BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should not be taking in the Refugees from the Syria due to the high risk of terror activity

i thank my adversary for giving me a challenge. your research was very solid and has caused me to rethink my second argument. but i found a few holes in a few arguments from Uther. 1. you stated that at this point in time that "no ISIS related attacks can be directly linked to the Syrian refugees, the suspected were not even apart of the refugees, neither were they of Syrian descent. In fact, all of the suspects as of now were European-born citizens, mostly from Belgium. This is what prompted a "terror alert" within Brussels shortly after the shooting [2]" which is very accurate. But, just because they authorities in Paris found the terrorists of Belgian descent doesn't mean that they did not sympathize or even made contact with those within ISIS who are of Syrian descent. 2. According to CNN (i am paraphrasing here) " 31 states have declared that they will not help in the relocation of Syrian refugees on American soil due to the knowledge that the attack on Paris was done during a time when the relocation of Refugees was happening". Now with that being said there is also the idea that there is tension and grudges still held by those who believe that the middle east conflict that has been going on now has taken too many lives and resent anyone who is from that region. 3. there is a lot of opposition from one political party, the Republican party. now i am only touching on this so lets not blow up which side is right and which side is wrong. Being a Republican myself and hearing the views of other Republicans around me in my daily life, my understanding is that the people are actually worried about their lives, family, and the fate of this nation. And unfortuantely seeing how the Democratic party is for bringing in the Refugees there is an obvious opposition on this. the point im making here is that the timing of the influx of refugees is not right for the U.S. or its people. at this point in time, it is a very bad time to bring in more people who could end up being associated with any terrorist cell. besides, even if the Federal government passes it, the states have to verify it and with close to 67% of the United states opposing it there is going to be trouble for them ressetling them. Source: http://www.cnn.com...
The US should not be taking in the Refugees from the Syria due to the high risk of terror activity

First off welcome, my opening argument is this: given the state of world after the terrorist attacks on innocent civilians in Paris, France the security of a nation's people has to be the leading political party's main objective. now that being said when a nation like America, one of the leading world powers in the UN (United Nations for those who don't know ) starts to take in thousands out refugee's from a foreign nation whose wars have driven them form their homelands there is a high likely hood that many of those refugee's may be sleeper agents of a terrorist group or movement. if said sleeper agents were to gain access to the area's that they have designated as targets such as college campus's, inner city area's and essential buildings for everyday life. that ends my first argument. what say you my opponent?
American History is Full of Lies

1. Judging by your response, You can't seem to answer any of the basic questions. You now state that "discovering two continents was (unprecedented) during Columbus' time. " If it was unprecedented, Then that means it was highly unlikely that he discovered multiple continents, Which goes back to my proof that he never set foot on American soil. James W. Loewen, A historian, Sociologist & author, Reported this topic & it's documented in his award-winning book "Lies My Teacher Told: Everything American History Books Got Wrong. " You also say that Columbus reported tribal castration, Exploitation of women etc. , But you fail to mention that Columbus was charged with rape, Murder & torture when he traveled back to Spain. Proof? . . . Bartolome de la Casas, A former slave trader, Documented Columbus' atrocities in which he was arrested for. Your ramblings of cultural conquest, Written language and the wheel is completely off-topic, Which proves that you're deflecting. The very crimes that you tried to put on the indigenous, Is what Columbus was actually perpetrating. 2. All Irish-immigrants in America during that time are documented as indentured servants. Sir, Contract labor is bonded labor, Which makes them indentured servants. Of course, The Irish were treated better in the British Isles because Ireland is geographically located in the British Isles. Yes, The Irish were considered property because they were doing time, And just like any American who's in prison. . . He/she is "property of the state" in which he/she has committed the crime. Disease, Bad behavior & climate is irrelevant. If America's miseducation system is teaching that Irish-immigrants were indentured servants, Then why do the majority of white people argue that the Irish were slaves when debating back people on the topic of slavery? 3. Sir, Lincoln's Peoria Speech was an actual speech in which he stood before hundreds of people. Any politician is going to say what sounds good in front of an audience to present his case. On the other hand, Lincoln's conversion with Horace Greeley was private, And it displayed his true colors/intentions. No, White people of the north didn't have a sudden epiphany that slavery was wrong so don't twist my words. Yes, Northern whites wanted it to stop because they're pockets weren't getting fat even though the north had its fair share of slave plantations, But I'm sure you knew that. . . Right?
American History is Full of Lies

1. Enslavement and cultural conquest were quite common during Columbus's time but, Discovering two continents was unprecedented. The civilizations peopling the New World possessed no written language and didn't use the wheel. All of history points to some kind of eventual conquest. Columbus reported tribal warfare, Cannibalism, Castration, The exploitation of women, And slavery from the natives. The locals slaughtered the dozens of men he left behind in the New World. Put another way, In 1453 the natives conducted genocide on every European in the Americas. 2. To say all Irish settlers were not slaves is incorrect. Some were enslaved, Some were indentured servants, Or later as contract labor on the railroads, Mines, And other dangerous tasks. In the British Isles the Irish were treated much better than the Americas; the Irish even learned trades to take with them. Yes, The Irish would be freed after 4-7 years but, During that time the servant was considered property and could be sold or inherited. While under contract a person could not marry or have children. An unruly servant was whipped or punished for improper behavior. Due to poor living conditions, Hard labor, Difficulties adjusting to new climates and disease, Many servants did not live to see freedom. "The United States of America's true history isn't being taught. " It is not part of the American curriculum to teach that Irish settlers were slaves, The youths of today are being taught that they were indentured servants. So, No they are not the same but they were still mistreated. 3. In Lincoln's Peoria Speech, He says that, "If the negro is a man, Why then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal;" and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another. " This clearly states that he believes that the slaves were men, That all men are equal, And that slavery is immoral. Yes, You are right that the north suddenly thought that slavery is wrong but, They did want it to stop spreading. Through the war slavery became taboo and the reasons for the war were not unethical. Also you did not include all of Lincoln's quote, You left out how he said that if he could save the union along with freeing all the slaves he would.
American History is Full of Lies

Sir, If something is being falsely told or misguided, Then how is the information truthful? Let's not play the semantics game ok? . . . You said that the education system teaches history as the victors perceive it to be? You just put your foot in your mouth by saying that nonsense because a perception is not factual. Are you aware that two people can have two different perceptions on the same subject and still be completely wrong? You said, "trade accuracy for political correction with the youth. ". . . Now, If you don't find anything wrong with what you just said, Then you're completely lost. Fact #1: My point is that, Why do our miseducation system preach that Thanksgiving was a day of peace when it was clearly a massacre? Why do we celebrate Columbus Day when knowing that Columbus committed various crimes against the indigenous people? Are you aware that Columbus never stepped foot on American soil? . . . So, He discovered a land that was already inhabited by people? . . . So, Columbus discovered an empty land, But named the land after another person? Fact #2: Irish-immigrants were never slaves. These people were indentured servants, And they were freed after a "set" period of time. Bonded labor is completed when the terms are met, But chattel slavery was hereditary until death. How is that the same? Fact #3: The Civil War wasn't fought because whites suddenly had an epiphany that slavery was wrong. The war was fought because one region was getting rich while other regions weren't. Didn't Abe Lincoln say that "If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it? " Yes, And he told this to Horace Greeley, Statesman & founder of the New York-Tribune. I can go on and on for days. . . Now, You blatantly pointed out that I misused the word "countries" instead of using "country's. ". . . At the same time, You quoted the word countries, But didn't add the second set of quotation marks. Did you not? . . . Sir, That sentence where you used brackets is also totally incorrect.
American History is Full of Lies

History cannot be wrong. The way it is told can be misguided or false. "The United States of America's true history isn't being taught. " The American education system teaches history as the victors perceive it to be. The youths of today are being taught the historical truth, Not in a viewpoint that trades accuracy for political correctness. "I'm certain that this countries history is complete nonsense. " (The incorrect placement of the word "countries is quoted from the previous argument, I know the proper use is "country's". ) If you are certain that America's history is nonsense, Please provide the occurences that you think are falsified.
Opinions on age differences.

A teenager is an underdeveloped person. They have not finished growing, learning, and they receive a lot of hormones that influence everyday life decisions as well as important decisions. One thing that occurs is denial of the hormones. Because a teenager has little control over their hormones, they tend to give in to the hormone effect. An adult, person out of their teens, is more if not fully developed compared to a teen. Because of the knowledge that adults are expected to have compared to teens, as well as a higher expectation of taking on more responsibility, they can use this generalization to manipulate the mind of the impressionable teenager. The simple hormonal and knowledge border seems to be too much of an obstacle to get around. Of course, not all cases are like this, but like with all generalizations, some do fall through the cracks. The odds are not in the favor of anyone who pursues the avenue of dating outside a I'd say two year difference. There is also concerns for generation gaps and the change of otherwise professional relationships.
Opinions on age differences.

Like, if you're a teenager, is it okay to date someone 4-5 years older than you? Like a 15 year old dating a 20 year old or a 16 year old dating a 25 year old. Personally I think that if you're mature enough and at least almost done with high school, you should be able to date whoever you want as long as your parents approve of them. In society today, age doesn't matter. Legally, it may not be acceptable, but you can't help who you fall for, right?
No being can posses omniscience as a property.

Resolution: No being can posses omniscience as a property.I will be arguing that it is logically impossible for any being to posses omniscience as a property. My opponent will be arguing the opposite. The burden of proof is shared.DefinitionsOmniscience - Knowing everythingStructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2/3/4/5 - Arguments and RebuttalsRules1. No semantics or trolling.2. The burden of proof is shared.
No being can posses omniscience as a property.

RebuttalsCon says: Mathematics is an a priori science. Take the question of adding by one's. I know that this sequence will go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ad infinitum. Can't it be said that I have an infinite knowledge of equations derived in this manner? Likewise our omniscient being could have solved all such equations, in all patterns, through logical deductive rules, thus knowing all equations by understanding all the elements of mathematics and all the logical rules this science is based on.Yet I do not know the answer to an infinite amount of equations, I know how to work out an infinite amount of equations. If you asked me what is 0*76573876, for example, I would be able to answer it. Why? It's not because I already knew the answer, it's because I know that anything multiplied by zero is zero. You could ask me that question every single week for a year, but the knowledge I use to come to my answer isn't the knowledge that 0*76583876=0, but that x*0=0, and x can be anything. So, I do not know an infinite amount of things.But isn't it pretty obvious that to know an infinite amount of things is impossible? It is impossible because as my argument explains, there are an infinite amount of numbers and an infinite amount equations with an infinite amount of answers to that infinite amount of equations, and I cannot know all the answers to all those equations because there is always one more to know. 1*1=1, 2*1=2, etc. I can keep going on like this forever, and since it is impossible to know the answer to every single possible equation, omniscience is impossible.Con says: Omniscience is possible. What if the universe itself were alive, that the totality of matter and energy existent created a being of such profundity that we could scarcely even imagine it's intellect? How could we possibly dare to challenge it's knowledge, when we are not even an ant in comparison? Of course there is the constant tendency to imagine other beings as if they were simply humans - and who can blame us for that natural tendency - but an omniscient being would be nothing like a human and not limited by our constraints. Here, Con provides no real arguments but he does put a smokescreen around knowing it, saying that we just can't know as we're just human beings, but I could do that to try and support my case, either way it proves nothing. All existent beings must obide by the laws of logic and that is what I am using to support my arguments: logic.
No being can posses omniscience as a property.

Mathematics is an a priori science. Take the question of adding by one's. I know that this sequence will go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. ad infinitum. Can't it be said that I have an infinite knowledge of equations derived in this manner? Likewise our omniscient being could have solved all such equations, in all patterns, through logical deductive rules, thus knowing all equations by understanding all the elements of mathematics and all the logical rules this science is based on. Omniscience is possible. What if the universe itself were alive, that the totality of matter and energy existent created a being of such profundity that we could scarcely even imagine it's intellect? How could we possibly dare to challenge it's knowledge, when we are not even an ant in comparison? Of course there is the constant tendency to imagine other beings as if they were simply humans - and who can blame us for that natural tendency - but an omniscient being would be nothing like a human and not limited by our constraints.
No being can posses omniscience as a property.

I thank Con for taking up this debate so quickly.The argumentMy argument against omniscience can be summarized as follows:(P1) Numbers are infinite, meaning that there are therefore an infinite amount of equations and answers to those equations to know.(P2) An omniscient knows everything, so it would know the answer to every single equation;(C) Therefore, an omniscient being cannot exist, as there is always one more equation to know the answer to. Justification of the first premise Numbers are infinite. Imagine the number 1. I'll add another "1" to it. I can keep doing this forever as numbers are endless. We can come to the conclusion that if numbers are endless, then we can just make the equation that number times zero. Justification of the second premiseThis is pretty self-explanatory.Justification of the ConclusionSince there are an endless amount of equations and answers to those equations to know, an omniscient being cannot exist as an omniscient being knows everything but we can always think of one more equation as we have an endless supply of numbers.
Human life begins at conception (sperm meets egg)

So, this debate is structured in a way that we post arguments first, and then we do rebuttals in Round 3. So I don't expect you to answer the questions I will put forth in this round in Round 2, but please do so in Round 3. First off, I want to ask the Con what species is the single-celled organism in a human female's body during pregnancy? Please reply with a genus and species, and then a common name for this animal. So, for my primary argument, I would like to discuss the genetics [and biology], sir. I won't be getting to complicated, but I can if you want. Right now I'll just do the basics, though. Before fertilization occurs, a female sex cell (egg) has only half the number of genes as a normal human being. In the same way, sperm cells also have only half of the genetic DNA that a human needs. At conception, these two cells, which by themselves are not human, join together and produce a fully complete, 23 chromosome genome [1]. All of the DNA that is necessary for a human to live is there at conception. From here, the zygote will now human undergo mitosis and eventually grow to be a larger human. But a fully developed human and a single-celled zygote human both have the same amount of genetic information. Think of it like an atom of gold and a house of gold. Although a single atom of gold is small and looks different than a house, it still has the same physical and chemical properties of the block of house. And thus the single atom of gold can be considered gold. In the same way, a single celled human, however small and simple it is, has the same genetic information as a fully grown human, and so the single celled human can be considered human. For my second argument, I sort of want to refer back to my question at the beginning. My thesis for this paragraph: you are human, or you are not. There is no in between. Many people believe that a human fetus is only potential human life, but I will disprove that by putting forth my answer for the question: what species is the single-celled organism in a female's body during pregnancy? My answer, and I hope your answer as well, is Homo sapiens- human. As I stated before, you are either human or not. So, if your answer to my question is NOT homo-sapiens, then what is the species of the organism? Felis catus (cat)? Canis lupus (dog)? I think we can agree that he or she is homo sapiens, and this does not change after conception. Homo sapiens is the scientific name for human, so by definition the single-celled organism is human. You cannot be a homo sapiens and not be human. A scientific name is just a complicated science word for an organism's common name, nothing more, nothing less. Thus, at conception, the homo sapiens formed when sperm meets egg can be classified as human, and nothing else (unless is it categorical, like human fetus. Either way, he or she is still human) I may or may not post more arguments in Round 3, it depends on your performance/arguments and rebuttals. But trust me, I got more, and some are almost inarguable. Source(s): 1. https://www.23andme.com...
Human life begins at conception (sperm meets egg)

A debate on whether human life begins at conception or not. I will be arguing that it does, and the Con will be argue that human life begins at some other point, you can pick. Burden of Proof will be on me especially. Con doesn't necessarily have to prove human life begins at his proposed point, but it would only help his case. I want the format to go like this: Round 1: Acceptance, and please state when life begins (or if you are undecided) Round 2: Arguments. Round 3: Additional arguments and rebuttals to Round 2 arguments. Round 4: Rebuttals to Round 3 rebuttals and Rebuttals to any new Round 3 arguments. Also, no new arguments in Round 4. I also got a few definitions here, because some debaters are really strict on the debate topic, so this will hopefully appease them. 1. life: 1) the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body 2) an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction 2. conception: the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both 3. Deoxyribosnucleic acid: any of various nucleic acids that are usually the molecular basis of heredity, are constructed of a double helix held together by hydrogen bonds between purine and pyrimidine bases which project inward from two chains containing alternate links of deoxyribose and phosphate, and that in eukaryotes are localized chiefly in cell nuclei " compare recombinant DNA. 4. human: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) (Con can add definitions in his Round 1 or discuss my definitions, but no arguments. All definitions of mine are Merriam Webster, by the way.)