BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Greed is the cause of every problem in America today.

Very well, I must admit that I left that title entirely too vague, I should have said MOST, instead of all. You do bring up some very good points, however, gun control, censorship, gay marriage, and abortion are all debatable whether or not they are problems or not. I would say that an American problem would be defined as being a problem that every American can define as being a problem. A gay person would not find their gay marriage to be a problem, a woman who has an abortion might not see it as a moral problem, someone who carries a gun might feel that it is their right to, and as far as censorship laws go, I hardly see that as a problem in America. Therefore, looking at some of the serious critical nationwide accepted problems, they are all based on greed. Your reversal to my above point might be to question whether or not these points are real problems as well, so I will explain: Immigration: (12 million people living in the shadows in a desperate time of national security is a problem, posed not only for our safety but also putting stress on our infrastructure). Why is immigration still allowed? Well very simply because the businesses that hire them for near slave labor are allowed to stay in business. Why are they allowed to? Because they fluff the pockets of politicians via lobbyists (you might also argue that the gun control and other arguments discussed above could be provented if it weren't for lobbyists +money ) aka GREED. Energy/oil: Exxon mobile made 30-40 billion dollars in one quarter of 2007, while many Americans are struggling with increasing gas prices. How could this happen: GREED. Why isn't the government more poised toward shifting to a more oil independent system? LOBBYISTS FROM EXXON!!! AKA GREED! Health care: why isn't health-care more affordable? Because corporations that make the drugs, and because the entire health industry has unnaturally boosted its prices above the expected and reasonable price: GREED! Since I did not specify monetary greed, I will also throw in the following point: Nuclear tensions: The United States currently has THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads. This is completely irrational, seeing as most scientists agree that if 12 were to go off at around the same time it would put the globe into extinction. But America has thousands! why: GREED! greed for that power, and the statement that it makes. As you can see many of the major problems within the United States, that are viewed universally amongst Americans as serious issues, are fueled in fact by greed. Other sub-issues that only affect a certain section of the population. The moral of my debate: Take away the greed, and perhaps everyone could focus more time on the problems that you pointed out, and getting down to the morals and ethics of the situations, rather than worrying about immigration, high health care costs, poor education systems, nuclear international tensions, and an energy crisis.
Greed is the cause of every problem in America today.

Since your contention is that greed is the cause of EVERY problem in America today, to win I only need to point out a few problems that don't. 1) Gay Marriage: There is no money at the core of the gay marriage debate. You could say that, "well, anti-gay marriage (a.k.a. fascists) don't want gays to have benefits." But they are already getting them with domestic partnership, which they're already allowed to have. 2) Abortion: This is a completely moral issue that is taking over America. There is no money involved in this one either. 3) Censorship: Ever since, "F*ck Tha Police," came out, there has been huge controversy over censorship laws. Proponents of cencorship do not gain any monetary good, and the artists don't receive anything but a reputation (which may lead to profits, but since they ones whom started the problem, it doesn't matter). 4) Gun control: People have been debating over this one for decades. No one is directly benefiting from either side. Of course, you could argue that gun companies get money, but they did not start the problem, so it's irrelevant. Those are just 4 of hundreds of examples of issues that don't have greed at their cause.
Rocks are living

I would firstly like to apologise to Con, I have forgot to put the source links at the bottom of my previous argument. Here they are now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com...;I will now highlight the follies of my opponent's argument, as it is obvious rocks are living. He tells me to get a little pebble and leave it in my backyard to see if it grows over time. Over time, as minerals carried by rain water are sprinkled onto the rock, it will grow bigger or become smaller. Although the growth difference may not be noticeable in my lifetime, a rock has a much greater lifespan than the average living thing. Think about this, over the next thousand of years, are you saying the rock won't change at all? Of course it will, that is how mountains are made. Furthermore, the pebble will move when it is blown around by the wind, not that it has anything to do with whether the rock is alive or not. Physically moving is not a requirement to prove something is living (But rocks still do that). Regarding the stone hill aspect, of course it will grow, how do you think it became a hill in the first place? It did not magically 'come to be', it developped from a tiny mound of rock to what it is today. We should truly marvel at these fascinating creatures.
Rocks are living

I'd like to question Pro over his sources on proof about the four factors that he believe make a rock living. True, these four factors do prove a lot when you're deciding if something is living, but I would like to ask Pro this: get a little pebble, just enough to notice. Now leave it out in the backyard/garden and see if it grows over time. See if it even moves over time. Let me ask all followers of this debate: according to Dictionary.com, a rock is a large mass of stone forming a hill, cliff, promontory or the like. So I put it to you: Anyone who knows a stone hill: known it well, has you noticed it "grow"? Have you noticed it has strangely moved 2 feet since your first visit? I highly doubt so.
Rocks are living

Let's start by defining what it means to be living to start with:Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased, or else they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate[1]. Let's now look to the oxford dictionary to see the requirements of proving something is living. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death[2]. If I can prove all of these things, then rocks must be living.1) A capacity to growOver time, as minerals are deposited onto the rock, the rock becomes larger and larger. It may also shrink as a result of wind and water. This is quite an obvious point.2) ReproductionOne rock can eventually split into two rocks due to outside elements. Once split, they are completely independent of themselves, like every other living thing.3) Functional activityLet's first look at the definition of these words, as I had to in making this argument. A task or act that allows one to meet the demands of the environment and daily life[3]. Now, we can see that rocks are very durable creatures, and there really isn't much they need to do to survive in their environment. They just sit there. However, they do respond to outside forces. For example, when another solid body touches a rock, local stress in the rock rises. When light hits the rock, heat is added, another physical process.4) Undergo metabolism, thus continual changeMetabolism is defined as the chemical processes by which a plant or an animal (a rock in this case) uses food, water, etc. , to grow and heal and to make energy[2]. This also happens in the rock, over a long time. Minerals in the rock eventually succumb to internal pressure, creating new structures and compounds to be formed. Due to this chemical process, energy is produced, and the rock is also seen to physically change in size. As you can see here, rocks are clearly living and I do not see why everyone has to treat them like objects, it must be very degrading for them.
Rocks are living

As this is the last round, I will simply summarise my arguments and my opponent's previous rebuttals in a simple manner so that it will be clearly evident to all that rocks are alive.I have provided a definition for life and the conditions necessary to prove life, neither of which have been challenged or replaced by Con. Con has not challenged number 3 or 4, that is, functional activity or the undergoing of metabolism. Con has challenged 1) the capacity to grow, but as I have clearly shown in my examples, rocks can grow. It does not matter how small the amount of growth is in a rock, if it grows even a little due to chemical processes, then it has shown growth. Since rocks are composites of minerals, and minerals 'grow' when more mineral is deposited, rocks grow[1]. So now, all that remains is point number 2) Reproduction. Con starts off by saying that they have never seen a rock reproduce, but that does not mean it cannot happen. I have not seen Con in person, but that does not mean he does not exist. He then quotes "2 simultaneous theories of rocks: the Big Bang, or the creation of God." but I do not see how these two theories are relevant to the question of reproduction at all. Objects do not need to exhibit physical movement to multiply. In terms of reproduction itself, you need only think of human reproduction. What happens when a woman makes a baby? The baby is pulled from inside her, and thus two separate entities are created[2]. Now we can look at the example of a rock. When a rock is separated by acid or other natural occurences, two rocks are created. You could say they are still two rocks cut in half, but you could also say that a son simply comes from her mother's body (father's semen too, but asexual reproduction exists as well [3]). After the rock is split, due to movement of wind and rain over hundreds, thousands and millions of years, these rocks are blown far and wide apart, and they continue to reproduce through separation of acids.Since I have now proved contentions 1), 2), 3), 4) I have thus demonstrated the requirements to satisfy the hypothesis of rocks being living creatures. I thank my opponent for this thrilling debate and hope he sees the world in a new light.[1] http://naturescienceguy.hubpages.com...;[2] http://health.howstuffworks.com...;[3] https://www.princeton.edu...;
Rocks are living

Also, I have never seen a rock reproduce. How does one divide itself, or mate? Dividing isn't even considered reproducing, that is the division of a rock. I believe in 2 simultaneous theories of rocks: the Big Bang, or the creation by God. I don't see how an object that cannot move multiply. It baffles me, and possibly many others, at the thought of rocks living. I understand physical contact/movement isn't one of the basic requirements of the definition of living, but isn't movement sort of like one of the things reproduction requires? When a rock seperates, would it still occupy the same space, or would it move strangely? If the latter, I question how the rock would move in doing so.
God hates you

http://www.youtube.com...**Warning this youtube clip has very strong language. So if you are young don't listen, if you are at work don't turn the sound up.**It seems my opponent has made a huge error in accepting this debate, as they have conceded the debate in the first round.Firstly, my opponent is new here. So let me just point out that in future you should clearly read the debate proposition before accepting a debate.Normally, I would have built my case, but as my opponent concedes there is really no point.My contention is that God hates you, here my opponent responds by saying "but in case if he does exist, HE DOESN'T LOVE YOU". Thanks for the concession Con, I guess I can rack this up as a win unless you can somehow wangle your way out of it. Remember, the antonym for love is hate.(1)Thanks and now while I strut in victory I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://www.synonym.com... http://static.tvtropes.org...; />
God hates you

I personally think that an all creator, almighty god doesn't exist, but in case if he does exist, HE DOESN'T LOVE YOU. all he is doing is playing games with the innocent lives of people. For example, if you don't believe in him, you will be sent to hell. (as in Christianity) I would like to ask all who believes that god loves them, Have you ever played the sims game? it is a life simulation game where you play as god and are given an avatar to adopt and to make him live. It is that same relationship between the player to the avatar in the sims, that is between the so-called almighty creator god and his people here on Earth.
God hates you

Yes, I am an atheist. However, for this debate we will pretend the Bible and the Biblical God is real.Using the Bible (and other apologetics, as why not) I will try my darnedest to show that God really does hate you. Just in case you are wondering I am presupposing that Hell exists, after all God hates you.Before you accept this debate, please realize I am talking about the Christian God and check out this link.(1)http://www.youtube.com...First round is acceptance and posting of a pretty picture showing why you incorrectly think that God loves you. http://cdn.memegenerator.net...; />(1) http://www.godhatestheworld.com...On a side note, there may be a few things said that may upset some people. Just a heads up. So expect some slight trolling.
It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

As implied by the resolution, this debate concerns logic and logical reasons to believe in God. My opponent's one and only argument is highly illogical and mostly based in faith. Faith and logic are very different things, faith being a belief in something that is not proven, and logic being a rational way of proving things.My opponent makes the huge assumption that God exists in the first place, without providing any reason to for this belief other than faith, which is not a logical justification.So because he has the BoP to prove that it is logical to believe that God exists in the first place, and has not done so, his argument is irrelevant. God cannot cause people to have faith if there is no God. Beyond his argument being irrelevant, it is illogical. My opponent argues that because something is impossible, it is therefore illogical. This is not a valid argument because something can be impossible and still be logical. Beyond this, assuming that there is a God and his argument is valid, his arguments premises are not true. Not all Judeo-Christian religions hold to the idea that humans do not have free will to decide what to believe. Judaism and Catholicism both teach that humans have free will [1].So basically, it boils down to this:My opponent assumes there is a God.His argument is not valid as well as being untrue.Therefore, he has not upheld his BoP.My CaseMy case is that until there is a logical (not faith based) reason to believe that the Judeo-Christian God exists, it is illogical to hold that belief.
It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

I will be arguing that it is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God Point 1 / Round 1– In the Judeo-Christian Context, Faith is not a choice In accordance with the Doctrine of Calvin, as set for by the Synod of Dort and unfolded in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, the ability to believe is assigned by God to the elect in Christ. The doctrines dictate that: 1.> True believers cannot lose salvation and therefor assigned faith is permanent. 2.> Faith is granted by God. The person cannot choose to believe. Conclusion –For the true believer, it is illogical to disbelieve because it is impossible to disbelieve. Once the “perfect, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient God” brings you to faith, disbelief is no longer logical because it has been madeimpossible. The heart is awoken to supernatural reasoning established by the highest personality in all existence. I make this point under the governing authority of the scripture, which my opponent concedes defines the nature ofGod. I submit for evidence, the 5th doctrine of Calvin – “Perseverance of the Saints.” I supplement the doctrinewith verses of substance in regard to this doctrine. The new creation in Christ – 2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. The irresistible call to faith – John 10:27 – “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” You must be called to believe –John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” References: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith - http://www.student-preacher.com... 2 Corinthians 5:17 - http://www.esvbible.org... John 10:27 - http://www.esvbible.org... John 6:44 - http://esv.scripturetext.com...
It is logical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God

I will be arguing that it is illogical to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.Judeo-Christian God will be defined as the perfect, omnipotent, omnibenovolent, and omniscient God described in the Old and New Testaments.The BoP is on Pro to show why it is logical to hold such a belief.Pro shall post his or her opening arguments in the first round, and will not post any arguments in the last round. Drops count as concessions.Good luck!
A Musician is Defined by New Content

My opponent claimed in his speech that Musician doesn't necessarily include instrumentalists and goes on to say that in the definition instrumental music is a generalization, however, even if it is a generalization, that still means that the word musician includes instrumentalists. I never claimed that the word musician was limited to instrumentalists, I only claimed that it included them and my opponent has not proved the opposite. The second point my opponent has made is that you can make music without using instruments. This is an irrelevant argument as it doesn't prove his resolution. My opponent than goes on to claim that generalizations can be added to any definition. He uses the example of architect and claims that adding the generalizations still leaves the definition as true. This argument actually proves my side as, based on the argument my opponent made, the definition of musician is true meaning performers of music are musicians. The next argument my opponent makes is that musician is wrongly defined because the way it is used is off from its definition, this is a flawed argument. The argument is that since people apply it for different reasons than the definition (which my opponent has no proof for), that the definition should be changed. This is flawed. That is the same as saying that since people use the word boss incorrectly (for example, people say that something is boss as in cool, That hat is boss man). Under that argument the definition of boss should be changed from a leader to something that is cool. We would have to change a lot of definitions and the dictionary would be a confusing and fluctuation object. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to prove WHY the definition of musician should be defined by New Content. His debate has been based off opinion and comparisons which I have shown to be faulty comparisons. I also have shown that the definition of musician does include performers and instrumentalists and that it does not explicitly mention that they must be interpretations. Please cast a con ballot.
A Musician is Defined by New Content

My opponent says that he worded the resolution incorrectly, that's fine, even if you do go by this changed resolution, my opponent still hasn't shown that a musician should be defined by New Content. My opponent has compared an instrumentalist to a musician as the same as comparing a construction worker to an architect. This is a bad comparison as the definition of musician includes instrumentalists while the definition of architect does not include construction workers. In order for my opponent to prove his changed resolution, my partner has to prove that the word musician (which is already defined by professionals) is wrongly defined rather than just stating that it is wrong. All my opponent has done is say that the word musician is wrongly defined because musicians should only be considered musicians if they interpret the music in their own unique way. My argument to this is that it is his own opinion because as the definition says, it includes all musical performers and does not even mention interpretation, and as I have said again, in order to prove his argument, my opponent first has to prove why the word musician is defined incorrectly. However, if we were going off just opinionated arguments (which we aren't), My argument would be to look at professional orchestras. Most orchestras (as I have personal experience in them), play instrumental music the way it is written and they do not change anything. Would you say someone who makes thousands of dollars playing in a high-end professional orchestra (even if they played the music as it is written) isn't a musician? I would say that they are musicians as they make far more money than a lot of the small-town bands who play in pubs their whole lives and interpret the music in their own way. My argument is that since far more people go and watch these orchestras rather than a lot of these small-town bands who play in pubs and pay a lot more money than to see the orchestras, the majority rule would say that yes, instrumentalists are in fact musicians.