BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States of America

That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States" I reserve the right top clarify 1st Round (Evidence and the case) 2nd Round Rebuttal 1. Social Networking web sites Definition www. techlearning. com/story/showArticle. php this is where people develop networks of friends and associates. It forges and creates links between different people. 2. impact- strong effect: the powerful or dramatic effect that something or somebody has . http://encarta.msn.com... An impact could be direct or indirect List of Positive impacts 1. Economy . http://www.usatoday.com... Social Networks are boosting economy through helping businesses advertise. Social networks account for billions of dollars 2. Democracy Social networking web sites help people exchange ideas and ultimately spread their beliefs and in result the democratic beliefs are the ones being spread to places like China. Therefore social networking websites are key to increasing number of democracies Social networking websites also help people organize and politically participate this leads to increased participation in US democracy, past 2-3 election prove 3. Terrorism and wars 1. A better economy is key to battle terrorism . http://www.linktv.org... "(U. S. ) Amin remembers that eight years ago we had a budget surplus-- and now our deficit is huge. If we can solve the economic problem, other problems will diminish. " 2. A strong democracy is key to solve war and terrorism . http://www.foxnews.com... Democracy is the answer (to terrorism). We will solve all the problems. We have a situation. We have issues. We've got problems. But we will solve them and we will rise to the occasion. And, democracies don't go to war with other democracies, so if the number of democracies increases the number of likely incidents around the world decreases.
Verily, they are of the highest price. Behold, this foot covering apparatus is bloody in colour

As per the rules of the debate, rather than presenting arguments I will be listing the Grievances Against the British prior to the Upper Canada rebellion of the 19th century.Grievances Against the British (Upper Canada) (9) - Michelle, Mahalia, Macguire, Victor. Also Derek, Clayton, Jonathan the 9001st, and Supper.Family Compact, and land use. Comparisons to class issues at centre of American Revolution (within colonial period: Loyalists, Canadian patriots, etc). William Lyon MacKenzie and the rise of Newspapers. Public opinion - Mary O'Brien, Bishop John Strachan, G. Smith (author of Canada and the Canadian Question 1891).The British wouldn't give Upper Canada the kind of democracy that America had. Radicals (group of people unhappy with current government) wanted to see an end to British rule.William Lyon Mackenzie used his newspaper to demand the end of the Family Compact (current government which involved several families having all of the social, economic and political power). All of the government officials were appointed, so the citizens had no say in anything that happened. He started an armed rebellion in 1837 because he was so unhappy about the amount of land given to the Anglican church and the way the Family Compact was running things. Because of him writing articles about these topics, people ended up trying to kill him and there was even an incident where a his printing press was thrown into a lakeHistorical Voice BlogsMichellehttp://talonsmichelle.edublogs.org...Victorhttp://talonsvictor.edublogs.org...Macguirehttp://lifeintherandomlane.tumblr.com...Michelle wrote as the secretary of state for the colonies asking the queen to consider giving the citizens more democracy. Macguire replied as the Queen, saying they don't deserve democracy. This must have been what the citizens of Upper Canada at the time felt like. They kept asking for more power, and the British always shut them down in every possible way."Deep frustration. Great depression. How I am longing for my life to be successful.""Obviously you would never agree to this because of the American Revolution, so there is a bit of a problem here.""I, Queen Victoria, do not care for your life or complaints. I am too important for you."................Next I have a listing of grievances prior to the French Revolution. Although many factors led up to the French Revolution, the peasants—part of the citizenry making up the Third Estate—significantly influenced the government's overthrow. The peasants' largest grievance in the run-up to the French Revolution was the burden of taxation from all corners of government. Peasants were taxed by the church, their landlords, and the crown. Combined with the burden of taxation, crops were failing, leaving peasants to fend for themselves. Fearing a coordinated uprising, the... WHOOPS, looks Like I cOuldn't coPY ANddddd paste the whole thing, better luckk next timeAlso, Homeopathic treatments are valid medical practise.
Verily, they are of the highest price. Behold, this foot covering apparatus is bloody in colour

Extension of the previous debate with Danielle:http://www.debate.org...Rules:-Freudian Psychoanalysis is the only valid form of argumentation.-Logical fallacies are allowed and encouraged-Vote bombing is allowed and encouraged.-Burden of Proof is on Innomen.-Argument can solely be made in Cardi B lyrics.Format:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Listing of grieveances.Round 3: Emotional supportTerms:These: plural form of dis.illiterate: Someone who can't read or write.
Verily, they are of the highest price. Behold, this foot covering apparatus is bloody in colour

2. Uther, I respect your feelings. 4. You're a real swell fella. 5. I think I should win this debate, but your ideas are totally cool! 6. I love you 7. I recognize you 8. You said "I will be giving emotional support for this part of the debate" at the beginning of the round 9. :^) Notice that while Uther listed methods to emotionally support me, he didn't do ANY of them. I, on the other hand, have fulfilled SEVEN.
debate.org is like totally illuminati

1. We are not illuminati; we're all on the process of enlightenment, we want the truth, but doesn't mean we have learnt it. So, we are not illuminati, we are just looking for the truth. 2. All I said is his name seems enlightened. For all I know, he may or may not be enlightened. Furthermore, just because his name is enlightened, doesn't mean he is. Look at my name; it seems enlightened. Fiery, like the sun shining at the truth, and Nyan, after the rainbow cat traversing through the universe. Am I enlightened? Obviously not! 3. All I know, eyes are depicted as an oval, not a circle. The third eye, the All-seeing eyes, and even the Eye of Horus; none of them are circle. I'd like to believe this circle means all-rounded, meaning in debate.org, we're willing to debate about anything without biasness. Finally, I'll end by saying this; Debate.org is a platform to gain the truth. We don't have the truth yet. Plus, if any of us has gained enlightenment, we'll go forward to another platform; I doubt we will stay here. I'd like to end with a quote: "If we are the smartest person in the room, we're in the wrong room."
debate.org is like totally illuminati

um okay thx to my oppont too but derz sum problems firsth, hes tryna proven me WONG but he says we all luking for ENLIGHTENMENT? so we ALL illuminati?? Thx for proving me right dat debate.org is illuminati. Seconth: I called airmx illuminati. My humble opponent agrees his name snds ENLIGHTEnED. wow. so he agrres with me. K 4th: i no my avatar isnt a circle but it WAS and anyways, YOURS is. circle = eye = illuminati. 5nd: I have hopez dat my opponnt do his bess to refute my impenetrable argumentz
debate.org is like totally illuminati

Likewise, thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate. To refute your first point, I believe that no one here think they have reached enlightenment; on the contrary, we're all searching for it. That's why we're all here. If we believe that we know the truth, we wouldn't be debating; We'd be stating. Instead of arguing with others for countless of hours and maybe even days, a truly enlightened person wouldn't waste his time this way; Instead, he'd just write an article against it. With his enlightened word. Debate.org is a platform for people to debate and argue regarding their standpoints. Some people do it to know how others think. Some use it to gain more knowledge on the subject. Others would just take whichever standpoint, and enjoy the challenge of trying to make it work (like me). I don't know who airmax is, but his name does sound indeed enlightened. I doubt he thinks he's special, as mods are appointed. He wouldn't be a mod if he just thinks he's special. In fact, being a mod doesn't require one to be enlightened or special. Regarding your avatar. Here goes nothing! 1. Your avatar is not a circle. 2. I doubt enlightenment should be regarded as a circle, as a triangle would fit more, or even an eye. Enlightenment is regarded as insightful knowledge from above. Hence the triangle, which seems like light shining from above, or even the eye, which symbolizes the opening of your eyes. Please do clarify, though, why you'd think a circle would symbolize enlightenment. Thank you.
Death Battle: Choose your character!

I've decided to make another of these debates. You get to choose your character, and see if he can defeat my character. However, please follow these rules:1) You can only choose 1 character for this debate. No outside help either.2) Your character must not be invulnerable. They can be powerful though, as long as they aren't Superman or anything. There must be many ways to defeat the character.3) No concealing information. Any new information produced in Round 4 will be ignored.4) Round 1 is acceptance only. You can only state your chosen fighter, but not say his/her abilities.5) Beware of the powers I'm bringing into this fight. If you run out of time, that's an instant loss.6) Your character must have already existed beforehand. Any fanfiction or original characters used is an instant loss. (And any other form of trolling is a loss)7) The fight will take place within a standard arena, so no homefield advantage is present.8) The debate will be using these 5 stats: Strength, Agility, Durability, Abilities, and Equipment.9) No consumable items (like healing materials or stat increasing items) will be allowed in this fight. However, I will allow ammunition to be present.Stats:Strength: How much damage the character can dealAgility: Speed, Reaction timing, and how nimble the character is.Durability: How much damage the character can take.Abilties: Teleportation, skills, magic, etc.Equipment: Weapons and armor.My character this time is Albert Wesker from Resident Evil.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

Sure what your saying could be likely but even in the mist of anger in such a positive emotion like love. The anger that arise in us causes negativity that reflects in some way a negative reaction. What your saying is that anger can be good if it has to do with something like love or a positive emotion. Nonetheless our thoughts cause us to hold in a energy that is unhealthy. If A husband was to get anger at his wife. He thinks of negative things that make the issue of anger relevant. Because their mad at each other that makes the issue worse because each person is harboring negative emotions that can turn into something else...like violence.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

If one is angered by the wrongdoing that has been cast upon one of their loved ones, it is the love for that individual which causes anger to arise, because if the same thing had happened to a stranger, someone who the angered person did not love, he or she would not be angry in the first place. Anger isn't always driven by negative emotions. In some instances, it can be driven by purely positive emotions, such as love. Also, you are assuming that only because one is angry, he necessarily has to act upon the anger in ways which cause pain to others. This is not the case. Imagine a time in which you are angry because wrongdoing has been cast upon an innocent party, and you are so angered by the happening that you swear not to ever cause wrongdoing upon anyone who you consider to be innocent. This is one example in which anger can lead to a morally good action.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

Even if this is the case one cannot say that anger is considered a good motivation when negative emotions are the driven force behind it. When one thinks of anger it is considered a negative emotion so it cannot be in the same token a good motivation because that would contradict itself. If anger is a good motivation that would seem invalid because someone is always on the receiving end of pain. Whether the intentions are good in the eyes of the person seeking relief it will always cause pain to the other, leading to a never ending cycle of anger. So can pain really be a good motivation?
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

Sentence 1: Violence is considered to be morally good in some instances, so that is not a valid reason for anger to not be considered a good moral motivation. Sentence 2: You are assuming that when we are angry, we automatically lose our ability to think rationally. That is not the case, for in the event that such a feeling takes over our beings and judgment, it ceases to be anger and transforms into rage. Last sentence: You might be right, but this is entirely irrelevant debate subject. No one ever said that there exists a necessary relationship between relieving stress and morally good actions.
Anger can be a good moral motivation.

Anger is not considered a good moral motivation because it only enablers the person to handle their anger in violent ways. It is not good to relieve anger by acting violently because one's judgment is clouded and one is not thinking rational. Once anger has filled the mind the actions are then unpredictable and the harm can be severer because no one knows the extent of the actions and how it may be carried out because one is anger. Anger is not a good way to relieve stress.
The existance of God

Ok, so we were arguing about the existence of God. I'm arguing that the atheist position is the most irrational position you can take in the god debate; it simply falls apart on the altars of logic. I wasn't necessarily arguing for a christian god, but for a god in general, since my opponnent was arguing an atheistic position. However, I can certainly defend my christian position as well. The logic goes: If I ask you(atheist) to draw a circle indicating the knowledge mankind is capable of achieving, how large would your circle be? I would suspect very large. Now, if I asked you to draw a circle within that circle indicating the amount of knowledge we currently posess, how large would your circle be relative to the larger circle? It would be extremely small I'd suspect, unless one is very arrogant. Finally, I ask, isn't it possible that god exists outside of that small circle?? Pure objective logic tells us this has to be possible. An atheist believes there is no god. An agnostic believes this can't be known and is therefore neutral. A believer in god, believes just that; god exists. So, I argue that for one to say "god doesn't exist" he must have as much faith in this proposition as the man who says "god exists." Therefore, it's completely irrational for an atheist to say religion and faith are silly and make no sense. It's a very hypocritical position to take, seeing as how atheism is a sort of religion in its self that takes a considerable amount of faith to believe in.
Atheist and Satanist are Actually On The Same Side Working Together.

"Defend Atheism? BUT THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE! Like said, I would only accept the claim of a god if there is evidence provided to support it/validly follow the conclusion that their claims are true. If you want, we can debate this somewhere else. "I guess my opponent will plagiarize (COPY PASTE! ) this post too? Offering nothing but babble. "This is silly. I'm plagiarizing (Copying someone else's work and claiming it as your own)? COME ON! I am copy/pasting to directly quote your argument, goddarnit! Points CONDUCT: In a way, we might be tied, seeing as I called him a coward (Because of his act of ignoring my scrutiny/criticism to still claim what he deems true because of his fear of losing), and he was calling my arguments pathetic (Same with me), etc. However, while I believe my calling him a coward is true, he was accusing to deceive people into thinking that I do what he accuses me of doing to his advantage. S&G: I am not very strict on very minor errors I have encountered here. So, I call this particular one a tie. ARGUMENTS: To be quite honest, I believe my arguments made more sense, as his came from his cowardliness (That he exposed)(Like said, he was ignoring my scrutiny/criticism to still claim what he deems true because of his fear of losing) and complete and utter ignorance of my arguments. SOURCES: This one goes to my opponent. I never cited sources (Although I didn't have to). My opponent did, and it also supported his claims (e. x. Atheists getting rid of Bibles).
Atheist and Satanist are Actually On The Same Side Working Together.

Rebuttals """Both want to remove God from public society." No! Satanists may, but Atheists don't; They simply don't believe that he exists until evidence is provided to either support their claim, or to validly follow the conclusion that their claim is true." That is a bold faced lie or GROSS ERROR! You choose! Because there are many types of Atheist. Following in the Christian false example of allowing themselves to be divided and conquered."Yes. There are many types of Atheism. Some use what is known as the "ad hominem fallacy", attacking all claims of a God. And there is also those (Like me) who simply don't accept the claims of a god until evidence is provided to support it/validly follow the conclusion that their claims are true. Those would be who I would be reffering to, thus refuting your silly argument."I ask my opponent who seems to know everything"First of all, before my response, I like to think that my opponent is making these fraudulent accusations in return for my calling him a coward, seeing as he ignores my scrutiny/criticism to still claim what he deems true for his fear of losing, which is quite pathetic.Also, you don't have any evidence to back your claim up. You should have made a direct quotation where I ever stated that I am omniscient (All-knowing), or can be used as context to validly follow that conclusion."Here are real life current events of ATHEIST REMOVING 'GOD' & or Religion! Atheist remove a monument of the ten commandments. https://www.google.com......"Like said, there are many OTHER atheists who simply lack belief in a god/gods because no evidence is provided to support such claims/validly follow the conclusion that their believed god is true."I refute your pathetic attempt to assert your false theory of Evolution in the shade of your, UN PROVEN theory of an Australopithecine age! Totally man's attempt to pimp well meaning students with images of monkey heads & animal bones charging college fee's for teaching lies! https://www.google.com...... Your asserting Monotheistic God is really silly! Because you say God does not exist! Yet you debate a fantasy/joke/LIE? I think that is just stupid, Because I know Mother Goose does not exist so, I never ever wasted good time debating a fairy tale, I say Atheist not so smart."Yep. Like said, I like to think that my opponent is making these fraudulent accusations in return for my calling him a coward, seeing as he ignores my scrutiny/criticism to still claim what he deems true for his fear of losing, which is quite pathetic.You're false attempt at refuting my "Australopithecinic age" argument is silly and irrelevant. It focuses on a type of evolution, but not evolving from a monkey/etc. (Whatever animal) to a human! I suggest doing more research.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Atheist and Satanist are Actually On The Same Side Working Together.

I will begin with challenging one of my opponents many false statements. My opponent posted: ""Both want to remove God from public society. " No! Satanists may, but Atheists don't; They simply don't believe that he exists until evidence is provided to either support their claim, or to validly follow the conclusion that their claim is true. " That is a bold faced lie or GROSS ERROR! You choose! Because there are many types of Atheist. Following in the Christian false example of allowing themselves to be divided and conquered. I ask my opponent who seems to know everything and speaks for ALL ATHEIST! Which Atheist denomination do you belong to? I assert that if you speak for all, there would be just one type of atheist. I ask the reader to ponder common sense! . https://www.google.com... . https://www.google.com... Here are real life current events of ATHEIST REMOVING 'GOD' & or Religion! Atheist remove a monument of the ten commandments. . https://www.google.com... Atheist remove crosses! . https://www.google.com... . https://www.google.com... Atheist remove bibles! . https://www.google.com... I refute your pathetic attempt to assert your false theory of Evolution in the shade of your, UN PROVEN theory of an Australopithecine age! Totally man's attempt to pimp well meaning students with images of monkey heads & animal bones charging college fee's for teaching lies! . https://www.google.com... Your asserting Monotheistic God is really silly! Because you say God does not exist! Yet you debate a fantasy/joke/LIE? I think that is just stupid, Because I know Mother Goose does not exist so, I never ever wasted good time debating a fairy tale, I say Atheist not so smart.
Atheist and Satanist are Actually On The Same Side Working Together.

Rebuttals "My opponent is totally off subject. Facts are facts. The idea of God is engraved in history. Through religion. However religion is not the subject."Yes, and the concept of a monotheistic "God" was introduced somewhere after religion ITSELF was introduced. However, really? Religion is not the subject? If so, then first of all, why did you categorize this as "religion"? Please... You argue that Satanists and Atheists are working on the same side. Isn't that obvious enough?Also, you fail to explain why either because you ignore/forgot to do so, or you won't place your views in public scrutiny, because you fear losing from criticism/scrutiny, and still claim what you deem true, thus exposing your cowardliness."No. During the australopitheciine age, religion wasn't yet introduced. This is alsoo before Christ was born. (NOTE: Some atheists do indeed attack all claims of a monotheistic, christian God (Hence, "Ad Hominem"). However, the usual atheist doesn't. He/She simply openly establish their supposed evidence that they believe either supports their claim or validly follows the conclusion that their claim is true) My last comment is all your argument is babbling on?"Did you even read my entire argument? Because if you did so, you would've realized that I even replied to the beginning. Seriously, don't be ignorant.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.