BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John Edwards was the best candidate in the democratic party. He lost because of the media.

What really upset me in this 2008 election was that John Edwards, my favorite candidate in the democratic party at the time, was that the media payed so much attention to the woman and the black and made it look like it was a 2 candidate race. In this debate I'd argue that John Edwards WAS a better candidate than both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Edwards has fought to decrease the poverty rate in the country, he had the best Universal Health Care plan of all and he has fought the big corporations and interest groups and he has fought against corruption best. I will also argue, if my opponent would like, that the reason John Edwards lost and was basically forced to drop out of the race was the media's influence. This is a 5 round debate, so I'll leave it at that for my opponent.
John Edwards was the best candidate in the democratic party. He lost because of the media.

I can see you're trying to make yourself important by stating you know so much about the democratic party. However, none of your arguments hold water. First you argue that John Edwards didn't have much of a chance to win the primaries. You're no expert, we all knew that as soon as we saw the polls and primaries. What I'm arguing here is that he was the best, and you are supposed to just tell me who's better and why you think so. So then you say Joe Biden is the best candidate. Well this just shows a great deal of hypocrisy. You claim John Edwards isn't good because he didn't have a chance, then you choose Joe Biden? That guy had to drop out before the Iowa primaries even finished! He had 1% of the vote. Lastly, you criticize John Edward's record: <> Edwards was the first to come out with a Health Care Plan out of all the candidates. Hillary Clinton almost copied his whole plan, and then Obama took Hillary's and made bigger changes to it. As a Senator there's not much to do about Health Care. How can you make a Universal Health Care plan with one state? Makes no sense. You claim he didn't fight big corporations. All his life he has fought corporations. He made his first 20 million dollars fighting corporations, and he takes no campaign donations for interest groups. He has always stood up to corporations and defended the lower class, because he himself was poor in his early life. He has fought poverty all his life, but to give an example, he had been working full time at the One America committee in which he was appointed the director of the center on poverty. So as it is hard to do much when you're only a center, there are millions of reasons to believe he tried, because that has been his cause his whole life.
Affirmative Action

Thanks to Pro for the challenge. I'm looking for to a good debate.The ResolutionPro did not define terms or provide context to establish the debate resolution and its meaning, so I will do that as part of acceptance. the ordinary meanings in context are therefore assumed.I assume the resolution to be "The United States should adopt laws requiring affirmative action."Wikipedia gives a definition of affirmative action:"Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination." [1. http://en.wikipedia.org... ]The key is that a benefit is conveyed based solely upon membership in the designated group. In a famous case, the University of California at San Diego added 200 points to the SAT scores of Hispanics applying for admissions. The benefit (200 points) was conferred to counter past discrimination against Hispanics.The law related to affirmative action is unsettled. [2. http://www.enotes.com... ] It may require a Constitutional Amendment to allow some or all forms of affirmation action. With our "should" resolution, if a Constitutional amendment required, then we assume it would be enacted.Pro will now make his opening case affirming the resolution. He may dispute my definitions if he chooses.
Red Vs Green

TBH I Hate to break it to you but you have an issue if ya got some red poopy nibba... I will have to tell you that vampires don't roll go Kush because they only enjoy the high of getting that drank. btw they found frozen waters on mars so pretty soon us earth nibber will be moving there because Mexico and china are ruining the earth with the illegal immigrants crossing the border and the china being the New Mexico and shooting that pollution all over the earth tbh. and I am wearing a red shirt right now and that makes me way cooler than you, and also the band Green Day isn't as good as my favorite artist yung gravy and one of his songs titles are 1 thot 2 thot red thot blue thot... did your favorite band ever make a song with the colour green in the name that is what I thought therefore you are a dumbo noggin and need to accept the fact that red is wayyyyyy better because I really like cutting my wrists so I can see that dank red but what part of your body can you cut to see green see that is what I thought tbh you are a dumbo for even trying to face my red because red is da sh1t and green is sh1t... K...
Red Vs Green

So you think that vampires are cool? well ill have you know that green is the colour of go kush. and you want to tell me that vampires don't roll a fine cone every now and then? well sorry to break it to ya but they do. and they love that sh*t tbh. also, aside from vampires, green is the colour of earth. the only planet that is red is mars and you can't even live on mars tbh, so its kinda dumb tbh. also, you think there is no such thing as red poopie? I hate to break it to you but there is blood in my stool every day. it was cool the first time I guess but after the decade past it got really old and annoying. because of this I really think it would be better to just end myself all because of the colour red. The colour red ends lives. Go green.
Red Vs Green

Green is kinda like poop color and I don't really like seeing green poo. Blood is red and that makes it way good because blood is a really cool thing to drink because vampires need dat sh1t to like survive and stuff like that but what is green that vampires need that us what I thought nothing because it is a shitter box color unlike red which vampires wear because dat is sum cool Sh1t and all that sh1t, also I think of green when I want to kill myself because it is an awful color thx for the invite btw nibbas
Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

Banning Muslim immigrants would aid jihadism by promoting resentment and radicalization in American Muslim communities. "There is no reason to think that Trump is deliberately aiding jihadism, but the policies he promotes would have that effect. By communicating to American Muslims that they are all presumed to be terrorists, the chief impact of Trump’s proposed restrictions on Muslim immigration into the United States would be to foster resentment and radicalization in the small portion of the American Muslim community that has the potential for radicalization." [2]" the highest reasonable total number of Muslims in the United States is 2.8 million. " [3]The threat is clearly within the United States already. We should not be looking at immigrants. The real threats are Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc who will resent and be radicalized by banning Muslim immigrants. I know Muslims are only about .5% of the population, but if we ban Muslim immigrants they could all radicalize and mass invade. The Muslim revolution would probably fail, but the causalities would be enormous. "According to CIA estimates, about 2,000 Westerners have traveled to Iraq and Syria (many via Turkey) to join ISIS. Of these, more than 100 have come from the US" [4]In other words even if we completely wall off the USA and let no immigrants in of any kind, the threat within will still persist. People have this image of mass amounts of Muslims immigrating and attacking. I worry about the Muslims and non-Muslims already inside the USA borders suddenly becoming Jihadists. In otherwords, banning Muslim immigriants is like shutting the gate after the predators are already inside the gate. It is too late! Thanks for debating. Sources2. http://www.newsweek.com...3. http://www.adherents.com...4. http://www.csmonitor.com...
Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

I have made my argument and have nothing to add so I will pick apart your argument."A good portion of the terrorists are American born. [0]"[0] refers to an American born Muslim who didn't actually do it but was plotting to kill a cartoonist. So apparently one example is enough to prove that the majority of terrorists are American born? No, just no. And I assume you are only referring to terror attacks in the US (and you claim still wouldn't stand up). Any terror attacks around the world hint towards a possibility of one happening here. This is true even more so now given the current epidemic of ISIS terror attacks in Europe."Simply put, the infiltrators can claim they are Hindu or Christian."If you knew even the basics of Islam you would know that a true Muslim wouldn't say they don't believe in Allah even if they weren't being sincere. So no, the "infiltrators" aren't claiming they are Christian or Jewish. "Meanwhile, innocent and truthful Muslims get stopped at the gates."I feel like I went over this. If their were 100 cups of water would you take a sip out of each one even though one of them is poisonous. They wouldn't be held at the gates if they realized that their religion is one of violence and has no place in the world."Nay, we will only alienate potential allies by banning Muslim immigrants."Potential allies? Are you kidding me? 66% percent of Muslim immigrants in Europe want Sharia law to have power of national law. Let me just highlight some of the thing Sharia law includes: beheadings, stonings, burning infidels alive, genital mutilation, slavery, sex slavery, rape, child marriage, death to homosexuals, prohibition of music and singing. Shall I continue? Every single one of these violate the rights in the US constitution. And these aren't just a few bad apple this 2/3 of the immigrant population. They aren't our allies they are enemies to our freedom.https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com..."Consider most attacks are Muslim on Muslim."What effect does the identity of the victims have on the identity of the attacker? In this discussion the identity of the victims doesn't matter. What your saying is this: "If I push you then I jump off a bridge it justifies me pushing you because I pushed myself back." This makes no sense."I think the nation will be safer place in the long term if we allow Muslim immigrants equal opportunity."Do you have any supporting evidence for your opinion? No? Didn't think so. I think I have explained pretty clearly how allowing all the Muslims in isn't safe,
Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

A good portion of the terrorists are American born. [0] Second, if the enemy is capable of suicide bombing, then they surely are capable of lying. Simply put, the infiltrators can claim they are Hindu or Christian. Meanwhile, innocent and truthful Muslims get stopped at the gates. "Jihad Jane, the American-born Muslim convert convicted of plotting to kill a cartoonist" [0]Nay, we will only alienate potential allies by banning Muslim immigrants. Consider most attacks are Muslim on Muslim. """In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.""" [1]I think the nation will be a safer place in the long term if we allow Muslim immigrants equal opportunity. Though kindness we will win over allies. Sources0. http://www.nbcnews.com...1. http://www.bbc.com...
Children having 30 min. of exercise

hi uhm,in the first place..i didn't say that recess is bad.. secondly,.you're arguments were nice but was presented too late..in this part..you should just have concluded and not presented any fact.. now, to conclude this debate..i would say that children don't have to take this 30 minute of exercise my co-debater is proposing, instead they can just study their lesson. And to take this exercise, they can just have their P.E. classes in school. That's all. I think you should win this debate~!
Children having 30 min. of exercise

Here are a few facts about recess and P.E. that you need to realize- 1.)How can you say that exercise will affect the studies of students if, in fact, the average school day lasts 6 ï¿½ to 7 hours, in which they have plenty of hours to learn? The only thing that will be affected is their health! 2.)The percentage of high school students enrolled in P.E. from 1991 to 2003 plummeted from 42% to 28%. So how can you get all of the exercise you need in P.E. classes, if nobody is taking it? 3.)Rhonda Clements, former president of the American Association for the Child's Right to Play (AACRP), said, " In one e-mail and one call after another, the parents say their children are depressed because of being inside all day long.". Depression and stress can weaken the immune system causing kids to miss school or not be focused in class. Exercise gives kids the opportunity to have a mental break from school work and help relief those symptoms. 4.)An estimated 26% of P.E. classes in the U.S. fail to comply with state regulations. In today's P.E. classes, students "watch" sports movies, but never "participate" in a sport! Do you believe for one second that we are going to get super athletes like Magic Johnson or Tom Brady based on the way P.E. classes are being taught by some schools? 5.)The President's Council on Physical Education and Sports, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, the National Association of State Boards of Education, and the American Academy of Pediatrics ALL believe that we should have more P.E. classes. Isn't it better to listen to organizations working with children's health issues rather than listening to people who are not concerned with children's health? 6.)Research has NEVER suggested that recess is bad when it is used to allow kids to relieve stress. In many cases, not only do kids need a break but, the teachers who have dedicated their life to helping children succeed, also need a "mental health break". 7.)Research DOES suggest that recess can play a role in vital motor skills, such as learning, social development, and the health of elementary students! I dare you to try and tell me that's a bad thing... ---- Sources: Hoover Institution--Not Your Father's PE (John Cawley) The New York Times --Before Children Ask, "What's Recess?" (Debra Nussbaum)
Children having 30 min. of exercise

First of all, in a debate..if you presented facts or anything..you should have a proof.. The 30 minutes of exercise you aree proposing can only affect the studies of the students. IN this proposition of yours,student, instead of studying or reading, will only waste their time of exercising. In which they can still do their exercising while physical education (PE) time. (Also, if you are saying that if all people would agree to you..then your proposition would not be debatable.)..Thus, I'm here arguing with you. that's all.. Paz!
Children having 30 min. of exercise

First of all, I can tell you that in many schools in the western part of Florida that the kids here DO want exercise because I hear them saying that they want to protest not having enough recess, or gym (and many schools here don't have gyms, and most schools here can afford one)! Furthermore, many of the adults want their kids to have 30 min. of exercise in Florida, and many other states, as well! Lastly, all I have to say is that students who like recess will PROBABLY agree with me because as I proposed earlier, recess is a type of exercise, too!
Children having 30 min. of exercise

first of all..your proposition is not specified..it's too broad and there is no parameter..however..i would like to have a debate that's why i accepted this.. YOu were saying that children should be having 30 min. exercise..I agree to that, however I need to oppose...quite ironic huh??.ehhe I disagree with what you said.I think your principal was right. Student can get enough exercise by walking.And that 30 minutes you are proposing will just waste their time. Besides, you cannot force the student to do this. They have their own minds and initiatives. And I'm sure that most of the students will disagree with your side becasue they will just think of this as a time-consuming activity.And how can you say that they are not getting enough exercise?>>
Children having 30 min. of exercise

As we all know, many states, including the state of Florida, has not yet demanded that students should have 30 min. of exercise. As I walk around my school, I see many students who are unhealthy and can't stand to even run 1/4 of a lap! This is outrageous! My principal says, quote, "the students get their 30 min. of exercise walking to their lunch period, etc." I couldn't believe it! The principal, saying such untrue words! Usually, each class only leaves their classrooms 3 times a day, which, if you do the math, should not equal 10 min. to get to your destination! I live in Florida, and we Floridans like to see fit people. Some of the children here weigh 107 pounds, and are about 4'10, which is over what their weight should be, no matter what age they are! I personally believe that for a child to live a healthier and better life, they need to be happy. But how can a child be healthy with NO exercise and a ton on their shoulders?
i think abortion is bad

its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate. its not good to Pro: I am "In Favor" of the above topic of debate. Con: I am "Against" the above topic of debate.
Belief in God is an intellectually valid standpoint

I don't see why even if the universe is the sum of all matter, why that changes any of it's properties. The reason we can refer to the universe being "made" of matter is that it is made up of a finite amount of it. As for rearranging matter and creating out of nothing being different I completely agree. However as far as I can see, rearranging matter can be explained through natural processes, whereas creation out of nothing can't be. The reason an infinite regress isn't a problem is because the God I'm proposing is changeless and outside of time. An infinite regress only becomes a problem for something that changes, because then there's mathematical problems with the number of changes it goes through. If the universe was in a changeless "frozen" state then it wouldn't be a problem. As for saying that other universes don't obey the same logical laws as our's seems rather unlikely. Next I'll try to explain why the first cause must be personal. Imagine that the first cause is something impersonal. Let's represent it with a robot. Now let's imagine that this robot has the power to create the universe. Now even though the robot has the power to create a universe, it's not going to until it gets a command to, or something else outside of itself causes it to create the universe. However now imagine that the robot has been replaced with a person. Something personal could freely choose to create a universe. In other words, if the first cause is something impersonal in a changeless state then it needs something outside of it to initiate anything it does. However if the first cause is personal then it can choose to carry out an action of it's own free will. In summery belief in God is logical and not simply something we call on to explain anything we don't understand. While I don't think belief in God is the only conclusion you could come too, I do think that it is an intellectually valid point of view.