BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxes Are Stealing

Hello Devin. Good luck in the debate. I don't know that I can necessarily agree with you. At first I figured it was a no brainer, how could taxes be considered stealing on the governments party. However, after thinking about it for a moment I have come to the conclusion that I can at least briefly argue this point. In my opinion according to your definition even taxes can be considered theft by the government. According to the last part of your provided definition "with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully." It is my opinion that our tax money is in a lot of cases being used wrongly. For instance, there are a lot of people out there that are hooked on drugs and sponging off of the government to live, rather than trying to make an effort to sober up and be a productive member of society. Also, jails and prisons. I feel that since we are spending all of this money on having these inmates in jails and prisons that we should at the very least make a better effort to rehabilitate them, so that when they are released there is a greater chance of them not returning to the facilities. This will conclude my first portion of the argument.
Taxes Are Stealing

--I will be arguing that taxes are not stealing. I thank my opponent, whom ever it may be, for accepting in advance. --The following definitions will be used: Taxes: A fee charged (\levied\) by a government on a product, income, or activity. www.investorwords.com/4879/tax.html Stealing: 1a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully http://www.merriam-webster.com...
the 1980's pop music is best!!!

ok miss if you really think like that what about if in 1980 there are a massive of song and you like most of it you will have a hard time on choosing the song right? and i like tech music it's pretty cool if you don't like it then choose some song else!!! and even in 80's the singer doesn't move much but the song meaning will NEVER goes with moving to much right? the lasting i will says is I like the song script it's the best miss!!! please try to argue me back(i'm just kidding i know you can do it!)
One can rationally support the claim that they are the only individual in existence with free will.

THIS DEBATE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCEPT! In this debate I will assert logically that out of all people who roam the earth, I am the sole individual who has free will; does this mean that I believe I am truely the only one? Well not exactly, but in essence, yes. I will show that because each individual lives in his or her own world, that they are logically restrained to accept certain ideas, especially when they experience a certain theoretical situation which logically demonstrates that others are not free but that you yourself and I myself (seperately) are. Here is a logical proof explaining in further detail and clarity to what exactly I am refering. Please note that BOP is shared, and that currently the debate is impossible to accept, doing so without permission is an auto forfeit. There are only 48 hours to respond to each argument. Message me or comment if interested. Case: 1. ) All actions are predetermined and thus predicatable. 2. ) Thus, given enough information, I could theoretically be put in a viewing room which allowed me to watch and anticipate another person’s every-move. This would prove to the me in the story, that other people's actions are predetermined 3. ) Logically however, I could never view and anticipate My own actions as this would be a paradox, this would prove to me that my actions are not predeterminable. 4. ) Thus, in your world, only you have free will and as it relates to me, only I have free willThus if we look into this scenaro from a god's perspective who is viewing all humans, we would be able to see that nobody has free will, yet if we look from the perspective of an individual, only they (that individual) would have free will, finally if we were to view the situation from everybody's collective and unified perspective, then everyone has free will. The ultimate theme here being, perspective, perspective and its relation to the word and meaning of 'free will/freedom'. Thus, because I am stuck in my ignorant, mortal and first person based perspective, I can logically, reasonably and justifiably say that only I have free will. The examples above stating that other have free will depending on the perspective is not a concession of the round, but rather a method for me to demonstrate why what I said make sense, the shifting nature I show above helps strengthen my position but again, please do not assert that because I have 'admited' that I Can, not have free will that this is a concession. Forgive the semantics disclaimer. Further Rulesto win I must show that it is reasonable or rational to believe the idea that I am the only person who has free will. Con must prove that such a claim or belief is unreasionable and/or irrational.
God is not real

Does Time exist? Can we physically observe time? We can only see the effects of time....right. Does science support that time exists? Since God is disproved because of the fact that God can not be physically observed, then time should not exist. In Daniel 4:11, figurative language was used. Some people say skyscrapers "touch" the sky but they do not think the earth is flat... Some proof of heaven in the bible: Matthew 5:12 Luke 6:23 Revelation 22:12 Hebrews 11:26 Matthew 16:27 Daniel 12:3 Matthew 25:20-23 Luke 19:15-19 1 Corinthians 3:8 2 Corinthians 9:6 Matthew 5:10-12 Luke 6:22-23 1 Peter 5:4 1 Thessalonians 2:19 2 Timothy 4:8 Ephesians 2:6 Philippians 3:20-21 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 I will now use scientific proof: Many scientists are convinced that our universe began with one enormous explosion of energy and light known as the Big Bang. This was the start to everything that exists: the beginning of the universe, the start of space, and even the initial start of time itself. Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, stated, "The seed of everything that has happened in the Universe was planted in that first instant; every star, every planet and every living creature in the Universe came into being as a result of events that were set in motion in the moment of the cosmic explosion...The Universe flashed into being, and we cannot find out what caused that to happen." Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light." The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. In Genesis 1:3, God said"Let there be light". This is a logical explanation for the Big Bang. God accidentally created evil by creating us humans in a chain reaction. Should Hitler's parents be blamed for the holocaust? Life on earth is not important, if the children killed was innocent, then heaven will be given to them. GOOD ADVICE: WHEN TRYING TO DISPROVE BIBLE, DO NOT USE BIBLE!!!!!
God is not real

I never said science disproves God, I'm just saying it can't prove it either, just like it can't disprove the Easter bunny, flying spagetti monster, aliens like you said, or anything else supernatural. You talk about times God predicted something, I mean of course he predicted it, he's omniscient isn't he? You found that in the bible, and you know what's also in the bible? That the Earth is flat. In the bible they say the Earth is round, And every time they use round elsewhere in the bible they use it for a wheel, etc. round is not the same as a sphere. Also, it talks about how a tree from the center of the Earth will reach the heavens that everyone else on Earth could see it. Obviously, this is impossible if they were talking about a spherical earth, and they most have believed the earth was flat. Speaking of the bible, no where in the bible does it say we have free will. It says multiple times we are predetermined. That means every time God is "testing" us, he would already know what we would do and act, so their is no point in testing us. God doesn't allow evil, he creates it. He said so himself. If it is the devil and satans work, why doesn't he stop him? He is all powerful, he is omnipotent. Either he can't help us, so he's not omnipotent, or he chooses not to, so he's not Omnibenevolent. You said God killed all the evil creations and saved the Good ones. Why then, is it that he killed entire villages? It's hard to believe that everyone in that village was evil, what about the children and small/unborn babies? What about when everyone died of a great flood except for Noah and his crew? It's hard for me to believe everyone on the Earth at that time was evil. "He is all powerful and can probably just make the Boulder disappear". He's omnipotent, which means all powerful like I told you, so yes he could make it disappear. However, you said he could probably make it disappear, meaning you think he could creat a boulder big enough he could lift it, meaning he is not truly omnipotent.
God is not real

You can not test if God exists BUT, there is some evidence and proof of his existence. [God of the gaps argument insert here] [God's prediction of the rise and fall Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome]. Something you can't test with science, does not disprove it. Aliens can exist BUT, you can not test that. The origin of humans is from a theory and evidence in our world doesn't 100% support evolution. God allows evil in the world because of free will and letting us choose our destiny. God does not want us sinning but, humans choose to sin against GOD. War, disease,natural disasters, etc. are not made by God's doing... IT IS SATAN'S. Satan managed to trick Eve and Adam to sin thus causing creating evil. Sin brings along greed, lust, pride, gluttony, envy, sloth, and wrath. Another evidence that supports God is just and good is that he punishes Satan, Adam, and Eve for their sin. During Noah's time, almost all humans were evil and God was sorry for ever making humans. If God is not Omnibenevolent, why would he kill of his evil creations and save the good creations. He is all powerful and can probablly just make the boulder disappear. There is no need to pray because he knows everything but, praying connects you with God more.
God is not real

It's hard for me to believe in something that has so many contradictions. Did you know that's Gods own definition contradicts itself? The definition of God in the Christian Bible is that he is 1.Super natural 2.Omnibenevolent 3.OmniPotent 4.Omniscient I'll start off with the first one. Now, being supernatural means you are inmaterial, which means it can't be tested as in science you can only test material things. With that said, you couldn't prove for a supernatural being to be right or wrong since you can not test it. With that said, you say God is the higher power, while I say Zeus, and another one says a flying spaghetti monster. As ridiculous as that sounds, you can't prove one to be more right or wrong than any other one, therefore all 3 answers are equally valid. The second one is God is Omnibenevolent or all good. Now let's use examples of horrible things: War, disease, natural disasters, almost anything bad you can think of. Now, do you think that is the work of God, or the devil? If you said God, that proves you disagree in the defintion of God. If you said it's the devil, you are also wrong. God says In Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". He says himself he creates evil, proving he is not all good, contradicting his own definition. The next one is Omnipotent or all powerful. Now here's a question in which you've most likely heard before but stands true and proves my point. Can God create a boulder so big even he himself could not lift it? If you say God can, that proves he is not Omnipotent since he is not powerful enough to lift the Boulder, and if you say God can't them that proves he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder so big. The last part of this definition is he is Omniscient or all knowing. If God knew everything, then he would know what you need or what you want, and therefore there should be no reason to pray for it.
Bitcoin is hurting the US Economy

Don't fool yourself. A government is a glorified shopping mall management company -- a business, just like any other -- and you can not honestly tell me that the US Government is performing the job it has been paid to do. Individual voters are left choosing between one of a whopping two options, tailored to the interests of those willing to pay a little extra. The marketplace we were born into has ceased to serve our needs and somebody has come along and offered us an alternative... if US Government-owned marketplace wants to regain our attention the should be forced to earn it. Maybe BitCoin will give the system the shock it needs to realize what it has become. No taxation without representation!
Bitcoin is hurting the US Economy

That depends upon what you mean by the phrase "US economy". Does this economy belong to the government or the taxpayers? I say the latter. Giving the consumer options can never do anything except benefit the economy, even if that means giving them the option of taking part in a competing economy that lays over top of the first one. This may even IMPROVE the traditional economy in the long run because giving the entire marketplace some competition will bring some accountability -- the traditional marketplace will have to correct itself in order to survive.
african americans are less intelligent than whites

con basically says blacks of a capacity to be intelligent, and there are various types of smarts, which everyone has different types of, so we can't say whites are smarter than blacks. con also seems to just forget about all he argued before, as before he focused on the nature versus nurture debate and emphasized nurture. now he's arguing something else. it seems con is just stream of conscious style throwing common objections to 'he or she is or is not smart'. mostly platitudes. nothing scientific, yet again. back to what he just argued though. can't we say humans are smarter than monkeys? or is that wrong because monkeys have capacity, and have certain smarts humans do not? it's just an analogy to make a point. when we talk about intelligence, we are talking about one's capacity to reason and engage in higher level thought. not whether one per se is decent at fixing cars even though he's generally otherwise a dimwit, even though stephen hawkins well say sucks at fixing cars. concepts and the essence of the debate matters. con is just engaging in rhetoric and platitudes and misses the point
african americans are less intelligent than whites

i cited my information in the comments section. con has done nothing to contradict any of it. based on cranial size at least, and IQ as added evidence, whites are smarter than blacks. all con has done is offer speculation, about nature v nurture. he's arguing the differences are all about nurture. that whites and blacks would be the same intelligence given the same social constructs. this is all speculation though, and doesn't negate the studies provided.
african americans are less intelligent than whites

Well this is.......wow. Okay let me educate some people. 1. Whites are NOT more intelligent than blacks by nature. Their brain may on average be a fraction smaller but that has not prevented them from doing some extraordinary things. Intelligence is also deducted in two categories. Book smart and street smart. Yes, on average there are probably more book smart whites but there are also more street smart blacks. Ask an educated white kid to find the probability of Earth existing and they will know how to find it. Tell them what you should do during a mugging and they would probably say crouch down and take it. Hint: You get mugged you fight, you run, you stand up and take it, but do NOT just go into the feetle position. It invites more pounding because you are seen as weak. Blacks on average know this. Does this mean whites are more stupid? No, it just means they know different things. Aside from that, intelligence is something that I do not think you understand. A white may have accumulated more knowledge but this does not make that person superior. The brain has the same capacity(The mentally ill aside) for everyone not just whites. Blacks, if given the same opportunity, can learn just the same as whites. When I say the same opportunity, I also mean environment. It has become a stereotype that blacks should be tough and don't "need to learn nothin" while the white stereotype is the very one you represent. As for the Asian comment, let me explain this stereotype. In China and several Asian countries around it the people who live there have a strong sense of honor. The kids were to be the best and represent the country the best way possible, especially in intellect. They want people to know that they are the best and this mentality was ingrained into the minds of many Asian children's parents who migrated to America. They believed in the very thing you say in your comment(Not cool by the way. Keep debate info in the debate. Not being smug but that was not something you should do unless agreed upon by both parties or you do not have any opportunity to do so). They thought in survival of the fittest and if you have gained more knowledge than those around you than you are the fittest. Over to You Pro
african americans are less intelligent than whites

Let me start with this: "con basically says blacks of a capacity to be intelligent, and there are various types of smarts, which everyone has different types of, so we can't say whites are smarter than blacks." If I did not make it clear with the dictionary definition then let me be clear now because this is getting redundant. Intelligence=Capacity not that there is capacity to BE intelligent. Next: "back to what he just argued though. can't we say humans are smarter than monkeys? or is that wrong because monkeys have capacity, and have certain smarts humans do not? it's just an analogy to make a point. when we talk about intelligence, we are talking about one's capacity to reason and engage in higher level thought. not whether one per se is decent at fixing cars even though he's generally otherwise a dimwit, even though stephen hawkins well say sucks at fixing cars." Now to expound on what exactly intelligence is. Now that we can see that intelligence is capacity then we know that monkeys are not of the same level of intelligence as humans. They do no have the capability to understand quantum physics while any human CAN be taught with enough time and effort. There still is the ability, Black or White. As for the Stephen Hawking comment let me solve that issue. The general and cultural perspective of "smarts" is that one has several things: a large and general knowledge about most academic subjects including but not limited to English/Literature, Sciences, History, and Math, a large understanding and use of native language such as grammar and vocabulary, and being able to problem solve with relative ability. While these are parts of ones knowledge, they do not limit people from being able to learn it. Sure, Stephen Hawking is a genius at what he does and many people think he is very smart but why is that a separation to a man who is a genius at fixing cars? Just because one person does not know something does not make them less intelligent. Lastly:"concepts and the essence of the debate matters. con is just engaging in rhetoric and platitudes and misses the point" Let us see what the debate is: "african americans are less intelligent than whites". Now, yes, I can see where the example of the mechanic and Stephen Hawking may seem off topic but let me change oh so slightly; A Black guy can fix cars really well and a White guy knows about the working of the physics. Seems on topic to me. Also, if I am just being "off topic" then why is it that the first section my starting statement was "Whites are NOT more intelligent than blacks by nature." and for the second I gave you the dictionary definition of Intelligence and then went to explain how this very definition affects our debate. I am sorry if you are out of good working material but just saying that mine is no good is a little below the belt when all I did was talk about the intelligence of all people being equal. Thanks for the interesting topic and I hope for a fair vote, despite who wins.
Hot button issue

One can barely tell that your avatar is younger because it is of such poor quality. Also, your baby looks angry, and nobody likes an angry baby, because they cry and stuff. Abe Lincoln was a terrible debater, that's why he never was a US Senator. If he ran today, people would think him equally if not more crazy than Ron Paul. Finally, I believe that getting to look at and touch woman's parts is definitely another reason why ron paul is amazing, which extends to this avatar that has ron paul, making it amazing as well. I win.
Hot button issue

Uhhh... My baby body is from a younger baby which by most accounts is cuter than an older one. Ron Paul's not even good enough to be a Senator, that's how bad he is. Abe Lincoln was a state Senator, and he won the whole d*mn election. RON PAUL SUCKS!!!!!!! Also, he is mentally insane, and his original job was to look at women's parts. He is also racist as shown by some reliable news sources. I win, hahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Hot button issue

My avatar is better, because it has a much higher resolution of pixels, and the face is more properly and realistically photoshopped onto the body. Your baby's body is like a strange blob. Mine is clearly a baby girl. Also, Ron Paul probably did the best for any representative running for President in over a hundred years. (maybe in all history?) If he were a Senator, I'm sure he'd still be crazy, but I think he would have potentially been nominated. Also, John McCain is old, and patronizes everyone by saying 'my friend' to people that he is speaking to. Ron Paul just says 'fï¿½ck you' to everybody, which makes people like him.