissist desire of some women do fulfil their desire of vengeance. "who started all this more than one partner...it wasn't the women." If only men get castrated, it would be an unequal judgement between each sex and it goes against what the women fought for-equality between men and women. "Women cheat for a reason" Men cheat for a reason as well" sexual pleasure, women cheat for a reason" to feel loved. The reason does not matter, the act of cheating is wrong and consequences should be the same.
Men who Cheat on Their Partners Should be Castrated

I would first like to say that cheating is wrong. Each person that are in a relationship should care for the other. The first problem with the contender argument is that it is to hard a punishment for the crime. We do not cut people's hand if they steel or dismember people if they do wrong. The correctional system is meant for the person to correct their ways. People who commit adultery don't commit a crime in most civilized country, because those people have not done anything wrong against this country. Yes they have broke their vows, but it is part of their private lives and the partner has the opportunity to leave the cheater. Secondly, women have fought for their rights and are equal in right to men. If only men could be castrated, it would not be equality with women who can cheat as well. Even if men cheat more (70%) than women (50-60%) cheat and deserve similar punishment to be equal.
Men who Cheat on Their Partners Should be Castrated

I am so sick of hearing about men cheating on their wives and they just get off scot free. I say anytime a man cheats, he should be castrated. If a woman cheats....who started all this more than one partner...it wasn't the women. So, since men started this cheating nonsense, I NEVER blame women when they cheat. Women cheat for a reason, men cheat just for the hell of it. I say castrate them.
Taxation is theft

1)Pro says that the implied social contract "is not offered to citizens at all" and that people consent "simply by being born in a specific region". Let me reiterate what I said before: the government offers the contract when they offer public resources and the governed accept through their use of said resources. Use of these resources would override "actual words of explicit dissent". 2)These public resources are not necessary to survive, like the kidnapper's meal is, nor is the tax payer held against their will inside the country. I earlier defined an implied contract as one in which one party knowledgeably accepts a benefit when it is possible to reject it. Pro seems to dispute that it is possible to reject public resources, but that is incorrect; it is very much possible to live your life without using resources from a particular government. Education is completely relevant in terms of where consent can be established. Pro has taken my point regarding education out of context and their example of assault fails because the victim only knows about assault. Again, my earlier definition of implied consent required not only knowledge, but knowledgeable acceptance of a benefit. An assault victim does not tacitly accept a benefit, therefore there is not implied consent. 3)Pro's third point appears to solidify previous implications (e.g., comparisons to kidnapping, assault, sexual slavery) that taxes are not only theft, but morally reprehensible. The reason that the "victim blaming" the pro attributes to the tax system would not be considered legitimate in any other scenario is that tax payers do not consider themselves victims. There has never been a time in history where the majority Americans thought they were paying an unfair amount income taxes(1). Regardless, supposed "victim blaming" and morality as a whole are irrelevant in the context of this debate, which is why I have done my best to avoid those topics. (1)http://content.gallup.com...
Taxation is theft

1) Con is mistaken in assuming that the problem lies in the fact that the contract is not a formal one in writing. The problem is that it is not offered to citizens at all. People are not asked to consent to anything. They are told that they „implicitly consent“ to something simply by being born in a specific region and that this somehow overrides their actual words of explicit dissent.2) People use public resources because they‘re the ones paying for them and because in many cases they have to use them (roads for example). The fact that citizens use services provided by the state does not imply consent to be expropriated any more than a kidnapping victim accepting a meal from her kidnapper implies a consent to being kidnapped.People being educated about how the tax system works is irrelevant to whether taxation can be considered theft. I assume that con‘s intention here is to further demonstrate consent, but knowing how the system works does not imply consent any more than knowing what assault is implies a consent to being assaulted. 3) Con‘s argument that if people don‘t like being expropriated they can just leaves amounts to little more than blaming the victim that no one would consider legitimate in any other scenario. For example, telling someone that if they don‘t like being forced into sexual slavery by the state they should just move somewhere where it isn‘t practiced is an absurd rationalization. The blame is clearly on the one practicing slavery and not on the one forced into it.
Taxation is theft

The social contract argument does refute your first premise for several reasons. 1) In response to the pro's assertion that the social contract is not explicitly offered, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that contracts which are not explicitly put in writing can exist and hold as much weight as express written contracts(1)(2). 2) The governed give consent through their use of public resources. The implied contracts mentioned in my first point have been defined as ones in which "a party tacitly accepts a benefit at a time when it is possible to reject it"(3). Compulsory"and tax payer funded"education ensures that the governed have tacit understanding of the tax system before they are expected to pay for it. 3) One is not forced to accept this contract; they are permitted to leave the land that their government has charted, defended, and paved for its citizens. If I am born in a rented house and my parents stop paying for me, I cannot continue living in that house and claim that the rental agreement is void due to coercion. Thank you (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://supreme.justia.com... (3)http://definitions.uslegal.com...
Taxation is theft

I accept con‘s definition of consent and present my fairly simple syllogistic main argument as follows.P1. Taxes are compulsory (i.e. the governed are forced to pay taxes and are not given the chance to consent. This is backed up with threats of physical force).P2. Forcing someone to hand over their property without their consent is theft (Definition of theft given in opening statement).C. Taxation is theft. Anticipated rebuttalSocial contractA common counterargument to the resolution is to attempt to demonstrate a supposed social contract. Con may try to argue that taxation is justified by this implicit social contract agreed to by the governed, thus refuting premise 1. There are several problems with the social contract theory:1) The governed are not offered any contract. The state does not approach prospective citizens with a contract discussing the pros and cons and persuading them to accept it. 2) The governed have no say in the matter. Since the social contract is implicit, people are simply forced to accept it by virtue of being born in a certain culture or area. A contract where one party coerces the other to accept it, is an invalid contract. I look forward to reading con‘s arguments and rebuttals.
BUILDING UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS WOULD NEGATE THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE HUMAN POPULATION

THIS IS COMMON SENSE! IF WE HAD UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS THAT COULD SUSTAIN THE EFFECTS OF THE PRESSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BEING A PROBLEM TO US AS THE SEA LEVEL RISING WOULD HAVE NO CRUCIAL IMPACT ON PEOPLE WHO LIVED UNDERWATER. WE COULD HAVE OUR DOMICILES IN UNDERWATER DOMES. FURTHERMORE, SINCE 75% IF THE PLANET IS MADE UP OF WATER, THAT WOULD JUST BE MORE SPACE FOR US AND OVERPOPULATION WOULD BE SOMEWHAT NULLIFIED FOR A WHILE. THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD PLAN. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE STUDENT CONGRESS HERE TODAY THAT WE SANCTION THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS PRONTO!!!
BUILDING UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS WOULD NEGATE THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE HUMAN POPULATION

It would be common sense.... -If we could actually build things on the bottom of the oceaon -If we could actually sustain such large areas with normalized pressure -If we had the materials to do that -If we had the money to sanction it -If we had the money to enforce the sanctions -If there were actually that many companies willing to do it But none of the above are true, so you can drop the PRO case. There is no offense going for him, so he's lost the round. CASE: Negate is defined by dictionary.com as "to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of". My opponent claims that by putting the human population underwater, then we wouldn't feel the effects of global warming anymore, as sea levels rising wouldn't affect us at all. Okay sure, WE HUMAN BEINGS wouldn't be affected IF we could live on the ocean floor, but the rest of the ecosystem will be. And since we're consumers and not producers, we still need to eat other living organisms to survive. We can't do there unless we have land for growing crops and a place to have our livestock... oh wait, all of that is WASHED AWAY BY SEA LEVELS RISING CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM. So even if we all can live underwater somehow, there is going to be a DEFINITE effect that people will notice (more than just the entire human population being displaced), and since people will notice a change, building underwater civilizations would NOT negate the effects of global warming on the human population, you vote CON.
4 Ways the Feds are attacking the medical marijuana industry

2. When I say not addicting, I mean not addicting to the majority. Those select few who become addicted have the potential to become addicted to anything because that's embedded in their personalities. As for a source here's one I just found in a minute.http://www.psychologytoday.com...And here's another talking about the potential benefits, and the lack of any proof that marijuana is more detrimental to your health than a oscar meyer's hot dog. http://www.askmen.com... 3. I don't trust anything the government has to say about drugs, they bend information to work in their view. Of course there's withdrawal symptons from stopping a long-term marijuana habit. Irritability (people are carefree when they're high), sleeplessness (you feel very drowsy when you're high), decreased appetite(no duh, munchies?), anxiety (welcome back to the real world), and drug craving (who wouldn't crave something that made them happier? That's not addiction, that's choosing to do something you enjoy. If you crave chocolate cake people are going to call you fat and tell you how many empty calories you just ate)4. If you smoke weed and just stay inside no lifing all day then you're a recluse. That analogy you made was the irrelevant part. That paragraph was sealing the deal with the conclusive. None of your arguments really changed anything.