BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obamas presidency

First of all, I will point out that even the notion of Rand Paul or Ron Paul as President is absolutely outrageous. Rand Paul is too radical and Ron Paul is too moderate. The image of one of them in the Oval Office is very disturbing. Barack Obama is not fighting for large government. Allow me to list a fraction of the things he has done: President Obama ended the Iraq War and the soldiers are now pulling out of Afghanistan. Obama saved the Auto Industry, liberated Libya, cut taxes for millions of Americans, passed Wall Street Reform, created multiple tax cuts for small businesses, eliminated unfair credit card fees, cut spending by a little over $1 trillion, protected reproductive rights, passed the funding of stem cell research, doubled the fuel efficiency standards, increased renewable energy production by a considerable amount, appointed the first Latina Supreme Court Justice, invested in science and research, ended "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", extended unemployment benefits, protected equal pay for women, lowered seniors' drug costs, guaranteed coverage for contraception, protected medicare and social security, and so much more. And when you post a link to a newspaper argument, it may not help you. Newspapers are more truthful than television news - Fox News especially - but newspapers aren't always true. There may be a few minor inaccuracies in the arguments I have presented, but you cannot deny the fact that Barack Obama is a great president. Con, please remember where we were. Remember where we came from. And look at where we are now. We have accomplished marvelous things due to Democratic - and a few Republican - Presidents. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Bill Clinton, and finally, Barack Obama. I will not deny the failures of the Obama administration. I acknowledge the "lies" of Barack Obama, regarding Benghazi, Obamacare, etc. But I hope you recognize the fact that Barack Obama is fighting for you and your country right now. He is probably sitting by the Resolute Desk right now, fighting for the United States. Republicans have insulted, bullied, and lied about the President. But Barack Obama persevered. He prevailed. Still, there is plenty of work to still be done. That is why he was re-elected. The fight isn't over yet. The quest isn't complete yet. The mission isn't aborted. With his focus on the future and the betterment of the American republic, Barack Obama's presidency should be viewed as a success instead of a failure.
Barack Obamas presidency

first off the dow grew to 16,459 because the fed is propping up the stock market. the unemployment was almost always low under the bush administration up until the great recession when it shot way up. it hit a peak of 10 percent in the obama admin. obama promised the unemployment rate would be below 8 percent with the stimulus and it didnt get under 8 percent until september 2012. recently the unemployment rate has been falling im not denying that. barack obamas plans are not magnificent. his big plans are raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on the rich, and passing more environmental regulations. the person who should have won the 2008 election was Ron Paul. he was the one who would have gotten us out of iraq and afghanistan by now. i am not arguing for john mccain or mitt romney. obama could have gotten stuff done when the democrats had control of congress but instead all he did was pass obama care which is a failure. obamas top priority is not the betterment for american society. all he wants is to transform america into a socialist society. look at all the government regulations passed under the obama admin that hurt small business. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... heres the truth on your small business tax cut claim. obama isnt fighting for anything other than bigger government. remember obamas you didnt build that quote? he tries to make it look like without big government people cant start their own business. many senators have said that obama never meets with congress and he never approaches congress on anything. obama never even tried to get anything done when he had democrat control in congress. the only way america will prosper again in the future is under a president like ron paul or rand paul
Barack Obamas presidency

When Barack Obama ran for office in 2008, the economy was failing due to the failed policies of George W. Bush and the Congress. Fortunately, Barack Obama won the election. Thanks to him, the GDP growth rate grew to 4.1% from -5.4%. The DOW grew to 16,459 from 4,949. Unemployment fell. Barack Obama's plans for the future are magnificent, but the Republicans in the Congress refused to adopt his agenda. I say this not as a Democrat, but I say this as an American: I am appalled by the conduct of the Republicans. They have bullied the President, lied about the President and insulted the President, but Obama maintained his dignity. If the Congress could have done its job and worked alongside our President, the economy would be in a better condition. Barack Obama, without the cooperation of the Congress, has still done very much for our economy, including cutting taxes for small businesses. Ask yourself, where would we be if John McCain won in 2008? Republicans are conservative. They don't reform. They don't change policy. Our economy would be at its worst if either McCain or Romney were in the White House. I understand the President may have been untruthful at times, most notably Benghazi. But I assure you, Obama's top priority is the betterment of the American society and the progress of the American culture. That is what Barack Obama stands for. That is what he wants. That is what he is fighting for every single day. You cannot deny his passion and his determination. You cannot deny the good Barack Obama has done. Of course, I see the flaws. I recognize the errors in his policies. But if the Congress and the President can work together, we shall prosper.
The Complete Banning of Firearms in the United States

This debate is also my first, I joined the website just a few days ago. As a newbie myself I'm probably not the best source of information on how to be better. However, if I could give any advice I guess it would be to pick an issue that is important to you, you already have background information on, and you know you can compile the best possible arguement for or against. Thanks for the debate even if it was shortlived haha. XD So should we just post our conclusion and end it?
The Complete Banning of Firearms in the United States

I have some problems with the points that you brought up:1. "Without the abundance of fire arms, accidental death and murder rates would plummet." - First off, in the case of the United States, when you take firearms out of the equation murder rates skyrocket. For example, Chicago has no civilian ranges and has banned assault weapons. Now wouldn't you expect them to have a low death by gun rate? Nope! Chicago leads the nation in murder. Also, we can examine Washington D.C. There they have even have bans on handguns. Obviously, such laws explain why gun crime has only increased since the legislation was created and D.C. also leads the nation in crime. 2. You say "Without fire arms, civilian casualties during war would almost be unseen as one does not just kill hundreds with a knife." I fail to see exactly what your point is. You do understand that during war civilians would be killed by a foreign army and not other civilians right? I'm not sure what you're getting at. However, civilians owning guns actually helps to combat any kind of invasion. Take the Free French Army for example. They're a civilian force armed by guns that civilians owned that killed thousands of Nazis and are called one of the most effective forms of resistance to date. 3. "The Utopian society that would emerge would prosper with good health, peace, and less violence." The United States has thousands of miles of unprotected borders with Mexico and Canada. Tell me how we could keep guns out of the country if the first place. I'd just like to give you some notable examples of countries who have banned firearms: China, North Korea, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, Cuba, etc. Now I'm not saying that there aren't countries that have banned guns and experience very low gun crime rates but a 2007 Harvard study shows that banning firearms doesn't actually lower gun crime. People love to believe that the United States has this outrageous gun problem but in reality our homicide by gun rate is nearly the same as Liechtenstein’s. (Just to put it in perspective)
The Complete Banning of Firearms in the United States

This is my first debate :)Round 1: Opening ArgumentRound 2: Rebuttel Round 3: ConclusionGuns do more good than harm in the United States. Although there are many mass shootings and homicides there are far more cases in which guns are used in self defense. Regardless if the 2nd Amendment actually grants the right to gun ownership I believe it is an important deterent to tyranny, foreign invasion, and crime.
Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

Thank you for your argument. You have said that I have sunk low but I believe you are saying this because you know you admitted to supporting my argument and you have given evidence that does not fully support your points. Unfortunately I think you have forgotten what side you are on again when you come out and say "Anyways let's wrap this up. Resolution: Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries What I said was I am egalitarian and I believe in equality for all humans. If you agree with me I think that's a great thing." The argument is about Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries and you are on the con side but still you say you agree that it is currently helping us, that is not twisting your words but are your exact words. Thank you and good debate.
Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

Thank you for your argument. I like your argument but it looks like you are trying to prove me wrong buy differing into a different argument saying that "Now this I am going to disagree with. If you click on the link what the statistic shows is that the ratio of men to women in college is quickly become a ratio with much more women than men. That's right. Women are actually getting more college level education than men." You go onto say they don't take the opportunities they are given but they aren't given any more opportunities then men this has no backing and there is no backing they have been given equal opportunities either. The part that you failed is agreeing with me the argument is "Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries" and here you say you agree with equality for all humans "Women should have equal rights and opportunities" I completely agree I am egalitarian and believe in equality for all humans. so there you agree with my pro argument Thank you
Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

Yes you made some good points there but if we look at the ratio of men and women in prison https://answers.yahoo.com... there is more men in prison then women but that does not mean that m=women want to view men as the higher race this is a 20th century and below stereotype. Women should have equal rights and opportunities but don't, http://www.forbes.com... this website shoes the ratio of men to women in college and shows women are way more advanced in the field of education but still men are given more chances. Women in society today are seen as equal. Many men believe that women need men to survive and to support them but that is not true at all in today's age women have the financial and physical abilities to survive but have not been given enough opportunity's, if we look at some of the highest payed people in history http://www.forbes.com... we see the top 6 are all men because they have been given more chances in life. Women have the ability to be in the top 6 but have not been given that path to take.
Feminism is currently helping us reach gender equality in 1st world countries

In this debate I will be arguing that Feminism is NOT currently helping us reach equality in 1st world countries. The first round is for accepting the debate. The second round is for opening statements and new arguments The third round will be rebuttals with new arguments still allowed The fourth round is for final rebuttals and a closing statement/speech Rules: 1. Stick to the resolution. 2. Be open minded. 3. See number one and two. 4.
Homosexuals should receive the death penalty

I accept.Rebuttals"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)."First, you do not prove WHY. Second, seeing you are a Christian, you must agree that Christ is the basic foundation of Christianity. Jesus is forgiving and definately would be against this. He does not condemn homosexualty. (1)Contention 1: Jesus on homosexualtySeeing you are a Christian, Jesus does not condemn homosexualty.(1) Even if he did, he would not support the death penalty for this. Contention 2: Seperation of Church and StateThis is protected by the First Amendment.Contention 3: Why?Seriously, why? They have not violated anyone's rights, so WHY?Sources1. http://www.jesusonhomosexuality.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
math is absolute

Sorry for missing the fourth round. I am of a certain age, there is an absolute truth there. The problem is in finding out what that truth is, we humans are not perfect, thus we cannot trust absolutely that we have found that truth. Reality is continuous not discrete, like math often is. Ex: I'm not exactly 25 years old, but a few months more and that increases all the time. So while saying "my age is 25" is not absolutely true, even though it's good enough for normal conversation. Also we are limited in our ability to measure nature, so we divide everything into discrete boxes that we are able to measure. "math is true or false, not truth" Not all math statements can be resolved into true or false (or a number). The example I gave you of p = !p cannot be resolved. This is a huge problem, as a computer programmer I'm keenly aware of this, because it means we cannot be certain a computer program will work. There's rockets of billions of dollars who turned around in flight instead of going to the moon (or whatever), because the computer program made an error. Really if all math statements could be resolved things would be a lot better. "there is no supernature in the past." What do you mean by supernature? "predictions are false, I'm not really talking about predictions as they are false by default" Math can be used to make predictions, I'm talking about expressions of understanding. "kNow=now" Know can be about the past, present or future. It seems like you are trolling me.
math is absolute

The opposite is the not of a statement, the negative or everything that the statement is not. - !3 means any number except 3. - if statement 'p' is the statement 'I am 25' then '!p' is the statement 'I am not 25' - http://www.mathgoodies.com... 'you cant make illogical statements from knowldge' I just gave you an example of an illogical statement in math, we haven't even gotten to knowledge. People make illogical statements all the time, sometimes on the basis of incorrect knowledge and sometimes on purpose. I don't understand where you get the notion that this would be impossible. 'you need imagination' I don't know that, but it could be true. What does it matter? Everyone has imagination anyway. 'as there is no logic in fantasy' Where did you get this? We often use fantasy to make predictions about reality and what might happen when we behave in certain ways. Sure fantasy allows us to ignore logic, but if we are using it to make predictions about the future, why would we?
math is absolute

If 1+1 = 3, then we would have defined our math differently. Humans have defined the meaning of the symbols 1, +, = and 3. So within that system, assuming the generally accepted meaning of those symbols 1 + 1 = 3 is incorrect. Math is not about 'truth', we can use it to formulate statements representing our understanding of reality. Those statements can be correct, incorrect or not even make sense. G"del proved that in any logical system that is useful you can make illogical statements. The simplest one is: p = !p p: Any logical statement =: Both sides are the same !: The opposite statement In English this means: statement is the same as the opposite of statement This can never be resolved logically, so even while following the mathematical rules you can make nonsense statements.
The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16

All people who are learning to drive have more accidents, Regardless of their age. If driving is "not very complicated" and only involves "split-second decisions" as you say, Then learning how to drive would be easy and not result in so many fatal mistakes. Unlike driving, Voting does not require of the voter any specific knowledge of laws. If as you say "voting is a long and hard process" how do you explain that the order in which names are listed on the ballot can help candidates, Going from last to first on the ballot raises a candidate's vote share by 10 percentage points, And if voting is such a "hard process" compared to driving, Then why are there driving schools, And driving tests for drivers, But no voting school, Or voting tests for voters? If you treat driving as a trivial task, Then how do you reconcile non-trivial consequences of "not very complicated" driving decisions? One person"s wrong vote can only have indirect and statistically insignificant consequences, But that same person"s decision to text while driving can have direct and fatal consequences not only for themselves but for many others, Who may not only never get to drive again but never vote again either. The legal age when one is able to live on one's own is called the "statutory age" because each state has their own statute that dictates how old a child must be in order to live on their own, It is 18 for only 11 out of 51 states, Including District of Columbia where, Like most other states, The statutory age is 16, Which, I agree with you, Should also be the voting age.
The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16

The fundamental parts of driving and voting are very different. Driving is split-second decisions, But not very complicated split-second decisions. Voting is a long and hard process, In terms of the decisions that need to be made. When someone votes, They need to be up to date on the candidate's stances. The legal voting age, Coincidences with the age when most are considered old enough to live on their own (in college). Also, Many states are putting in a graduated licensing program. In Illinois, The program ends, And the driver is allowed to drive without restriction on number of people or curfew (provided they received no traffic convictions) at age 18. (1) The program has been credited with saving many lives of teen drivers. In fact, Drivers 16-17 have two times the amount of fatal crashes per mile driven than drivers 18-19. (2) (1 )http://www. Cyberdriveillinois. Com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl. Html (2) http://www. Iihs. Org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers
The US minimum voting age should be lowered from 18 to 16

In the US 16-year-olds are considered legally competent to drive a car. Driving requires both impulse control and good judgement. We trust 16-year-olds with the lives and safety of both passengers and others on the road. Since we deem them responsible enough to the make life and death decisions that come with driving a car, Why don"t trust them to make informed choices in the voting booth?
Worst grammar

(what I was going to post in round 3) k'uNT rReEd e-u. u dHun-MP. mE guiN' d0u wymz dyz D-ba-T. u gUiN' dhou lOz. u R' dA nUth-mel dug. u Fi-mel dug! bcith mE 'd naiDd e tRans-erLiur do riD u, bcith! u lOz dys D-ba-T, l0z-T yz e bhed zeRY, N' mE L0Zt da Gum. Nut dys gum ; da Gum u mMuzd fer-GADe (what is intended for round 4) du'n-T dinc ytz 0VuR fur m-I mMeN! i zdyL wynz dyz D-ba-T B-cuz PeEp-L cu'n-T ryd u. u guNa L00z yn da vOt-y'n P-ry-oD .o. #!"/$%?&*()_+
Worst grammar

Gr8 m8, u ce'nt deb8. Y w8 fohr u. U get nooooOOoOOOOOOOOO d8s u masterb8. bIETCCCCHHHHH MEH DAWGGGGGGGG Y U DU DIS? U"S GON' B'CRuUuUSHED. NtwooRk cnt sp3'll Hh3 @ HOMmO - SAPIF{EN utnnn--0--0-------\bbbbbb 0 MMMM bb@i lzr.
Worst grammar

y@, L"ztz z$ei i-F u Ken-n dwOU eni bethur 10 M1| i k1 bee-T U eNit-ym .o. u cUNt wynz$ .o. 8$Epp e-UR D-f8 aiN dyz D-b@-T, kuzz i ouine .o. eiTz wry-10 in da $qui| u sek uz-elph .o. u Xma$$ elph .o. Gutz P0in-T-d erz Lo|! u sek bygz t-TymM hAt-Ha jk| i!!L ouine bygz T-timzZ n' u'!l |ozt ; tat'$ uL| .o. tat'$ tR-yu. #!"/$%?&*()_+ 8-D nYte zi ya |atTt-R 10$ER
Worst grammar

waiii. ur thinks u cae"nnnn be@t me h>okjndpfe ""cAnT wiSnnnn BRUHSKIIIII? U seck 8===D HEHAHAHEHEJOPNfjopn vesv; Dudmtinks he#s s" coel, W'll se abut thh""aa"a"""T!$*()@P#&%($^%*#*(P$#)*$#7$p
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

Minecraft has you learn about design and how to make something look good when you paint a skin, but the completed result is something that ROBLOX doesn't have! You get satisfaction by making your own skin, with ROBLOX, you just buy items with real life currency, even though Minecraft skins are free. Free Minecraft is a big problem, but with basic intellect as a kid you would know that Minecraft costs money. ROBLOX can make better buildings, yes, but with Minecraft you can just scale up the size for more detail, and you don't have to learn how to use all the building tools and you don't have to spend hours practicing. You can build anything you want without spending hours learning how to build.
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

First of all, yes, Minecraft allows skin creating, but it is harder than ROBLOX. Skin creating on Minecraft requires HOURS of just "painting" the skin! All you have to do to make something on ROBLOX is download the template, load it in an image editor, then put anything you'd like for you the skin. And it's not pixelated! Second of all, I know ROBLOX contains that kind of stuff. It can be harsh, but the free hacks can be found out about. People can teach new players that free robux is fake, but minecraft has another problem. Ads state that the game is free, but I just loads your computer with adware. Third of all, you can build like Minecraft in ROBLOX, but with much bigger and better buildings. Not only that, but you can do it WITHOUT learning how to script. I do agree with you in the fact that newbies without ROBLOX are discriminated without robux, and that's a bad thing. Not only that, but ROBLOX doesn't read reports, and ROBLOX can get bad. But still, it's a lot better and easier.
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

You can make your own skin, you can literally make yourself anything you want. Minecraft may be cringy, but ROBLOX is horrid, there are hundreds of free hacks, you literally discriminated against if you don't buy robux, ROBLOX has a much more complex building system that a majority of its audience doesn't know how to use. Minecraft lets you build whatever you want without learning how to script, learning how to mesh blocks, and the such.