BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"S" is not Harry Truman's middle initial

Thank you Con for presenting your argument. I will proceed to write my rebuttal. I will attempt to address Con's various arguments one at a time, pointing out any fallacies which I believe to be present. "The middle initial is defined as the first initial of a middle name." This is a simple grammatical error, and a small one at that. However, due to the subject at hand, it can be confusing. I believe what Con meant to say was: "The middle initial is defined as the first letter of a middle name." Because by the definition of "initial" (1), there is no "first initial of a middle name", there is only one initial of a middle name. "The ultimate question would be this: Can a name be only one letter?" It is not a question of whether or not someone can have a name consisting of only one letter, the question is whether or not that letter counts as an initial. By definition, an initial is the first letter of a person's name. But if that letter is the first, last, and only letter, then it is not an initial, it is the entire name. Therefore, it is not appropriate to abbreviate it, as is the purpose of an initial. "Can an initial and a name be the same thing? The initial is defined as the first letter of a name. (2) As the first letter of the name (that cannot be rejected in the US) "S" is "S", I rest my case that the middle initial of Harry Truman"s name is "S". (e.g. Just because my given first name is Truman and my family name is Truman, does not mean that "Truman" is not my first name nor my last name. Instead this qualifies "Truman" to be both my first name and my last name)" True, but you are not putting a period after "Truman" in this scenario. Neither your first nor your last name is spelled "Truman." Why? Because a period signifies an abbreviation. And while it is true that an initial is not technically defined as an abbreviation, that is it's purpose, and what it is commonly used for, at least in the USA. So, if "S" is not an abbreviation, then it does not need a period after it. In fact, a period implies abbreviation, which is false. Thus, "S" is not an initial, in Harry Truman's case. This concludes my rebuttal. I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttal. Sources: 1. http://www.dictionary.com...
"S" is not Harry Truman's middle initial

My argument will support the idea that the "S" is Harry Truman"s middle initial. The middle initial is defined as the first initial of a middle name. The 33rd president of the United States is commonly known as Harry S. Truman or Harry S Truman. From the mostly unanimous approval of this concept, it can be agreed upon that "S" can be regarded as the middle between his first name and last name. Truman was not given a middle name longer than S. His Full given names were "Harry" and "S" and "Truman". This was given in acknowledgement of his two grandfathers "Anderson Shipp Truman" and "Solomon Young". The ultimate question would be this: Can a name be only one letter? That would of course depend on the country and state in question. The US has few laws that restrict the provision of names, mainly thanks to the 14th amendment that declares freedom of speech. Names in the forms of pictographs and numbers are disqualified in few states for practical reasons; others ban the use of obscene language in naming. (1) However, no such law exists among the 50 states in America that invalidate the idea of a name being a single letter. Hence by default, "S" can be nationally and globally considered as Harry Truman"s middle name. The subsidiary question would be this: Can an initial and a name be the same thing? The initial is defined as the first letter of a name. (2) As the first letter of the name (that cannot be rejected in the US) "S" is "S", I rest my case that the middle initial of Harry Truman"s name is "S". (e.g. Just because my given first name is Truman and my family name is Truman, does not mean that "Truman" is not my first name nor my last name. Instead this qualifies "Truman" to be both my first name and my last name) Sources: https://www.merriam-webster.com... https://www.merriam-webster.com... https://www.nps.gov...
"S" is not Harry Truman's middle initial

Allow me to present my argument. Harry Truman is often referred to as "Harry S. Truman". Then is not so unusual, many president are referred to historically along with their middle initial (John F. Kennedy, George W. Bush, etc. ) But, "S" is not Harry Truman's middle initial. Though it is written in almost every history book across the land, even though it says plainly on his own commerative library "Harry S. Truman", all these sources, collectively, are wrong. Then, what is his middle initial? The answer is simple: He has no middle initial. His middle name is one letter: S. This is because his parents couldn't decide on a middle name, and went with the letter "S" to honor his paternal grandfather, whose name was Shippe, and his maternal one, whose name was Solomon (1). "But then his initial is 'S'" some might argue. But it is not grammatically correct to say that. An initial is the first letter of a proper name (2), and it not the first letter in Truman's case, it is the only letter. If ones full name is: Rachel Abigail Wilson, you don't write "Rachel Abigail. Wilson" Why? Because "Abigail" is not an abbreviation, it is the entire name. So, in all technical correctness, everything with Harry Truman's name spelled: "Harry S. Truman" should be changed to "Harry S Truman" as this the correct way for it to be written. And there you have it ladies and gentlemen. A short, simple and to-the-point argument on why S is not Truman's middle initial. I have enjoyed making this argument. I heartily await my opponent to make their argument. I would also like to remind my opponent to please be sure and restrain from making any rebuttals until Round Three. Thank you. Source: 1. . http://gizmodo.com... 2. . http://www.dictionary.com...
Are really immigrants doing more bad than good to America

Let it be said that some immigrants are hardworking and do contribute to our country's greatness. But you said that they pay security tax even if they don't benefit from it, but in reality they do. I make on average $40 a fortnite and at least $20 go to immigrants. It is impossible for hard working people to receive a pension because they are too rich and that money has to go to immigrants. It is really unfair to those who want a (excuse my metaphor) wel deserved piece of the cake themselves
Are really immigrants doing more bad than good to America

I have no idea from where you are mentioning these but let me help you to know something and clarify. 1. Immigrants dont have luxary to stay lazy and do nothing. Their visa status won't allow it. 2. Immigrants do pay Tax, and it is a large proportion of IRS's earning. That money US government uses for everybody in USA , even for many of its citizens who even don't pay taxes. 3. Immigrants don't take any money from any of the citizens, they rather work amd earn. 4. On economy catagory I didn't want to mention it but as you picked it up, "The Horrible" things happenning in USA , in schools, in bars, in night clubs or in Las Vegas concert are all done by some local psychos only , not by immigrants. And by the way if you want an example consider the social security tax immigrants pay to government even though they know they won't get benifited from it.
Are really immigrants doing more bad than good to America

Many people view immigrants as innocent people who have migrated to America to escape "horrible things" that are currently ongoing in their country of origin. But really, many (not all) come to America to wreak the very horrible things that are supposedly going on in their countries right here in America. Now don`t say I`m a racist bastard but really the evidence is quite obvious. Many hard working American`s are giving their hard earned pay to the government just so the government can give it to the majority of lazy immigrants who couldn`t be bothered making their own money by working. In other words, people who are willing to do something in life must give all they have earned to those who hardly deserve it. If immigrants want to come to America, they can contribute to society instead of leaching off society.
Are really immigrants doing more bad than good to America

I do understand the sentiment of locals when they see people from other countries coming to USA and doing some of the best paying jobs while most of the locals staying un-employed. But is it really true? Are the immigrants really the reason for loxals not getting jobs? Actually no, qualified immigrants doing full time jobs in USA companies are competing equally with anybody available in market. Only reason locals not getting (if really) then they are not qualified enough. Yes but the concept of outsourcing work is diff, and that has nothing to do with Immigrants. I feel stopping or controlling immigrants from coming to USA will not help in Unemployment problems , rather it will harm the business and harm the tax revenue of the country.
Students self defense should be allowed without fear of schools retaliation aka suspension

Fighting will only lead to future tensions, fueling the flame of more fights and brawls.In the event that there is bullying, resorting to telling an adult or teacher is the best method. Not only will they be punished, but if you were to report another instance where the bully still continued to bully you, you would have the upper hand, issuing more punishments to the bully to teach him/her a lesson. Not only are school punishments recorded on your record, but teachers are required to protect the students, and are encouraged to use punishments if necessary.
Students self defense should be allowed without fear of schools retaliation aka suspension

Well even so if he or she had the audacity to physically harm another the punishment should fit the crime. Sitting in a timeout does nothing to a person who is willing to hurt another. If a student is being attacked they have no time to run or even think News, U.S. "12-Year-Old Boy Who Was Victim Of Bullying Attack Dies After Weeks In Hospital". NBC News. N.p., 2016. Web. 5 Feb. 2016. This will not get any better unless we are able to fight back
Students self defense should be allowed without fear of schools retaliation aka suspension

I respect the belief to retaliate in violence in the event of being harassed. However, it should not be stressed, because allowing students to have every right to self defense will be fallible; students using "self defense" as an excuse to hurt others, etc. It is indeed the expectation, and requirement that teachers and administrators are the ones who instill the punishments, and protect the students. It is stressed that teachers "enforce regulations concerning student conduct and discipline," (Refer to Source 1). "manage student behavior in the classroom by establishing and enforcing rules and procedures," (Refer to Source 2).Sources:Source one: http://www.ware.k12.ga.us...Source two: http://www.best-job-interview.com...
should bebier be banded and shunded back to canida

Pro's argument consists of the following:P1: Justin Bieber is a bad influence on children.P2: People who are bad influences on children should be banned and shunned.C: Justin Bieber should be banned and shunned.Pro negates his own P2 when he says, "it is differint if you are emeniem that is what he has to put out for his rep", and points out a flaw in his argument: If Justin Bieber should be banned and shunned for being considered a bad influence, so should anyone and everyone else. What criteria do you use to determine if someone has been bad enough to be banned? What criteria do you use to determine if someone is being a bad influence on children or just maintaining "his rep"? Pro has not yet explained his reasoning that Justin Bieber should be treated more harshly than other celebrities.Second, Pro assumes an understood universal definition of the term, "bad influence". However, what one person may consider "bad", another may consider neutral, while yet another may consider good. The definition of "bad" is very subjective and relative. To say that someone should be banned and shunned because, in your personal opinion, they are a bad influence, is to say that your personal definition of "bad influence" should supersede anyone else's. Pro must provide a reason for accepting his definition.
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament), Jesus is God

I accpet this debate. For clarity and to keep up on track I would like like to define a few things.The Godhead thoery: That God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirt are 3 aspects of one single being also known as God. (PRO)The Trinity thoery: That God, Jesus, and the Holy Sprirt are 3 sepreate beings. (CON)The Bible: The 66 canon text of the Christain bible. (IE The Book of Mormon, Gnostic texts, and other non canon texts are not included.)Scripture: Any of the words in the defined term of "The Bible"Dogma: Christain beliefs, ritual, or other activity that may or may not be backed up with Scripture. I concede to any agrument on Jesus's divinity and to the vitality of Christanity and with be confining my argument only to the Godhead vs Trinity debate.
According to the Bible (Old and New Testament), Jesus is God

This debate is contending the issue of whether or not the Bible contains evidence that indicates Jesus Christ is God. Pro's position states that Jesus is God according to the Bible and Con's position states that the Bible does not claim Jesus as God. Please read the rules carefully as to accept this debate is to accept the rules of this debate and thereby follow them. Rules: (1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible (Old and New Testament) as we are debating a theological issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the Bible. The Bible is defined as the traditional protestant canon established in the London Baptist Confession of Faith. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using. (2) This debate presupposes the authority of scripture, the existence of God, and the existence of and humanity of Christ. The matter should be focused on the issue of Christ's deity. Given the nature of the debate there will be issues of trinitarian matters as well as issues pertaining to the hypostatic union of Christ. The goal will be to keep those matters brief since those are easily debates for another day. (3) No personal attacks, or any games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate. (4) There are four rounds. (a) The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed. (b) The second round will be Pro's case and Con's first rebuttal. Con is encouraged to make a case in the second round. (c) The third round will be rebuttals and additional cases. (d) The fourth round consists of final cases/conclusions (5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com. CARM is a good place for basic theological definitions. (6) If you do not have an argument or wish to forfeit, I ask that you please submit something and further the debate instead of letting the time run out. Conclusion: I only ask that the person who ends up partaking in this challenge will take it seriously. I hope to have fun in this endeavor. I will most likely re-issue this debate afterwards with the same argument for future challenges. God bless you all and I look forward to the challenge.
8 Economic Threats That We Were Not Even Talking About At The Beginning Of The Summer

MY OPPONENT HAS PLAGIARIZED AND THEREFORE LOSES THE DEBATE: http://www.infowars.com...But lets refute these points.....#1 West nile virus This was predicted a long while ago in 2010. The study noted poor economic times led to increases in West Nile virus because people lacked the funds to fight the virus. It was also shown global warming (if you believe in it...) increases the virus and an outbreak will soon occur [1].#2 Droughts Drought was predicted in March in Arizona due to a NATURAL El Nino (sorry Gore) [2]. In May 18th, skeptical science and other scientists predicted droughts in areas that where vulnerable to them. Their predictions came true. And the areas with droughts, like New Mexico, are the ones vulnerable to them [3].#3 Mississippi Global warming studies says warmer temperature will "threaten" large rivers like the Mississippi [4]. #4 Wild fires Didn't all Gore in 2006 say we would have more wild fires by now?#5 Hoarding gold Everyone did. What are you going to get with goldmine commercials every two seconds and books about preferring for the end and economic collapse is going to do?!#6 Recession The OCED did... in march. Mr. Balls (haha) said so [5]. #7 US slowdown Predicted in June [6]. Predicted in May [7]. And December [8]. All predicted. #8 Arrested I don't see how this affects anything... but I agree you cannot predict thisEVERYTHING MY OPPONENT SAID EXCEPT 8 WAS PREDICTED AND ALL OF IT WAS PLAGERIZED. CON WINS. [1] http://www.plosone.org...[2] http://www.climas.arizona.edu...[3] http://www.skepticalscience.com...[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[6] http://www.chron.com...[7] http://www.usatoday.com...[8] http://jackrasmus.com...
8 Economic Threats That We Were Not Even Talking About At The Beginning Of The Summer

Round 1: Intro Round 2: My first few points and Cons rebuttal.Round 3: my last few points and Cons rebuttal.Round 4: Thanks! for the debate.I give out points and you rebuttal them, if you agree with my points,then you dont have to rebuttal. If you do a convincing rebuttal to almost my points thenyou have basically won the debate!-------------------------------------------------------------------- In the crazy times in which we live, it helps to expect the unexpected. Sometimes you can think that you have it all figured out and then this world can throw a real curveball at you. Very few people anticipated that we would see a massive outbreak of the West Nile Virus in Texas this year or that the Mississippi River would be in danger of drying up after experiencing historic flooding last year. Who would have thought that we would see the worst drought in more than 50 years or that horrific wildfires would burn nearly 7 million acres of land? This is why economic conditions are always so hard to predict. A single "black swan event" can come along and change everything almost overnight. Our world has become incredibly unstable, and so who really knows what the rest of 2012 will bring? Will we see a stock market crash? Will the hurricane season be unusually bad? Will war erupt in the Middle East? Will we see a major earthquake on the west coast or even a volcanic eruption? Will the upcoming election cause an eruption of anger and frustration in America? We don't know the answers to those questions yet, and the truth is that we will probably see some things happen that very few of us are anticipating at this point. This is an exciting time to be a "news junkie", but unfortunately the vast majority of the news these days is bad. It is almost as if a "perfect storm" is developing. Our weather is going crazy, our financial system is on the verge of collapse, our politicians seem more insane than ever, there is evidence of social decay all around us and the drumbeats of war in the Middle East grow louder with each passing day. As strange as 2012 has been so far, I fear that things are about to get a whole lot stranger. Not that we haven't had some very unanticipated events happen this year up to this point. The following are 8 economic threats that we were not even talking about at the beginning of the summer....
Islam is a necessity in the modern world.

Islam is the only religion that can provide a reliable guide to man's life. Firstly, it's laws touch upon all aspects of human life, secondly its traditions have been authentically preserved in a such a manner that it can be with a high degree certainty attributed to its purported author. I say this, because other religious texts, while claiming to have guidance, there is no way they can be traced back to their alleged authors. Thirdly, the laws of Islam have not been categorically proven by any yardstick of science to be harmful to individuals or societies. Now, I invite anyone to respond to these arguments presented in favor of Islam, and also present any other evidence that you may have to disprove these claims.Thank you.
The United States should take "In god we trust" off of the currency

I was not avoiding the definition of second-class citizen. If you see in my previous argument I stated that I would be adding onto your definition of a second-class citizen; simply elaborating, not disregarding.Second-Class Citizen: A person who is not accorded a fair share of respect, recognition, or consideration. Second-Class Citizen: A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or legal resident there.I used both definitions for my argument which is as follows: You are arguing that Atheists are not treated with respect, are not recognized, and are discriminated against because of their beliefs despite being legal citizens of America. Because you argued that Atheists are second-class citizens because of this motto on our currency you had argued that they are being discriminated against. With this, I still do not understand how Atheists are being classified as second-class citizens since I see no hindrance for them when it comes to handling money. Please elaborate for me as I wish to understand, and not understanding Atheists as well I need to understand their point of view in order to debate with you effectively.