BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Impeach trump

Many people don't know the back story behind the reason for his believing' s. An example is the wall, economically speaking this impossible but he has a reason for it. What the illegal immigrants are doing is in fact illegal. Many people do it the legal way and can spend more the 10 years to get there visa. Why should the illegal immigrants get the right to come into our country and think they can stay while others wait for their chance for a better life.
The Resurrection of Jesus is possible

I contended this because i believe that your statements were flawed, and i don't agree with them. A) people in Greek and roman times did many things for the gods and goddesses that they never had proof for. The whole story of Athens name is mythology but there was still a city named Athens. It is not unique to the time that apostles risked their lives to spread the word of Christ. Pros point is invalid and flawed. B) "ah.. a good old Protestant argument that has little to no validity of substance to it". says Pro, but when i go to to type in to Google "has the bible been altered," i get 11,600,000 results. The first few you click on and read will give you countless examples of differences between companies that make the bible. Verses are altered with different words, and even to have different meanings. So if i can pick up to Christian bibles and see that they are different even in our highly advanced world today, whose to say that word of mouth didn't cause a few inconsistencies in the bible. We also get everything we know from Jesus's time from one man that wrote it down, Paul. The other separate books were written decades and even centuries later. There are even discrepancies from Paul's writings to the writings we see happen later. Pro shows more invalid and flawed points! C)To say that the significance of people writing down that a prostitute found Jesus proves possibility is not a very thought out argument. up until Roman Empire times prostitutes were actually the only woman that could speak publicly and do as they pleased without being ridiculed. The apostles had reasons to hide out at these times, were as a prostitute had no worries in the streets. D) Pro here seems to ignore my argument that a resurrection was not anew concept and that there were far more unbelievable stories of the Greek and Roman gods that were held true during the time of Christ. Pro still shows lack of knowledge concerning the times around the supposed resurrection.
The Resurrection of Jesus is possible

A) Pro doesn't present any factual or scientific proof that a resurrection is possible B) Pro claims that the bible has been unchanged by the catholic church, despite the numerous amount of evidence that says different C) Pro says that a story from the bible is legitimate when in the 2nd round Pro states " I am also not holding the bible as truth." Pro throughout the debate has changed his mind several times D) Pro still just waves off my previous points and does not try to factually deny them. Pro cherry picks the argument vastly. Pro shows a lack of knowledge surrounding the history in which the resurrection may or may not have taken place. Pro dos almost nothing to rebut my points and cherry picks them. Pro shows no scientific proof of a resurrection being possible. Pro uses only bias and opinionated arguments throughout the debate. The lack of evidence and lack of proof Pro presents does not prove a possibility of the resurrection of Christ.
The Resurrection of Jesus is possible

A) Pro has presented no evidence for the sole reason the apostles risked their lives to spread their word was because of their passion for the resurrection. Pro insists that the sacrifice of a life for an idea is proof enough to consider the resurrection possible. People kill themselves in cults because they believe that what the cult leader tells them. Christianity started as a cult and has had some dark times. Pro also admits that the apostles could have been all psychopaths and made the whole thing up. B)"First of all, the amount of search results has nothing to do with the conclusion" Pro " ah.. a good old Protestant argument that has little to no validity of substance to it" Pro I have over 11 million results of validity. Pro contradicts himself. When Catholic priests copied the bible they didn't copy it from another book, they listened to another priest reading it aloud to them. We know this through history to have caused generalizations, and shortened versions. They didn't exactly have whiteout during the middle ages. If we have the original bibles then why don't we copy them down word for word? Why do the different Christian faiths disagree? If they disagree, then where is the original bible so that we can see the true fact? Why are the Catholics the the correct ones? As you know they were the cause for much corruption and the crusades. C) "Although these were the "Roman times", the world was not Rome. This was in Israel." Pro Israel was part of the Roman Empire. "Maybe in Rome a prostitute could walk around freely, but if you would've remebered, Mary Magadelene was about to be stoned by the people when Jesus told them that whoever had no sin to throw them irate stone." What Proof is there of this event ever happening? D) Pro still tries to legitimatize that the story of Islam and Buddhism's leaders affect the uniqueness and importance that it has to the story of Christ, but because these events happened after Jesus. They would be in fact original to themselves. Pro again ignores the the points i presented about the Greek and Roman religions before Christianity.
Teachers Follow Dress Code along with Students

I hope you're well. I do not expect to win this debate due to the sheer volume of students who frequent this site - of which many will be emotionally invested in the topic. I'll begin by saying as a minor I had the same concerns as yourself, however now, as an old codger, I kind of get it. I will assume the role of devils advocate. I will list my first round arguments now and save my rebuttals for later. Goodluck! 1) A dress code may stifle an individuals freedom of expression but, it could be argued, uniform clothing facilitates a sense of group identity, comradeship and affiliation, while simultaneously reducing the tendency of cliques to form which are dependendant on individual clothing styles. 1b) Dress codes are normal for institutions (military, police, fireservice, law courts etc), it fosters a bond which metorphorically represents an ethos or common goal. 1c) The school establishment is an educational institute. A common dress code is a school's identity brand. In the eyes of the school it is the duty of the pupil to dress a certain way to promote their place of education. However, this only works if you conduct yourself in the correct manner - conversley, should a pupil misbehave in the community during school hours a member of the public can identify the misruly student by their attir and contact the school. 2) School is a place of learning. A students preoccupation should be study, not fashion. There is ample time outside of school to demonstrate how trendy (or not) you may be. Besides, this is a very superficial concern. 3) School children can be cruel - they'll always find a victim and reason to bully. However, restrictions on clothing limit the bully's reasons to bully by a factor of one. 4) The willingness to conform, or abide by an enforced dress code, instills a certain level of discipline which is potentially conducive to the learning environment. 5) Ultimately, teachers are not students. A uniform creates an 'us an them' mentality - a healthy seperation intended to aid subservience and stifle the contempt of familiarity - an example of this is the military: enlisted soldiers wear a set emblems to denote rank, these rank slides are independent of those worn by commissioned officers. Though it may be a crude anology, the students are the 'enlistees' (producers, workers) while the teachers are the commissioned officers (directing, ordering, faciltating, managing, providing welfare support etc) Well, that's it for my opening arguments. I'm looking forward to your rebutals.
the geografical proximiy as a criteria for admission in high school

I would like to clarify that I am not here to provide you with a Pro argument, I am here to tell you why your points are flawed and to ultimately win the debate. You could ask for advice on the forums after this is finished.Rebuttals"after you finish the 12 grade you sustain an exam". Contrary to popular belief, I do not think that exams are sustained; they are in fact taken. Pro then goes on to provide us with some statistics, which is quite contradictory in itself as he does not seem to be able to decide between 0 or 5-10%, two very different things - both of which aren't backed up by sources of course. His main point in round two is that if you fail an entrance exam into high school, you will automatically fall into a 'bad highschool'. I will not rebutt against this point as Pro has yet to provide any evidence. I will, however, discuss the idea that the separation between elite and bad highschools are necessary.ArgumentImagine this for a moment. You are a hard working, dedicated guy (another word for a nerd) who is trying to get into law school. You try your best in everything you do, and you are certain you are going to get into that elite high school. BUT WAIT. They removed it; now you will have to go to the school closest to your home. Your parents are too poor to move houses simply for your schooling. It shouldn't be too bad, you think to yourself. First day of school. You walk into the classroom. A ball of paper flies straight into your face. Then another. And another. It's not because they're targeting you in particular either, those low lives are simply looking for something to pass their time, beceause they don't care about their schooling, their parents simply force them to go. So I ask you, Pro, is this really fair on the smart people who want to do well in school and get a good job? I would like to remind the audience that Pro has still failed to present a cohesive argument backed up by reliable sources and thus I still have nothing I need to prove.
the geografical proximiy as a criteria for admission in high school

That said, I thank you for opening this argument but I would like to clarify a few things.1) The resolution: I believe the resolution should be "Geographical proximity as a criteria for admission into high school". Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.2) As pro has decided to use the whole world in his argument, I will simply be focusing on the education system in Australia to prove most of my points, but I may highlight flaws in his own arguments as well.3) Most of the definitions are pretty clear in Pro's argument, but I simply cannot understand what "promovability" is. Until Pro clarifies the spelling and meaning of the word it cannot be counted as a legitimate argument. High SchoolThere are many different types of "High schools" all around the world, which cater for different age groups and have very different functions. As burden of proof is on Pro, I shall adjust the definition of "High School" with the examples he gives. For example, if he talks about America, I'll talk about American high schools in my rebuttal to avoid any confusion. RebuttalsPro has made the argument that there are very few elite high schools and many bad high schools without citing any examples. Furthermore, Pro has failed to explain how this is a bad thing, an issue that is made worse by the use of 'promovability' which I just cannot decipher. Another contradiction is Pro saying that most countries have an exam based entry into high school, but then goes on to say that it is geographically based in Britain, Spain and Finland, which are pretty big and populated countries. ArgumentsAs burden of proof is on Pro, I have no arguments at this time.
the geografical proximiy as a criteria for admission in high school

So,in most countryes from this word,the enty to high school it's made on what mark do you get to the national test. In this way there are elite high school( very few,but they have a grea promovabiliti at the bacalaureat exam) and a lot of bad high schools who have even 0% promovability. This motion tries to change the criteria for entry to high school in geografical proximity. So,if you live for example in Bronx you will go to the nearest high school. This thing happens in Britain,Spain,Finland and others.I want pro and against arguments.
Christianity unintentially breeds hate.

.. Counterclaim: "My opponent's argument its opinion not fact. It is true, that -- "A Man . .. inherently feel superior to those who do not share the same. .. beliefs as he" -- but this not limited to religion, and it is opinion that, disagreement or challenging one's beliefs, can lead to hatred. my opponent states --"he feeling of superiority exists because the individual believes that no matter what, his faith in christianity is a bridge to salvation; and those who do not agree with his beliefs are damned. " -- So what? His/her Beliefs are their own, why should they matter to me? " why should i allow hatred into my heart if our views disagree. Claim 2: "Christianity's position on homosexuality as a "life-style choice" creates hate toward the gay population. Evidence of this hate is the fact that the gay population lives a quality of life, to certain extent, of a lesser quality than the non-gay population. " Counterclaim: My opponent states-- "Christianity's position on homosexuality as a "life-style choice" creates hate toward the gay population"-- How so? i see now evidence that leads one to hatred. Christianity does not condemn homosexuals, but states that homosexuality is a sin, thats between god and the person. Take the example of Mary Magdalen . Christianity teaches, that Christ befriended her when no one else would. Christ showed compassion to her even though her "life-style choice" was looked down upon. Claim 3: I"n Genesis, the bible lays out clear sex roles for men and women. Feminists who reject "orthodox" Female roles and seek to satisfy the bibles definition of the Males roles are outcasted and ridiculed for challenging the system. " Counterclaim Where in the bible? Men would cling to the bible to assert their dominance over women, but it is really power that the men are afraid of losing, not violating religious text. Claim 4: "Individuals devout in christianity seek to expand Christianity to the entire population. When doctrines are rejected by large populations Christians become frustrated and feel contempt for those resisting. This contempt is prime fertilizer for hate to grow. " Counterclaim: You could you the Crusades and Conquistadors to prove your point, except as my teacher puts it " They came with a sword in one hand and the Cross in the other". They Crusades and spanish conquest of the new world, where more about political stature, than the feud of religious dogma. These are examples of where religion is used as a cloak for territorial conquest. Of course your argument does not apply to only these situations, they could apply to the every day person. But the animosity that may arise, is not from one desires to spread religion, but the from the failures one would receive in spreading these beliefs. You might say this proves your point, but it doesn't. It is a person's ability to cope with rejection that is being observed. Hatred is a personal issue, one that we allow to enter our minds, not a third party. Additionally it seems my opponent is basing his argument on "Guilt by Association", which is a logical fallacy. (/www. nizkor. org/)
Christianity unintentially breeds hate.

This debate is about man's tendency to breed hate as a result of his affiliation with Christianity. 1. A Man of religion inherently feel superior to those who do not share the same Religious beliefs as he. This feeling of superiority is multiplied when the individual's religious beliefs are challenged. The feeling of superiority exists because the individual believes that no matter what, his faith in christianity is a bridge to salvation; and those who do not agree with his beliefs are damned. 2. Christianity's position on homosexuality as a "life-style choice" creates hate toward the gay population. Evidence of this hate is the fact that the gay population lives a quality of life, to certain extent, of a lesser quality than the non-gay population. 3. In Genesis, the bible lays out clear sex roles for men and women.Feminists who reject "orthodox" Female roles and seek to satisfy the bibles definition of the Males roles are outcasted and ridiculed for challenging the system. 4. Individuals devout in christianity seek to expand Christianity to the entire population. When doctrines are rejected by large populations Christians become frustrated and feel contempt for those resisting. This contempt is prime fertilizer for hate to grow. The debate is by no means restricted to these four examples of how Christianity unintentionally breeds hate. My opponent is welcome to argue these points or present new points in which they believe proves christianity does not breed hate unintentionally.
the bigger the government is the better life is for people

I gave Pro clear and obvious examples of why the Nordic Model couldn't be easily transferred to the U. S. A. And Pro made no attempt whatsoever to address these issues. Pro simply attempted to ineffectively shift the goal posts. Similarly Pro has made no attempt to address their key proposition. "The bigger the government is the better life is for people". Pro's debating technique is somewhat inert. I am therefore unable to effectively respond further.
the bigger the government is the better life is for people

Germany has a population of 80 million a fine standard of living univeral health care and one of the highest quaiities of life, I would contend that this does indicarte that nordic social democratic policy can be translated to a significantly larger population, And also poimnt out that nations using this model have the best quality of life if you google quality of life indexes for world nations. Also if you loo at the cato index of freedom all these nations score high for individual freedom and surprising well on economic freedom indices.
the bigger the government is the better life is for people

Ultimately do people have the will to behave in the way that that Pro wants them to behave. Maybe that is the stark difference between the Nordic and other models. That is to say that maybe what Pro desires can only be achieved through national re-education rather than any amount of government intervention. Or maybe Nordic will is primarily a genetic or an inherent trait and only transferable through genetic transfer. Another comparison to look at would be population: U. S. A 330 million Norway 6million Sweden 10million Finland 5. 5million Iceland 350 thousand. Notwithstanding the greater investment required for National infrastructure and management. Population wealth disparity also significantly increases relative to increase in population. That is to say; the greater the population the higher the ratio of lower achievers to higher achievers. Therefore the social burden is bound to be greater in the U. S. A when compared to Norway for example. I would suggest that the "Nordic Model" is not easily transferable to larger systems. "The bigger the government is, The better life is for people". I fail to see a direct correlation between government size and quality of life. Isn't a leviathan government more likely to be overburdened by administration than it is to be efficient? And doesn't the cost of over-administration significantly increase the burden on an already overstretched fiscal budget?
the bigger the government is the better life is for people

High taxes on the rich, Free health care and free education, Subsidized housing and food programs, Lots and lot of welfare for families old people disabled and the poor, It might not be socialism, Or maybe you think that is socialism, But i would keep a market economy and have the government decide who gets what like the nordic nations and systems, Welfarism, Socialism, Whatever, Call it what you will, Its progressive capitalism how about that? Whatever you want to call that system they use in the nordic model, Thats the model for me! Itworks for those peole why wouldn't it work here? Why?
God exists and is a real being

Yes, i didn mean to say you said evil existed. I copied that from another post. Evil does exist. You cant deny. Children die. Harm is done. Con say my argument is based on personal experience. What was he reading? Nothing I said had nothing to do with personal experience. Euthyphro's dilemma is flaw. God IS good. It is not seperate and apart from god it is with god a part of him! When you talk about the good, you are talking about a nature of God. The dilemma fails. "Pro appears to build a case for dualism. Actually, according to John Searl, the mind"body problem is a false dichotomy; that is, mind is a perfectly ordinary aspect of the brain. " This can't be. Con fails to get the argument. Mind can't be perfectly aspect of the brain because i can doubt the brain. It cant be any aspect of the brain at all. I win on this 1. " If god commands objective morality then surely he can create a rock so heavy he can"t lift it." This doesn't follow at all. "For example, if I were to invent an imaginary god then my god already is way more creative and powerful than your imaginary one" WRONG. It isn't as powerful, it is a contradictory god and an impossible one. But one limit by logic is perfectly coherent. Con is arguing against differenrt god. Not the god in the debate. Ad Hominem is only commited when I don't address the argument. I did address argument so it not an Ad Hominem. Vote me
God exists and is a real being

Sorry for forfeit. Self reflection By self reflection you can come to the conclusion not only does God exist but hes a real being. We know evil is real. My opponent said so. We do bad things. Yes its true there is not one that does good. we have all had evil moments and thought bad thoughts stole something lied ect. Its human nature. But it only takes one lie to make you a lair. We would all be highly immoral the soceity would be an evil ruthless society without some counter balance. The counterbalance cant come from the world because this world is corrupted. It must come from a highly moral world from a moral being into this world. There must have been a perfect man to do away with our evils. This man cant have been all man because man is corrupt. It must be a man not of this universe that is perfectly moral. This being is clearly God. Not only God, but Jesus. Self reflection of the mind Consider mind. Its a tough subject. We exist. Because we think. Our minds must exist. Alvin Plantenga said if whats true for my mind is true for my body then we should be able to doubt the mind. We can dobut the body but not the mind. The mind is not of the body but the mind began. From an atheistic perective its impossible. How did the mind itself begin and become correlated with the body? God must have been in play. It debunks materialism and disproves atheism. It mean the mind can't become into being by natural processes. It must be caused by a conscious being. Otherwise we would know about many useless immaterial things Con arguments debunked and refuted "If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent" Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is known to be unphilosophical. God is omnipotent in the sense that he all powerful within logical laws. He can't be himself and not himself, he can't out power himself. He can't change himself. Con argument makes an unphilosophical assumption of the definition. that's all.