BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Progressives support the far right by supporting Islam

The proposition put by the Pro fails on it's face, as it is clearly to broad and all inclusive. No amount of citation of individuals or groups could possibly sustain the breadth oh the statement. the statement is "Progressives support the far right by supporting Islam" Not some progressives, not most progressives, "Progressives" which must mean "ALL" progressives. This is clearly an impossible statement to sustain as there is no homogenous, mono-cultural group known as "progressives". It is an imprecise term referring to a particular set of political leanings, but does not mean some dogmatic set of tenets that must be followed. It would be simple enough for me to simply say I am a progressive but do not support any aspect of Isam that could be considered "right wing" and the proposition is falsified. Secondly, the term "Islam" is again extremely broad and open to interpretation. There are very liberal people who are Muslim. They would not for a moment endorse the views or tenets the Pro has detailed- are they a part of "Islam"? This would be as disputed by many other Muslims as it would be by those trying to label the entire religion as one set on interpretations and practices. Progressives do not hold one set of views. Islam is a diverse religion. Right Wing is an equally imprecise and debatable term. The Pros statement is unsustainable.
Medicare for all in the United States won't work with the federal budget in constant debt.

We're not here to argue the validity of a national healthcare. I stated that it is not possible to have a medicare for all system with an already bloated deficit that the US has accrued and said nothing about a national healthcare being good or bad. Even as we speak the US deficit is increasing by the millions everyday without thought of reversing the trend. If we don't reform our spending to an appropriate balance we can't even take in account additional spending regardless of whether it's good or bad. You even admitted that we would have to cut spending and advocated to cut military spending in order to afford a national healthcare. So, In essence you didn't argue my point at all but in fact agreed with me and yet you're contesting me. Why?
Medicare for all in the United States won't work with the federal budget in constant debt.

Medicare for all is a feasible option for the US. Not only is public healthcare a good idea because it makes sure everyone gets treatment and actually improves the quality of care it is also cheaper than a private healthcare system. When healthcare is nationalised or made public or even if government subsidies (medicare) pay for free treatment, Far fewer people need to pay for private insurance. Thus they have more money since now they get healthcare for free. These people move then move up income brackets and are eligible to be taxed more thus generating more money for the government. By using medicare as a form of social mobility, Governments can stimulate the growth of a new middle-class (a cohort essential to all prosperous economies like the US). As well as the government just getting more money flowing into the federal funds, This expanding middle-class also stimulates the economy greatly by causing a consumer boom as they have more money to spend. This leads to all-round economic growth and thus once again leads to more revenues for an astute government which taxes responsibly. Economic growth leads to budget surpluses which can be used to pay off debt and remember debt is only a problem if you can't pay it back. Debt is an ASSET to economies because it continuously makes your banks money. The world economy runs on borrowing and it's not always a massive problem as long as you have the means to pay it back. And providing medical for all gives you the means to do so. Finally, By your own admission, Merely by reducing or reforming military spending the US can compensate for its budget deficit. In conclusion, Medicare for all is possible because it liberates working people to take part in an economy that is currently rigged in favour of a few.
Medicare for all in the United States won't work with the federal budget in constant debt.

We can't have a medicare for all when our federal spending exceeds revenue. Other countries might have a national healthcare along with other social safety nets and it has put them at deficit as well. In the US, Almost half of our budget is in military spending while another almost half is spent on medicare and social security and the rest on foreign aid etc. Other than medicare obviously being replaced by a true national healthcare system, We still have a large spending on military that's around 700 billion dollars. Unless we can reduce either our military spending ( or other various federal programs) There's no way we can pay for a medicare for all system.
War Game Scenario: Israel Vs Iran

Can you please explain how you destroyed 44 airports that quickly without some being foiled? So is my round 3 void because I doubt it is meaning you had to re invade Israel if so explain? If a town is mostly dead and is not holy, Israel wouldn't care if 150 Israeli people will die compared to over 15,000 enemies. How did you advance from there with missiles still pointed at you without suffering heavy casualties. If you find my email and email me anything and I WILL FIND YOUR EMAIL AND SPAM YOU. If my round three isn't void, then likely after this scenario Iran will be attacked by America. Trust me I can still argue in the comments.
War Game Scenario: Israel Vs Iran

*scratches head* It is? I didn't know it was a holy city of Islam. Edit: Hebron is attacked and burned. I MIXED UP PORTS AND AIRPORTS (insert swear words here) Edit October 1 Saboteurs finish job and destroy the rest of the air ports. November 12 Jerusalem is attacked. November 20 Jerusalem captured. I have edited it and am now in the green. November 23 Hadera attacked. October 12 Hadera captured October 13 Haifa attacked October 24 Haifa captured October 25 Missiles bombard Iranian positions. They retreat into their Israeli cities. October 26 Nahariyya attacked December 3 Nahariyya captured December 4 Israel Captured Defense of what I just did. I have edited all that I have done to make it ok with you. I have you attacking me with missiles which helped but I just ran into your cities and you were forced to stop. My tank army played a no part but yours did. It managed to prolong your death. Peace is off. Shred my moves if you want but I am prepared to defend them. If you have a problem with it i will email you a copy of the Forgotten and you will be destroyed.
War Game Scenario: Israel Vs Iran

I CAN"T BELIEVE YOU JUST DID THAT!!!!!!!! You can't attack the holy city of Muslims, Jews and Christians! THAT would start a massive uprising. Plus I don't have to state casualties. Look at this. http://www.debate.org... Where in there does it state casualties in there? You just stated yours and i just didn't wish to state mine. I have 47 airports yet you make it out like I only have 3. I can recover from cyber attacks. If Israel just was hit with a cyber attack they would repair the essentials while planning a counter cyber attack once the essentials are done. We need to do a redo because religion in the middle east is always a factor. Where in the rules does it state a requirement of stating casualties?!?!? Morale would not soar since you BURNT THE HOLY CITY WHERE Mohamed WENT TO HEAVEN!!!! You have just screwed this debate up now listen to this while you should either be thinking of some way to defend yourself(not recommended) or agree with me. Round 3 for you VOID
War Game Scenario: Israel Vs Iran

I didn't use tanks in that attack. You have only one damaged airport man. BOTH of us are right now reeling from cyber attacks. Bat bomb is finished. YOU don't have mine warfare craft, I checked so you can't sweep mines, also I used octopus mines which take longer than normal because of the tentacles. One of the tanks was in pieces so I still have some of your tech, even though they both were destroyed. 5 million to jordan, 3 million to syria and 4 million to Iraq. 15 million to Morocco. YOU didn't state casualties either in your bombardment of my forces making it null and void. YOU can't take off aircraft from a damaged airport that is why I didn't mention any aircraft. You cannot launch missiles from a country reeling from an aggressive cyber attack as I described. Also, how did you cyber attack me when you had no electricity or internet and didn't mention those coming back? Iranian casualties when I forgot to mention 2475 infantry and 42 tanks. September 27 Iran apologises to Greece and pays money. 2:00 bat bomb detonated Jerusalem is in flames. September 30 92% of Jerusalem has burned to the ground. 12% of the population is dead and 95% is homeless, including Russia the almighty. September 31 Reserves called up October 1 Saboteurs finish job with last airport making it so that nothing can be flown at all Israeli airports. October 23 1 million soldiers are thrown at Israel. November 12 Jerusalem is taken with little effort do to burning to the ground. November 21 Netanyahu is captured. Morale soars. Enlistment rates soars to 4 thousand a day. Israel's moral plummets as they starve. November 22 I ask for peace.
War Game Scenario: Israel Vs Iran

I am Iran and I will win by the grace of Allah. That felt disturbing. http://www.globalfirepower.com... I have limited time because of my mother sorry. April 15 Iran manages to dispose of ISIS. It will not affect anything. April 16 Israel celebrates Russia_the_Almighty's birthday. 5:03 Iranian diplomat makes faux pass and angers Israel. April 18 Iran makes a deal with America for F 22s in exchange for oil. (I think that that is allowed. Correct me if I cannot purchase equipment.) Iran makes deal to Russia for stealth radar installations. (Able to detect B2s.) April 19 Iran begins the manufacture of 200 tanks. April 21 The first one slides off the assembly line. They will be done by July. April 22 Iran purchases SAMs from America and strengthens its cyber space. April 24 Cyberspace defenses finish. April 25 The bat bomb begins development. Iran ceases nuclear program. My opponent will act as if he has no knowledge of the bat bomb as it has top level security. http://www.wikiwand.com... It is not a WMD because it is an incendiary device not one of the defined WMDs.
Since we have a minimum wage, we ought to have a maximum wage.

Welcome, TheatreVirus. The settings on the previous debate left us with only 1 round to debate and conclude, which I thought would be a pity. I have set this to 5 rounds and I will make clear what each round will be. (This is one of my first debates as well.) Round 1 - Invitation and Acceptance Round 2 - Opening Arguments from both sides Round 3 - Responses to the opponent's opening arguments Round 4 - Defense of opening statements Round 5 - Conclusion, closing statements and Goodbyes For our benefit, I shall restate the definitions that we had agreed upon. Minimum wage: The lowest salary payable under the law of a jurisdiction. Maximum wage: The highest salary payable under the law of a jurisdiction. I wish you a good first debate.
Since we have a minimum wage, we ought to have a maximum wage.

For now, I shall simply reiterate the points I had made in my opening arguments, without elaboration. A maximum wage is unadvisable and a country would not do well to adopt it for the following reasons: Firstly, a maximum wage serves a minimal and ineffective redistributive function. It does not protect low income workers the way a minimum wage does, and has an unnecessary punitive effect on the most productive members of society. From an ethical standpoint, it is morally bankrupt, discriminatory, and practically impossible to enforce. For these reasons, I maintain that a maximum wage is not a policy that would benefit a country, and I urge voters on this debate to vote Con. Although Con has forfeited all rounds so far, I would be grateful to see genuine feedback on the points I have made here, given that I am a new member of the Debate. org community.
world has gone lazy

Yeah well still every time i come home from Texas school for the deaf which is like two to three days a week I'm at home it's just gets worse I mean what happened to the people who actually enjoyed living on a clean planet. I'm one of those people ever since i was little i've been recycling and putting trash into trash cans. However I can't do all the cleaning on my own, so you really want to look into my face and say oh 34% is nothing???
world has gone lazy

Oh dear, I hate to say this but I have seen a lot of people slacking around around ever since technology has arrived on earth. Teenagers arrive home slack off texting or playing video games. Some do happen to go out, but the problem with that is that in San Antonio there are trash almost everywhere it's actually depressing to see that because that's my hometown. Its not just San Antonio it's also in other places like the beach at corpus christi with all those seaweed someone's gonna get tangled up pretty soon. I say we start cleaning this place after ourselves, who knows if God is happy with us right now. http://www.google.com...
Religion & Intolerance Towards Gay People

judging on what you say about gay people, it seems you are very religious; however, your intolerance towards people for how they were born shows how ignorant you are. judging by your age, you seem to get all your opinions from your parents or your magical, all-knowing book. I suggest you look upon the world and create your own opinions through the facts that you perceive, not what the bible says is fact. who do you know with 100% certainty that god or heaven is real? all you have is a 2000 year old book full of some complete non-sense as evidence (emphasis on the word some). It is scientifically proven that gay people are a natural thing and saying that they should be killed for it is like saying someone should be killed for being a blonde. Please just stop living in the past and see the world in how complex and wonderful it is in stead of dwelling in a book written by a bunch of people who didn't know anything about what the world is actually like. Thank you for your time.
IS super mario world advance 2 better then Donkey kong country 2 advance

Just because more people defeated bowser than Kaptain Krewl, doesn't mean it's impossible. It just means that bowser is easy for people to beat where as DK is a challenge. And the reason that DK's girl is a monkey is because of the fact that DK is a monkey himself. So it would only make sense that his love be a monkey also. Otherwise, the game would not be able to be released because of it would be ruled a game that supports the idea of beastiality, which is illegal.
IS super mario world advance 2 better then Donkey kong country 2 advance

First off i would like to respond to your statement "but the final boss is not impossible". First off according to CCC.com 1500 more people defeated bowser then Kaptain Krewl. Second "where you need to get his love." SMA also has this aspect except the love is a real girl, DKC2 has a big monkey DK. SMA includes a ride of its own, in world three lava ride level
IS super mario world advance 2 better then Donkey kong country 2 advance

Well you won't have to wait long. DKC2 may only have six worlds, but the final boss is not impossible. While SMA has secret levels, DKC2 has a more interactive point of view, where you need to get his love. Also, DKC2 has bonus levels where you can ride mine carts through tunnels. Therefore, DKC2 is better than SMA2
The United States should withdraw from the United Nations.

== Conclusion == Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited R2, giving me nothing to respond to. As a final re-cap I'd like to point out that the United Nations has proven to be a corrupt and ineffective organization. The United States is responsible for 1/4 of the funding despite the U. N. frequently going against US interests. All of the positive effects of the UN could just as easily be achieved without US participation or the organization existing at all. It is immoral to force American citizens to pay taxes against U. S. interests, and make mandatory charity donations all over the globe (especially considering our current economic predicament). The UN would not crumble without the US, and it is a slippery slope (fallacious) assumption to say that something horribly immoral would arise without such organization such as Hitler. Remember that the League of Nations failed to stop Hitler (or any aggressive Axis Powers) and likewise the UN has failed to stop many atrocities all over the world since its inception, i. e. Vietnam, Iraq (both wars), Darfur, etc. It would be in the United States' best interest to withdraw from the UN because it would save millions and millions of tax dollars which could go towards repaying our debt, or investing in our nation's economy (and society). The UN has proven that it is completely ineffective at accomplishing many of its goals. Moreover we would have more freedom to work toward our goals without being stopped or prevented by other powers of the UN. Aside from that, please extend all of my arguments and remember that my opponent may not bring up anything new in the last round considering I won't be able to respond.
The God of the Bible is the one and only Living God

addressing P2, the bible is the word of GOD, and has many scientific proofs that no one could have known even then. For example, Isaiah 40:22 reveals the truth that the earth is round, a fact that we didn't know until the 15th century. "[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" - 1769 Oxford King James Bible 'Authorized Version also, another proof is that Job 26:7 reveals that the earth is held in place by invisible forces, something we didn't know until 1650. "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing." - 1769 Oxford King James Bible 'Authorized Version and, yet ANOTHER proof would be that psalms 8:8 proves that the Oceans have natural paths in them, a truth we didn't know until 1854. "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, [and whatsoever] passeth through the paths of the seas." - 1769 Oxford King James Bible 'Authorized Version I could go on. So, I think that I have proved that the bible isn't just a normal book, but is in fact a book that holds supernatural truths. also, as far as salvation goes, there is only one way to find it. "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all ï¿½€ï¿½ï¿½€ï¿½ (1 Timothy 2:5) all of the other ways listed are just ways to express this. As far as works go, once you are saved, you should feel the NEED to help people. James 2:17 means that if you just "talk the talk" so to say, then nothing good can really come out of it. You must show you love god by confessing your sin, show the world by baptism, and show your true love to god by helping others. as far as the the different denominations go, that would be a straw man, because those denominations were formed by man, not the bible. as far as if women can preach or not, it is true that he bible says that they should not. But, what you didn't mention is that Mathew say this: 'Jesus came to the disciples. He said, 'God has given to me all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore go and make disciples in all the nations. Baptise them with the authority of the Father [God] and of the Son [Jesus] and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to obey all the things that I have commanded you. I am with you always, even to the end of the age.' -Matthew 28:18-20 this means ALL people. as far as the prophecies go, I think that we should be able to agree that the prophecies are something that can be argued, because they are filled with figurative speech, and they can be easily misunderstood. in conclusion, I believe that I have adequately shown the bible has supernatural aspects to it. references: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org... http://www.easyenglish.info... http://www.bible-knowledge.com...
The God of the Bible is the one and only Living God

INTRODUCTIONThank you, loftus_flower for agreeing to debate this with me. Is the Biblical God the only Living God? I assert that the answer is a big fat NO. Scope of the DeabteTo find out wheither or not the Biblical God is the God that we should worship and the Bible is His divine revelation.Technical RulesFirst round is acceptance only.You will be alloted 8,000 characters.You will have 3 days to argue.Voting period lasts for 3 months.Videos for complementary purposes only.There will be 5 rounds.If for any reason you need more time, you may tell the opponent to wait to post his arguments.Good luck!
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

Why yes, I’m citing a medical journal on guns. I fail to see any significant problem with this. Of course, it’s undoubtedly true that it’s the kind of thing that we wouldn’t necessarily expect to find in a medical journal. But we have no problem with considering the effects of things like sanitation systems, or air quality, in medical journals. Guns are a thing that affect injury and death rates, therefore they can be subect to similar analysis. If I can quantify the effect of a policy of not leaving standing water around on malaria rates, I can quantify the effect of a handgun ban.Meanwhile, Pro can't quantify his argument. Without a real study, you can't tell any decrease or increase due to gun control laws from random fluctuations.Presumably the handgun ban saved those 42 lives a year by preventing around 42 argumenst a year from turning deadly. Most murders aren’t carefully planned assassination attempts, after all. In most the cause is a personal conflict that gets out of hand[1]. Realistically, if someone remotely competent is trying to assassinate you, you’re already pretty much doomed. I mean, how are you going to defend yourself from someone who carefully monitors your daily routine, then rents a nearby apartment or room to use in order to shoot you from a rifle. Not much good a concealed weapon would do against that (and since I’m sure someone will bring up mugging: I’m not going to risk having to kill someone for the fifty dollars or so I’m carrying around).If collateral damage and capture wasn’t a worry, one could alternatively plant a bomb. Or if one was particularly good with bombs, one could wire a very small explosive that would destroy the brakes as the car was reaching a certain speed.The Kleck study actually was done by surveying individuals; I would suggest that you read more about its methods.I did cite a source.1. http://www.reuters.com...