BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Extremism Cost Conservatives the U.S. Presidency

Regarding Abortion and ALL Issues Considered "Radical" in the FutureWhile the banning of abortions completely are considered radical in this debate, remember that I am arguing that they had no effect because the overwhelming majority of Americans were focused on much more important issues than abortion (since it seems to be the only issue we are discussing that is radical according to my opponent). It also important to remember that while the GOP has given no exceptions to the abortion issue, Romney can be seen as more moderate on the issue of abortion, but leans pro-life. This is because of his political views in the past which have changed over time. Mitt Romney did not declare that he would make any quick and immediate legislation to ban abortions, which means that people probably did not think of abortions much in the race. Important IssuesWhile my opponent has worked hard to claim that people do not completely look at the most major issue and look at other issues. Let's look at what are the most important other issues according to Gallup. Other important issues that scored high:Dissatisfaction with the Government: 15%Healthcare: 5%Ethics: 3%Immigration: 3%Poverty: 2%None of these issues can be considered radical and these are the five most important in other issues according to gallup. Obama can reach that other 18% with these issues, but remember that my opponent failed to mention that 49% of the people already consider themselves Democrats. So that 15% you are talking about that could disqualify a candidate based on abortion are probably all Democrats. All Democrats really needed was to get that extra 1.9%. Not that hard a task. Since abortion did not even get 1% of importance according to Gallup, we can only assume that is hat no effect it getting President Obama near that 1.9% and it is possible the people who cared about abortion already had made up their minds. [1,2]Obama's VictoryObama failed to counter that the RCP average has proved that President Obama was already a popular president. His favorability ratings were very similar to how many votes he got in the general election percentage wise. This is not a a national poll, this is an average of national polls combined and they proved to be very accurate. [3]Why would a president most people like lose the election? Keep in mind that Obama never really attacked Romney strongly abortion. So the issue was again, practically irrelevant to the election. ConclusionI have proven that radical issues (i. e. abortion) had no effect in the presidential election because the country was almost entirely Democrat already, little people cared about abortion, and President Obama was a popular president. Mitt Romney's past gives him a much more moderate stance on abortion. Sources1. . http://www.gallup.com...2. . http://www.gallup.com...3. . http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

Definition Of BoP: "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the assertion, but is not valid reasoning.[3]"You are making an affirmative assertion, you must prvide a rational defense for your assertion; it's my job to negate. "Speech that causes folks to resort to violence is not the fault of the speaker, it is the fault of the folks that resort to violence, they are the weak, and foolish, usually."The speech is what caused them to resort to violence. And it's the speakers intention to excitte violence, when making such speaches. If everyone was nice, then we would not be in such a situation.."Well being? Their version of it or yours? What is well being? Happiness or health? Why are they often times such polar opposites?"Yes we should try to act in a way in which the most people are in maximal states of health and joy. They are not intrinsically at odds."Evolutionary psychology is the most evil science, it makes freudians feel like gods."What? What does that have to do with anything? Freudians have largely been discredited, apart from the unconscious motives. But what does that matter?I ask pro, once again, to make a congent and constructive case in order to affirm the resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

Burden of Proof, is nothing but acquiescense by capitulators to the format of this debate site, like yourself, a clear winner. BoP was never an issue for me to join the debate, only a matter to be judged by the capitulates. Your judge is who, they? Why subject yourself to the whims of vampires? They can suck of you, and you them, and suck some other suckers in also to bolster the powers that be, from the Ivory Tower. You need to slow down and sound out slowly what I say, in order for you to recognize the cognitzation of it. Slow down please. Speech that causes folks to resort to violence is not the fault of the speaker, it is the fault of the folks that resort to violence, they are the weak, and foolish, usually. Well being? Their version of it or yours? What is well being? Happiness or health? Why are they often times such polar opposites? Evolutionary psychology is the most evil science, it makes freudians feel like gods.
Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

No, BoP = Burden of proof, it means you have to affirm the resolution, not me.No, hate speech = " Speech that advocates or encourages violent acts or crimes of hate. Speech that creates a climate of hate or prejudice, which may in turn foster the commission of hate crimes. " One may define morality, how they want, but I gave a rational, established definition and argued it, if you have a different definitin please define it and defend it.NO, not just my well being, I'm arguing that we should be concerned with everyone's. Sorry, I meant to say, evolutionary pschology. Why people behave the way they do, from an evolutionary perspective.Now, will you please give a cogent, constructive argument, that attempts to affirm the resolution.
Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

In order to win this you will need to organize your friends to vote, or create some clandestine clones, or Avatars as some may like to refer to themselves. OK so here we go, swinging away with words, yeeeeee haaaaaaa! BoP= using something someone else said and quoting it as fact. That is how you prove something? Someone else said it so it must be true. To me that means you just follow blindly. Quotations from any school cited as evidence is not necessarily fact. Hate speech, which you wish to be on the deciders side of, is speech that you hate, is it not? The framers left it out because ANYONE CAN FIND A PERSON THAT SAID SOMETHING THEY HATE. That would be a total waste of taxpayers dollars to pursue, in a court of law, which speech is hateful and which isn't. It will never end, but there will be lots of wealthy capitalist lawyers defending, and offending, both sides. You may be a law student.......... if sticks and stones of feelings are a market opportunity. Your ideas.... "P1) We should prefer to behave morally. P2)That what maximizes well being, is moral. P3) Engaging in political correctness maximizes well being, in comparison to it's negation(which in this context, is freedom to say anything) C1) We should prefer to engage in political correctness as opposed to uncensored free/hate speech." You wrote it. Behaving morally is what you wish to define, as well as what is hateful speech and what isn't? Most tyrants ascribe to the same behavior. Well being as long as it is yours, and as for those that say hateful things and behave immorally in your judgment, should contribute to your prosperity through laws detrimental to their well being. God Khalif has spoken. Read it and believe it. I will summarize your last 2 ASSumptions quickly, you are a qualified decider of what is hate and what isn't? In your dreams, and in free folks nightmares, as you sound like every dictator that ever was. Evolutionary biology, do you mean natural evolution, which is made by the god of chance?, or do you mean man made evolution in which man is god? Totally unnatural in my mind, but to those that see themselves as god, it works just fine, right? I look forward to more of your politically correct justification of tyranny.
Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

My apologies for the delay, I just returned home.The resolution:I shall have to kindly remind my opponent that the bulk of the BoP is on him to establish that freedom as defined, is prefarable to political correctness. As con it is my job to negate his argument. I must merely keep him from affirming the resolution, which we can refer to as proposition X; this doesn't neccesarily entail that I must establish ~X. However I will try to do so. Pro made a vague argument, all be it poorly formulated.1st amendment: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."In context, the framers did not have hate speech in mind. This is addressing the right to freely criticize institutions. In England, there was a strict penalty for criticizing any governmental institution.So to answer, I am delighted with the 1st amendment, as far as it's established and contextual purpose.Since my opponent has made no real arguments, I shall only offer one argument now. C1: Utilitarianism:P1) We should prefer to behave morally.P2)That what maximizes well being, is moral.P3) Engaging in political correctness maximizes well being, in comparison to it's negation(which in this context, is freedom to say anything)C1) We should prefer to engage in political correctness as opposed to uncensored free/hate speech.P1: Through evolutionary biology, we derive that an individual acts to fulfill self-preservation.An a given group, individuals in aggrogation striving for self preservation, will culminate in the aggrogate good of the group. For example, on average killing people in a society, can be said to be wrong in society X, because it will cause a decline in well being for the victim and associates of the victim, however in regards to the murderer, not murdering is preferable because the penalty for murder is severe. Being moral works out best for everyone, so that's why we should do it.P2: Utilitarianism is inherently how we think. For example, in any hypothetical scenario X, we choose how to act in scenario X because it will work out the best for the most people. Just like if a killer breaks into your house and attemps to murder your family, you would kill them, on the basis that the aggrogate well being is increased.P3: Being nice to people is, on average, better for well being. This is obvious. When one is nice to another, both parties are happier and more mentally healthy, and thus more likely to be more physically healthy i.e (Psychogenesis).C1 follows.I look forward to pro's rebuttals.[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.csus.edu...
Freedom or Political Correctness, choice or command.

My definition of freedom is that you can say whatever you want, and whoever hears it should be able to laugh it off, the old sticks and stones mentality. My definition of political correctness is that if you say anything offensive, and a power hungry entity such as Al Sharpton or Ellen hears you, you will be torn down. Political correctness is a nanny mentality, both for the nanny, those with power, and the poor offended adult child. The first amendment rules!!!!!!!!!!
Ghosts are real

Let's see how you explain these two experiences from me then, a few years ago, I was rolling blading home with my siblings when all of a sudden I fell, the wheels were too thick to be stopped by a tiny pebble, I would've had to have been pushed, cause I was really good back then, but when my sister helped me up, I felt a chill to my left, all my siblings were to my right and I never fell but that once, I came home with a bloody knee. On Tuesday, My right foot was firmly planted on the peddle, I may have been wearing flip-flops but still, my feet never slipped until a couple days ago, my left was pulled up in time when all of a sudden my right foot slipped off the peddle and the big toe scraped against the concrete, let's hear how you can explain that
Ghosts are real

Austin, I will be going against you in this debate about ghosts? That seems easy. ;) I do not belive in ghosts unless they come into your nightmares. I believe that ghosts are not real. If they were, we wouldn't be making movies about them. We would be chasing them cause we don't want them to scare u's to death. And If there were such thing as ghost we would have ghost hunters but we don't. And there are no haunted mansions where ghosts would live if there was such thing. So I am going against ghosts and Austin is for ghosts
You have either eternal life now or eternal death now.

Further RebuttalsDear opponent, telling me that I smoke weed is clearly an absurdity, why would you even bring something like this into this debate? First of all, I would like to clarify that I respect your beliefs, I'm not trying to insult your religion. You are just disproving the fact that Platonism has a great influence on Christianity. St. Augustine was deeply influenced by Plato's concepts. Many of his ideas have been adopted into some Christian doctrines. During Renaissance his ideas deeply influenced Catholicism. So, if I were you I wouldn't be judging other people's philosophical beliefs (1).[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...Secondly, I would just like to point out that it is okay to be afraid of death. Death is a natural event. It is okay to be afraid of it, even if you are saved your body will still die. In fact, being saved won't stop death. Do you mean that your soul is supposed to be saved, if that that is a whole separate debate, I believe I have mentioned this before. What if some people won't be saved, is there still an opportunity for them? And the concept of eternal death makes no sense, you have been mentioning it often throughout this whole debate, but you failed to define it. Summary The meaning of life is something more than thinking about death. Life is not about too short to contemplate about death. We should live life at the fullest and the last. If you agree that my entries have provided a thorough and clear explanation, vote for me.
You have either eternal life now or eternal death now.

If Platonism is the source of my opponents non-explaining explanations of death and life, I have to wonder who was smoking weed to reach such inconclusive conclusions of obscurity of meaning about life and death. The reason people have differing and complicated answers for the meaning of life is that they are denying that God is good. If the meaning of life is not given by God, then people must think the meaning of life is subjective to their intellect and they cannot reach an objective conclusion about the meaning of life.Sorry, Real Christians believe the Bible and Jesus Christ. The Bible says Solomon was and always will be the wisest man who ever lived. Jesus Christ, referring to himself, said he was greater than Solomon. 1 Kings 3:10-12: And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing. And God said unto him.........I have given unto thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. In Luke 11:31, Jesus referred to himself as one greater than Solomon. Jesus is God, that's why He is greater than Solomon, the wisest person whoever lived.Death is the destruction of life. If you are dying, you need to get saved. If you have eternal life, only your body is dying. If you do not have eternal life, you have eternal death. God will forever separate death from life when all sinners are confined in the fire of Hell for the eternal destruction of their lives in eternal death. Platonism won't get you out of it. Voting against it won't get you out of it. Denying it won't get you out of it. Getting saved will get you out of it. You can have eternal life now. I know I have eternal life now. Vote however you feel like voting.
You have either eternal life now or eternal death now.

Rebuttals: - First of all, I don't even know why I provided an explanation for death. Death is something natural, it comes and goes. I believe that I have provided enough information during point 1. According to my opponent we all deserve to dies, which is pretty bizarre. Therefore, I decided to explain to him what the meaning of life really is. From my perspective, I don't feel like I carry a death sentence in my body and most importantly I don't feel like I'm supposed to die or be saved by some kind of a spiritual being. Dear opponent, I'm trying to communicate that life is too short to worry about death. - Secondly, my opponent says that I have provided a vague explanation about death. Well, I could assure you that there aren't any grammatical mistakes in point two, opponent. Death is enfeeble from human kind is the correct structure of the sentence. And death is a continuation of life, meaning that the people who are alive continue to move on, but not the ones that have past away. My opponent says that death isn't continuous. Well, scientifically death is continuous. And if you want to bring God into this situation that will be a whole separate debate. Eternal life makes no sense in this debate, we should've debated over God giving a being eternal life. My opponent also states that we aren't victims of death. We are victims of death, and what kind of an apology do we owe God, can you please specify. People die everyday, do you not consider them victims. Lastly, my opponent insults the great philosophical minds, Platonism. Platonism is a concept that most Christians adopt, and most Christians look up to him as the greatest philosopher of all time. - Pay close attention how my opponent spams this debate. In fact, he is trying to preach now. I should've known not to accept this debate because I've seen my opponent do something like this before. Also, the argument that my opponent provided in round one is clearly unacceptable. An argument is a thorough explanation, not a paragraph with two sentences. If you think that my explanation about the meaning of life was thorough and clear unlike something my opponent provided, VOTE CON!!!
You have either eternal life now or eternal death now.

We all carry death sentance in our bodies, we are all in death because death is in us. We all deserve to die and we all need to be saved or we will die. Is there a Ragdoll or a Narwhale who can say they are exempt from God's justice agaisnt their sin and His right to leave them in the fire of Hell?No postings from Pro or Con allowed in the comment section in this debate or all conduct points are forfeited.
Islam is a religion of hate and violence

The press like to show that Islam as a religion of peace and that it is a splinter group (extremists) that are carrying out the violence but I am going to show that Islam is a religion of violence and anger, this discussion will be limited to Islam and what they teach and believe. My opponent will need to be able to argue and prove that it just the extremist who holds to an improper interpretation of the Qur'an. I look forward to debating this with you
Atheism is more rational than Theism

Alright. So you suggest that Atheism is more rational than theism because we can not present or provide proportional evidence to support it. And so you are not going to hold that belief until we have done so. But like I said, it is just the faith we have chosen. Nobody could prove/disprove God's existence. So therefore, "it is simply not holding that belief until evidence is presented to support it" Is not very logically thought. Don't believe me? Have you ever touched, smelled, heard, seen, or tasted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocols, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly. That's what keeps things alive and moving. P.S. My previous arguments were posted by my brothers. They mess with my things all the time.
Atheism is more rational than Theism

No, you're argument is indeed not relevant to mine, and is indeed a straw-man. "So, you are defending the position that God does not exist." No. I NEVER took that position. There is a MASSIVE distinction between the following two claims: 1) God does not exist because there's no evidence. (your straw-man of my position) 2) I do not believe that God exists because I have been presented with no evidence. (my actual position) This distinction is a clear and important one to realize. Let me present you with an analogy to explain this, because I have a feeling you don't understand the difference, and will ask a question after that I'd like you to answer: 1) You say you have a jar full of gumballs. 2) You claim, "There is an even number of gumballs in this jar." 3) You then ask me if I believe this claim. 4) I say I don't accept this claim because I have no evidence that would lead me to think it is true. With this in mind, my question for you: If I do not accept your claim that "there is an even number of gumballs in the jar", is this the same thing as me saying "There is an odd number of gumballs in that jar."? If you do NOT think it is the same, do you now understand the distinction between someone A) not accepting a claim as true, and B) accepted the opposite of the claim as true? I'll say it once again, I never even remotely implied that I make the claim that there is no god. Atheism, as I was VERY CLEAR in defining from the start, is NOT a claim that there is no god, but rather it is simply not holding that belief until evidence is presented to support it. If you do think that those two claims are the same, then it is clear you simply don't understand how to construct logical statements. This simple distinction is the reason why verdicts in court are Guilty vs. Not-Guilty, rather than Guilty vs. Innocent. As I said, atheism is the default position, this is just like every defendant is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. The default position on ANY claim is to reject it until evidence is provided as justification. You admitted there is no evidence to support the claim that a god exists when you said, "Christians can not provide or present any proportional evidence of God's existence.", and have thus supported my argument. (I will note this isn't EXACTLY the case as I was attempting to argue against theism in general but you made the specific connection to Christianity, but I will accept that Atheism is at least more rational than Christianity as you admit there is no evidence/proof). Feel free to send me a message if you'd like to go further with this.
Atheism is more rational than Theism

You accepted the debate to tell me I'm correct? You then said: "If you were to say "I could disprove God's existence because nobody can prove it", I could say "I could prove God's existence because nobody can disprove it"." This is a red herring - not at all relevant to my specific argument presented. Anyone COULD say either of those things, and they both would be equally absurd. You're willing to admit that atheism as described is more rational than theism? If this is the case, why would anyone want to be a theist?