BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump will make a great president

I am actually a doctor by the way, there is no need for that kind of insulting.This is a debate, not a rap battle ;)Trump is racist and sexist:Trump is not racist because he wants to deal with illegal immigration (not unlike the other, better republican candidates).Trump is not sexist because he doesn't think that women are as skilled as men in the work force.Trump is racist and sexist because he regularly degrades minorities and sexualizes women by saying things like:“Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it.”“The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yamakas every day.""You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of a--.”Need I go on?... I'd rather not. I most certainly don't want to spend 4-8 years of my life listening to those kinds of things while knowing that he represents me as an American Citizen.Trump didn't get out of debt on his own:In 1990, due to excessive leveraging, The Trump Organization revealed that it was $5 billion in debt ($8.8 billion by some estimates), with $1 billion personally guaranteed by Trump himself. The survival of the company was made possible only by a bailout pact agreed upon in August of that same year by some 70 banks, allowing Trump to defer on nearly $1 billion in debt, as well as to take out second and third mortgages on almost all of his properties. If it were not for the collective effort of all banks and parties involved in that 1990 deal, Trump’s business would have gone bankrupt and failed.His failure to acknowledge anyone’s contributions, save his own, in the creation of his success shows where his priorities lay. Trump is a liar:In his book The America We Deserve, Trump explains that, “the greatest threat to the American Dream is the idea that dreamers need close government scrutiny and control. Job one for us is to make sure the public sector does a limited job, and no more.” This quote proves to be particularly ironic when considering Trump’s feelings about eminent domain laws. He was quoted as saying, “I happen to agree with it 100 percent” when speaking of the 2005 Supreme Court decision on Kolo v. New London, which affirmed the government’s ability to transfer land from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development in the area. In fact, Trump attempted to take advantage of eminent domain laws on multiple occasions, once even demanding that an elderly widow give up her home so that he could build a limousine parking lot.ISISThe idea of a man like Trump "negotiating" with ISIS is a frightening one. It is easy to see how countless people might needlessly lose their lives because of this man.*****That is all I currently have to say on the subject of Donald Trump.Thank you so much for your time... may the best argument win :)
Trump will make a great president

Let's do some basic math! Trump inherits 200 million now is worth 10.8 billion(The numbers went up just incase you didn't know that). Looks like he did a fantastic job. His name has so much weight on it! "Out of all of the businesses that he buys, trump runs most of them into the ground." Please be specific and have a list of companies he ran into the ground. Don't forget he's worth 10.8 billion. HOW IS HE WORTH THAT MUCH IF HE'S RUNNING THEM IN THE GROUND EXPLAIN PLEASE! Pop quiz! Do you know what ISIS is? ISIS is a terrorist organization that likes to kill people if they disagree with their ways. They abuse women, decapitate men, all that sick stuff. We need someone who is SMART like Trump and ruthless to deal with them. Have you seen how our current president has been dealing with them? Not a good job is you ask me. Now we have to get better deals with China and Japan we need a very strong tone! America is going down, we don't have time to sit here and make all these sissy people happy. Trump has hired more women in executive positions than males. Doesn't sound like a sexist person to me. Trump is not racist(by looking at your profile picture I am questing you...) Illegal immigration is a thing rather if you like it or not. We have people sneaking across our border breaking our laws. Yet, our president doesn't do anything about it, he'd rather take them in and pay for all their needs. Lot's of them are rapists, drug dealers, and thieves. Yes, true facts hurt our poor little "Don't be racist" motto we all live by. http://www.usillegalaliens.com... America is being ran like a country and it's 19 trillion dollars in debt. We need to try something new. Obama ain't working. I'd suggest going to a doctor because you just got CRUSHED. :D <3 ')
Trump will make a great president

However, one thing in particular did catch my eye: "Trump has abused the law to get his way (bankruptcy hotel) he'll be able to do the same with executive orders. "Mr. Trump is a ruthless man. No, even worse: Mr. Trump is ruthless business man. He isn't some hard-working American who "gets things done" or something. His financial success mostly comes from an inheritance that he received after his father's death. Donald trump only knows how to make money off of other people's work. Out of all of the businesses that he buys, trump runs most of them into the ground. That, my friend, is why I don't want him running this country. Because this is a country, not a company. Because we can be sure that he will do whatever he wants without thinking of what is truly best for the people of the USA. Because we don't need a raciest, sexist, belligerent, bullheaded big-mouth like Donald Trump representing the American public. Thank you,
Trump will make a great president

Politics have proven to not do the job well. Bush and Obama did just horrible we're still in debt, we have people depending on the Government. We have ISIS who should have been gone by now instead they now have oil which brings them in around one billion dollars per day. We have a huge debt with China and other countries. We have poor public education. We have illegal immigrants getting state aid. We have vets that can't get into hospitals, some die before they even make it in. We need a business man. Politically correct doesn't seem to be working that well. Yes, I know Trump maybe a little loud from here to there but it's about what he can do. Trump has abused the law to get his way (bankruptcy hotel) he'll be able to do the same with executive orders. He's very honest, he won't sit here and BS you like most politics. All politics want to do is be reelected. They're all talk no action.
Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheists

I'm sure Con would agree most evolution debates on Debate. org seems to have the same modus operandi of a clear division between those of faith (believers of some Deity) and the faithless (atheists). But when one looks over a larger scope in time, in units of generational time, evolution is actually moving those of faith and the faithless in a direction of congruence. The uniting factor between the faithful and the faithless are the laws of nature in which the constructal law (the law of evolution) (. http://www.tandfonline.com...) is part of. For example, the faithful and the faithless have the same faith in the laws of aerodynamics when it comes to traveling in a jet soaring above the clouds. One can't deny there are those of faith who despise science but enjoy their iPhones and technology in general. The fact is the faithful enjoy evolution as much as the faithless. Most (the faithful and the faithless) can't wait for the next generation of smart phones, automobiles, even the cure for cancer, etc. ; all these are a manifestations of evolution. My focus is not whether we evolved from some monkey, or if there is a God or not, or arguing about my philosophy is superior to Con's. It would be nice if, this debate ends all debates on evolution because evolution is just another physical law of nature (aka the constructal law). And in saying that, I think it is time to have a debate where both those of faith and the faithless agree and rejoice over evolution; morphing their debates away from evolution and focus their infatuation on whether there is a God or not. In our modern age, most of the faithful and the faithless have faith in the physical laws of nature. The constructal law is new and part of the physical laws of nature. Therefore, I will argue that “Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheists,” because the law of evolution is part of the physical laws of nature.
Evolution Unites those of Faith and Atheists

I must admit my opponent and I have had very different views on what evolution truly is throughout this debate. Although I have responded to my opponent's definition of evolution via Bejan's constructal law, I have not seen the same response on the part of my opponent. Largely, my opponent's treatment of evolution of natural selection is dismissive, referring to it as the "monkey debate" insetad of recognizing, as I have proven in the prior rounds, its crucial importance in modern-day science. Whether or not we judge evolution to be as per the constructal law, my opponent has effectively conceded the debate by acknowledging the "monkey debate" exists in the present. This disproves the resolution. I have already explained that my opponent bears the burden of proof- in this case, to prove that evolution is currently uniting people of and without faith. The existence of such a conflict over Darwinism and evolution by natural selection is in direct opposition to the resolution. I agree with my opponent that evolution as per the constructal law is a sensible worldview to hold. The constructal law, albeit extremely vague, provides us with a framework to predict the outcomes of flow systems. If we hold evolution by natural selection to be a flow system, such a worldview adequately aligns with Darwinism. However, a problem arises when Pro turns to the future to claim this unison over the issue of evolution. Pro identifies a trend in the use of empiricism to discover more about God or the natural world. Whether or not this trend exists, the conclusion Pro draws from its supposed existence does not substantiate the resolution. The claim that, because scientists and the faithful are converging in their worldviews (as if) does not mean that evolution is an issue that transcends this omnipresent divide between the faithful and the faithless. "I will agree with Con there are disagreements between the faithful and the faithless over their philosophies, theories and claims"This essentially ends the debate. Unison over evolution is nonexistent in the present day. Meaningless rationale like "I feel society will be best served by the constructal law induction in the classroom, helping to place those 'two worldviews' in its proper context" does not do anything to substantiate Pro's overarching claim: that evolution is a unifying force. Yes, the constructal law provides us with a lens through which we can view society as an ever-evolving entity. Evolution can be interpreted as more than just Darwinist evolution by natural selection. But my opponent, in including Darwinism as a part of Bejan's constructal model, ultimately loses the debate; as we see conflict in the present over the issue of evolution by natural selection, the resolution is disproven. Science and faith are locked in conflict, and young-earth creationist organizations continue to push an anti-Darwinist and anti-factual agenda. Relegating this debate to simply a part of the evolutionary continuum only serves to prove my point. Thank you, and vote Con. The resolution has been negated.
Should all Guns be banned

Conduct points to con for calling my counter stupid. "so you think that if something happens in another country with no violence the same would happen here "Where's your argument? "Now let me ask you this isn't banning guns against the constitution"1787 was when the constitution was written. 1892, Handguns were made. Back then, NOBODY thought it was possible to make such efficient weapons of mass destruction for everyone. I'm sure the founding fathers didn't think of the future. And if they were alive now, They would be shocked. Military armed forces are not in the millions. I said police were. Police don't have advanced weapons. "all you've been stating is that it could work you never said why it would be a good idea while I'm here stating why it would be a bad idea" I don't need to advocate and prove gun control. You have the BOP (burden of proof). I'm just here to refute and counter your arguments. But ok, Strict gun control is good because Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since it implemented gun control in 1996. Not. One. *I can't put my source here, Just google it*
Should all Guns be banned

so you think that if something happens in another country with no violence the same would happen here that's the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Another thing that it would be bloody that doesn't mean it would be impossible it would just be difficult. Now let me ask you this isn't banning guns against the constitution and now just because there are only a million armed forces compared to 300 million Americans who I stated would not all be together because if you look at the news you would see most on the left would willfully give up there guns or force conservatives to and the only million armed forces I mentioned have more high class weapons and if the government wanted to they could use military weapons to force them to and this would lead to war. And do you honestly think that the left would let huntsman keep there guns no and the people who want to ban guns think all guns are evil. And at the end you said I never stated my stance so I will tell you again I think we need more background checks and make it harder for criminals to get guns but all you've been stating is that it could work you never said why it would be a good idea while I'm here stating why it would be a bad idea
Should all Guns be banned

"I think there should be different licenses for different types of guns but banning all guns would be against the constitution"This is already implemented! We don't even have a debate then. "I never said gun control was impossible I just said that it would be bloody"Still the same point. That was exactly my point. Australia did it. It wasn't bloody. "The United States and Australia are two different countries with two totally different cultures"I gave my case. Saying this doesnt argue anything. Apples and pineapples are totally different fruit. So what? They both taste good. At least I gave an example. You have no supporting evidence showing taking guns away will be bloody. "wouldn't be 300 million Americans because some of them support gun control so some would not own guns and some would support which would lead to a civil war"Completely irrelevant. My point was there's only a million armed forces. You haven't argued my point. Anyway, What you're saying is purely hypothetical. And all I'm obliged to do is say: "i disagree". "If we did ban guns what would stop killings sure there might not be any big shootings but criminals and gangs or even people who are mentally Ill or somebody at a school who wants to kill somebody could use a different weapon or get a smuggled in gun"That's irrelevant. You just said it yourself, It would still stop killings anyway. "but the right to own guns is a right that all of us have and if you think that everybody in the united states especially conservatives would obey it your out of your mind"Sure. But 'banning all guns' is pretty vague. Every single gun? What if you could own a gun if you were a professional huntsman? This is my point, From the very start, Con never made clear the resolution, Who has what stance. I had to decipher it from the title. That's not part of the rules of debate. I think con already lost this debate. But for fun, I'll continue arguing.
Should all Guns be banned

You made some good points now back to debating I knew I forgot to put down my stance I think people who are mentally ill or have committed a serious crime shouldn't be allowed to own a gun but for people who are law abiding citizens should be able to own almost any type of gun they want I think there should be different licenses for different types of guns but banning all guns would be against the constitution. And I never said gun control was impossible I just said that it would be bloody and the hardest groups to take guns away from would be conservatives especially down south. And another thing The United States and Australia are two different countries with two totally different cultures and also it wouldn't be 300 million Americans because some of them support gun control so some would not own guns and some would support which would lead to a civil war. If we did ban guns what would stop killings sure there might not be any big shootings but criminals and gangs or even people who are mentally Ill or somebody at a school who wants to kill somebody could use a different weapon or get a smuggled in gun. Banning guns is one thing that could lead to the down fall of America I think we need more background checks before somebody can own a gun and I also think you should at least be 24 but the right to own guns is a right that all of us have and if you think that everybody in the united states especially conservatives would obey it your out of your mind
Should all Guns be banned

Minus conduct points for con for not putting in the resolution. What is your stance? By pure assumption, Your stance will either be: "some guns should not be banned" or "all guns should not be banned". Both are very different arguments. Your failure to be precise on which is your stance leads to, Again, Conduct points. I assume you're talking about america. "First of all if we did ban guns what would stop the government from becoming tyrannical"First of all, A tyrannical government cannnot control the masses. There are 300 million americans against less than a million armed police. "gun control is impossible"It isn't. Australia banned guns fully in 1996. (https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia)
Should all Guns be banned

Okay lets get this started if anyone wants to go against me do it I'm up for a challenge even though I'm new at this don't show me any mercy so lets do this First of all if we did ban guns what would stop the government from becoming tyrannical because if nobody owned guns the government could go in and kill anybody they want and not just the president but people in congress as well and just because somebody acts all nice during an election doesn't mean that they won't try to grab absolute power and if nobody owned guns not only the federal government could get tyrannical but also State governments and even if none of the governments get tyrannical it would still be the bloodiest war in American History trying to force every single gun owner to get rid of all of there guns and the Military might not agree some will but most probably won't so gun control is impossible without killing every single conservative in America and some on the left to
Should all Guns be banned

"Con thinks gun violence is only a problem is someone is dead. I'm sure the readers know very well there's shootings every year in the US. Yes I know there are shootings every year and I think gun violence is a problem but the same could be said for stabbings. People getting injured in shootings is bad but if no one is killed it's not a mass shooting. Australia 1996: Approximately 17. 5 guns per 100 people 2016: (most recent number available): About 13. 7 guns per 100 people United States 1996: Approximately 91 guns per 100 people 2009 (most recent number available): Approximately 101 guns per 100 people You forgot to mention one little thing when Australia banned guns almost nobody in the country owned guns and 90% of the country agreed to gun control that's the only reason it worked. In the United States even back in 1996 almost everybody owned a gun. For gun control to work in the United States every single citizen would have to agree to it and if you think they would I bet you never been down south. Unless the government used force on it's citizens gun control wouldn't work because gun control is impossible in the United States "Australia is more similar to the US than Switzerland is. " Yes I never said it was all I said was that it's gun laws would be the better option rather then taking them away by force. What would you do if you were a law abiding citizen who owned a gun but never killed anyone and only used it for hunting then all of a sudden a cop came banging on your door demanding for all of your guns. If you were like most Americans who own a gun (which you probably don't) you would say no and tell the cop that he can't take them. If we sacrifice our freedom for safety we will soon have no freedom it doesn't matter if your safe if you have no freedom and taking guns away is the first step in taking away freedom. The Australian Constitution never had anything about guns the American constitution does and it says "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Just because it was written a long time ago doesn't mean it's wrong Democracy was made a long time ago but I guess that means it's bad to. If we ban guns people will just say oh Knifes are bad to and then they would ban all knifes and so on until no one had any weapons except for the government. We might be safe with gun control but if we get rid of our freedom we will become slaves to the government we don't need gun control we need to make it harder for criminals or people who aren't ready for a gun to get one what we need is more background checks. Freedom is the most precious thing of all and if we let them take away some of our freedom they can't take away all of our freedom
Should all Guns be banned

Oh the Constitution was made in 1787 so we should just forget about it are founding fathers weren't idiots they knew the people needed the rights to own guns to protect themselves. And if you look at the United States murder rates it's been decreasing since 1994 all you've been stating was facts from Australia and I looked at a list of all mass shootings in the United States and 146 of them have nobody killed and only 8 have at least 7 people killed so no the United States does not have a gun problem I got this evidence from Gun violence Archive. I know school shootings and mass shootings are bad but if we ban guns all together what will stop other crimes like rape for example imagine there's a women in her house and see she's a man outside trying to break into her house she could call the cops but she wouldn't know how long it would take them and if the man got in before the cops got there she would have almost nothing to defend herself is she had a gun she would be able to defend herself. I know the cop could have got there but you got to think about this not everybody lives in big cities. If nobody owned guns it would be easier for cops to oppress minorities because a cop attacks a black man and the black man has the nothing to protect him and the cop shots the black man and kills him. And Australia's homicide rate was already decreasing before they banned guns. And since you keep stating that Australia homicide rate I'm going to use another country to Switzerland a country with the least gun laws in the world hasn't had a mass shooting since 2001 and all men between the ages of 18 and 34 are given a gun and trained if we adopted Switzerland's gun laws it would work a lot better for both sides rather then taking away guns by force