BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bit coin is a scam

Once again, I'll rebut my opponents points in order: 1. That implies that credit/debit cards are untrustworthy, which is clearly false. Many people use credit/debit cards, and most have no issue with them. Next time you make this argument, please baxk it up with evidence. "Anything non-physical is untrustworthy" is a fallacy of "hasty generalization". 2. Hence the need for honesty of the Creator of the bitcoin. If people don't trust it, people aren't going to use it. People are using it, so people trust it. 3. All currencies that aren't based in a non-clonable material are constantly fluctuating in value, for a multitude of reasons. So, while the bitcoin is stable on its own (it can neither gain nor lose value, because there is a set number of bitcoins in circulation), its value in relation to the dollar is continually changing. 4. "The Bitcoin technology - the protocol and the cryptography - has a strong security track record, and the Bitcoin network is probably the biggest distributed computing project in the world. Bitcoin's most common vulnerability is in user error. Bitcoin wallet files that store the necessary private keys can be accidentally deleted, lost or stolen. This is pretty similar to physical cash stored in a digital form. Fortunately, users can employ sound security practices to protect their money or use service providers that offer good levels of security and insurance against theft or loss." (https://bitcoin.org...) As with other forms of currency, you are capable of losing it, but you can prevent this by using common sense. 5. Just because a law is a law does not mean it's set in stone. For example, in a civil trial, the jury can deem a law unreasonable and/or unconstitutional, and have charges based on that law throws out. So, again, simply because it's a law doesn't mean it's set in stone (or particularly reasonable, for that matter). It would seem I've run out of characters. I'll write my closing in the comments.
Bit coin is a scam

1. Anything non physical is untrustworthy. 2. My second argument is than anyone could make more. 3. The dollar looses its value, it doesn't rapidly go up and down. 4. Yes but you could get a replacement, and the bank has records, bit coin is decentralised. 5. Except that it's a law. 6. Bit coin is completely untraceable unlike the dollar. 7. If it was a good thing hed reveal his identity.
Bit coin is a scam

As you posted no specific structure for this debate, I shall simply rebut your points (in order): 1. Regardless of its actual form, the only value a currency has is derived from a single factor: ability to manufacture. The Dollar, for example, only has any value at all because of the "legal tender" law. Since bitcoins aren't a physical currency, the only way we can measure their worth is by determining how many bitcoins exist, and how trustworthy the creator of the currency is. 2. (You have no point 2, so no argument here) 3. This is an absurd argument, because the Dollar, which you're comparing the value of the bitcoin to, doesn't have a stable value itself, so this argument is completely meaningless. 4. This same argument also applies to credit/debit cards (and in some cases, paper money as well), yet people still carry them around, so this argument has no ramifications either. 5. The law you mentioned, in my opinion, is completely unconstitutional and serves no purpose other than to force us to use a dying currency, so it carries no particular weight. 6. Did you know that all forms of currency (that carry value) are used by criminals worldwide as well? 7. The fact that the creator of bitcoins hasn't revealed their identity has absolutely nothing to do with their integrity. I'm sure they have a reason, be it out of want of peace or modesty, it doesn't matter. Overall, you've provided no evidence to support your claim that "bitcoins are a scam". I'd appreciate it if you'd use said evidence next round.
Bit coin is a scam

For this debate I will be arguing that bit coin is a scam. 1. Bit coin is worthless, it's a bunch of 1s and 0s. Anyone can just make more. 3. Bit coin has an unstable "value" changing from 5$ to 250$ back and forth. 4. Bit coin is unreliable, anything could happen,leave you're bit coin wallet next to a magnet, drop it in the toilet, run it over, you could leaving in you're pants and have it go into the washing machine 5. Bit coin is illegal under the coinage act of 1857. 6. Bit coin is used by criminals world wide. 7. The person who invented bit coin didn't have the integrity to reveal who he even is.
Arranged Marriages should be outlawed in the US

My opponent mentions that I used the term arranged to "conjure up images" of abuse and expect everyone to believe me. What I believe my opponent fails to understand is that those circumstances do happen IN THE US. The statistics my opponent used to show that most children in eastern cultures want arranged marriages are just that from EASTERN countries. I acknowledge the fact that most eastern cultures do have arranged marriages, causing a bandwagon effect, however western civilization is a different story. In the United States, "dating" is the cultural norm. The majority of the arranged marriages in the US have one or both spouses saying they didn"t want it (Batabyal). Therefore my opponent cannot state his/her statistics from Delhi and other Eastern areas and use that as acceptable evidence. That evidence isn"t even valid because the majority of those polls are monitored by parents therefore the child is still under fear of disownment ("Arranged"). My opponents calls my articles "Bad, uneducated facts," but his don"t even apply. I would also like to respond to my opponent"s second point. Divorce rates do not show "happy healthy relationships. " In Eastern society, divorce is scorned upon so consequently there wouldn"t be as many divorces. The US on the other hand, is more "free" on those matters and our culture allows for FREEDOM if decision. I am not saying divorce rates aren"t problematic, just that they don"t apply here. My opponent has also failed to respond to my moral standards argument, in which I stated that these lifestyles cause many problems for children, and many lead to suicide. I extend that argument and hope my opponent will respond to such a key issue I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution and I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
bounty hunting

Whether we are talking about America or not, I don't think my argument changes. Here is an excerpt from the Filipino constitution... "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution." I will argue this has substantially the same aim as any legitimate constitution has. I would draw special attention to the phrase "democracy under the rule of law." By giving bounty hunters guns and free reign, the premise of rule under law is undermined. Free reign is still going to be given to people who lack legitimate authority, and the safety and justice which is due to Filipino citizens (as the constitution states) is put into jeopardy. If there are terrorist attacks in the Philippines, that much more than in the US, it makes me doubt even more that Bounty Hunters will be kept under control. If terrorism can't be stopped, then it is reasonable to believe that the government is too weak or ineffective to be able to regulate additional renegade actors within the state (namely bounty hunters). It is therefore my conclusion that Bounty Hunters in the Philippines might actually even cause more harm than in the US, and would continue to increase terroristic activity within the country rather than curbing it. Terrorism is a problem, and it needs to be stopped, but when non-state actors without legitimate international authority (such as the UN has) begin to take matters into their own hands, there is always more potential for chaos and disorder to occur. Bounty Hunting as well will not bring Usama Bin Laden to justice, as he is not reasonably expected to be in the Philippines. If bounty hunters were to begin crossing international borders to find him, there would be all manner of jurisdictional and legal disputes between nations, causing more confusion and headache, and not actually stopping any terrorist activity. I believe that my original argument, whether in regards to America or the Philippines still stands.
bounty hunting

When America drafted its founding documents, it based them on the belief that all people should be free and secure in their persons and in their lives. Because we believe in these values, our system of law enforcement has been carefully structured as to be able to protect to the upmost the aforementioned values. Pursuant to those values, law enforcement officials must have good cause for entering private domiciles or businesses, or for apprehending or detaining individuals. The way the law is set up protects people from unreasonable incursion into their lives by the government, or from citizens who take aggressive action towards others. Legalization of bounty hunting jeopardizes the careful structuring of our laws, and means that free reign will be given to people who lack legitimate authority. When someone is given a license to hunt down and apprehend individuals, especially while using a weapon, great responsibiliy is required. Law enforcement officials go through extensive training and must abide by federal, state, and municiple laws, in addition to department policies. Individual citizens invested with the power of being bounty hunters would not have to abide by such rules. This means that there is a reasonable doubt that bounty hunters would act judiciously or appropriately in their conduct. This would mean a lack of legal protection for citizens, and is frightening for any individal citizen because it means no one can be guaranteed safety, even in their own homes any more. Furthermore, there is no reasonable belief that bounty hunters will stop terrorism. Noting the fact that there has been no "terrorist attack" against the US since 9/11/01, I would deduce that the law enforcement community, and their increased emphasis on terrorism prevention and elimination has kept us safe from terrorist activity. Consequently, bounty hunters aren't necissary to stop terrorims, and they would pose a greater threat to American peace and security than terrorism would. The negatives thus outweighing the benefits and bounty hunting should not be legalized.
Politician and Criminal are same.

My friend pro:- I knew some one will have this question, for which i can't answer in long because of short of time, but for sure i may say that i am not saying every politician is a criminal but a politician is a successful criminal and a criminal is a unsuccessful criminal - The ugliest thing that can happen to a man is to become a politician also we are not talking about the politician of America, India or china but for the whole world status no if few places have good politicians and few have bad one that's not something we are talking about but then at the same time we are talking about the feedback which we receive from our citizens and we also can feel and see the result.
Politician and Criminal are same.

It appears that Con is unaware that his position is OPPOSED to the argument that they are the same. Con means that you DISAGREE. You are arguing as if you AGREE. I have essentially been robbed of one round and been forced to give arguments to the opposing side, that should at least give me the conduct vote. I will assume the other side now and argue that politicians are NOT criminals (Pro apparently is Con and vice versa for this debate) Politicians are not inherently criminals. A criminal is someone who has to put themselves above another in order to exercise their will, yes, that's true, but there's another facet to criminality; that he/she hurts the person over whom he/she places him/herself. A politician can be good. I myself have considered a career in politics because I think I could handle the pressure and effect real and desirable change in my community. Plus, it should be said that politicians are not necessarily in a position over someone. Just because you have the chance to vote on something that someone else doesn't, doesn't mean that you are exposing your own inferiority complex. Perhaps you're just doing the best with what you're given. We can't expect a consensus-based perfect utopia to pop-up overnight, so a politician might just be doing their very best to provide goodness to their constituents and to the world.
Politician and Criminal are same.

Fundamentally there is no difference at all. Superficially of course there are differences. The basic desire to be a leader arises in people who are suffering from an inferiority complex. It does not matter whether they move into the political world or into the religious world; the will-to-power is an absolute indication that the man feels himself inferior to others and he wants to prove to the world that it is not so. It is not only a question of proving to the world; through the world he wants to prove it to himself too, that he is not inferior to anybody. The only way mind can manage it is to make everybody inferior to you. Mind is not our intelligence. It may sound strange but this is a truth, that mind is not our intelligence. Mind can be intellectual, which is a very poor substitute for intelligence. Intellectuality is mechanical. You can become a great scholar, a great professor, a great philosopher -- just playing with words which are all borrowed, arranging and rearranging thoughts, none of which are your own.
Politician and Criminal are same.

Some things need to be defined. Criminal. I will assume, as no definitions are given, that "criminal" means "a person who does bad things" because having the definition "someone who breaks the law" would require me to defend the obviously contradictory position that people who don't always break laws break laws. Does "politicians" refer to ALL politicians or is it saying that it is possible for a politician to be a criminal? If the latter, common knowlege says Pro wins; there have definitely been criminal politicians. To be a politician under the current system is to claim to represent a number of people so high that adequate representation is impossible. In the United States there are 535 Congresspeople representing 350 million people. Simple math shows that each congressperson represents, on average and rounded, 654,206 people. The idea that one person could adequately represent the wishes of that many people is ridiculous and criminal in itself. That argument alone should yield a vote for pro, but there's more. Because of the nature of politics, they DON'T represent those 600,000+ people. The voting system in many countries (including the US) has led to two-party domination. That means that a voter won't vote for you because they want you as a representative as often as because they DON'T want the other politician. That's a system the politicians love as well. They don't want close elections, they want EASY elections. One party will let anothernparty win in some locale because it is better for both parties that that be the district of the other party. And in systems without proportional representation, if 43% vote one party and 45% vote the second party and 12% vote a 3rd party, 100% will be represented by the second party even though 55% (the majority) voted for another party. Those 3rd party voters are told that they "wasted" their vote, but it is the politicians who wasted those votes! There are systems where that would result in a congress with 45% party-two and 12% party-three and 43% party-one. A much better representation. Gerrymandering is another criminal element. If Party A, Party B and Party C are choices in some area, and C is the minority in congress but majority in this area, B and A can draw the district lines so half of C voters are in a district controlled by A and half are in a district controlled by B, then, when they vote again, there's no way for C to win even though they have the majority! Politicians are criminals.
The Bible is historically accurate

Sir could you please bring me evidence that is viable your source is a crappy conspiracy site please bring some viable evidence like this you source is just empty questions http://www.forumterrace.com... your source is science based and you cant prove that creation is biblical or evolutionary because the main part of science is observation and the only record of observation is the bible and as you can agree me and you were not there so we couldn't observe we cant prove that point. as my source points out people used to think that the bible was fake and now it has been proven right by many archeological finds and other discovery's. It take just as much faith to believe in the bible as to deny it This is why I urge a pro ballot
The Bible is historically accurate

I'm not sure I can even follow the nonsense in this post. I'll try to break down the gibberish line by line. 1) god is the creator. No evidence is given for this. Just mindless drivel. god did not create you. You were created in your mother's womb during the 9 months after prom, with probably some heavy binge drinking every now and again. You were created by the combination of a sperm and an egg and the process that they go through to grow into a person. unless you consider your dad's dong or your mother's hoohoo "god" then you weren't created by god. And the world was definately not created by either your dad's meat rocket, nor you mother's salami sheath. It was created from the dust of stars clustering together from the forces of gravity. 2) He controls our lives. Smite me, oh mighty smiter! Obviously "god" is controlling me to rip his believers a new one, because he loves you soooooo much. That makes sense. 3) god can be trusted. He can be trusted to do nothing and pretty much not exist. That is about it. Nothing of your argument suggests anything along the lines of historical accuracy. Now some basic examples of how it is not historically accurate. 1) god created the sun after making day and night, and the Earth. The Earth was created after the sun, because it was made from left over space dust. So it is historically and scientifically inaccurate to say the Earth was made first. It is also inaccurate to say that night and day could be made before the sun, since the sun is what makes the nights and days. 2) The bible gives a solid lineage back to the first humans. Which suggest that mankind is only 6,000 years old. Yet we've found numerous remains of humans older than that. 3) The bible claims that giants roamed the Earth, yet there is no fossile records of any giants roaming the earth. 4) The bible claims that the Earth was of one language, however, he was records that there were many different languages going back to when the earth supposedily was created. 5) The bible says that Abraham returned to the land of the philistines... 800 years before the philistines ever got there. There are plenty more, but these are just some examples from a single book of the bible. source - http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
The Bible is historically accurate

The world is followed by one god in many forms. I am here to say that the bible is historically accurate. I have two reason, first god is the creator of our creations. Finally, god can be trusted. My first point God is the creator, he is the one that made the world. He controls our life. After this debate he might be made at you. You know what I am doing right now is history. God gave me the power to type. Thus, the disciples that made the bible are historically accurate. Finally, god can be trusted. I our bills and coins we have one slogan,"In god we trust or We trust in god." If we believe in him then we think the bible is accurate. Thus, I urge a pro ballot. 1st - cases 2nd- crossfire 3rd- rebuttals
Cannabis should be legalized

The best part of the debate that decides our fate, on this fateful date, so good luck, mate! I will take advantage for being the last debater to refute my opponents points AND refute his refutes. "Major People" My opponent states that "Why should the most powerful people on the planet get away from smoking Marijuana but us ordinary folk have to suffer in prisons? ". You know why? Because if the police arrested Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush, there would be an outrage of riots and other such violent acts. People would be very, very mad with the police because they just arrested the PRESIDENT! My opponent also had a quote:, "I don't want some little kid doing what I tried. "- George W. Bush. Ahem, DarthKirones, you are supposed to be debating FOR pot, not give a quote that explicitly has a leading figure say that weed is BAD! !! !! Sigh. .. .. .. "Distraction to the police force" Of course everyone wants that "big criminal" caught, but since when is this a "distraction" to the police forces around the world? They have special forces for drug catching, so it's not a distraction to the people who catch these murderers and other criminals. Also, my opponent stated in this argument that it is harmless in small doses. DEFINITELY NOT! !! ! AS I said before, people search for a bigger "high" after smoking even just a little bit of pot. This will lead to either the person smoking MORE pot or using a "harder" drug! "Cost" Ok, so the government would get money if you legalize pot. But the average small grower of pot would not! The price of pot actually goes down when it is legalized because of a): competition is higher and b): The risk factor goes down, decreasing the value of pot. "Rebuttals" My opponent stated that because marijuana is bad for you does not mean that it should be outlawed. He goes on to say all the bad things for your health that are allowed. But, he neglected to state all the things that WHERE outlawed BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH EFECTS: Heroin, Cocaine, Opium, Ecstasy and so on. .. .. These drugs where banned because of the negative health effects. It seems to me that my opponent approves of people hurting themselves if they want to. But should you let these people harm themselves with drugs these serious? N to the O! In the point about business, I did not say that marijuana is bad! I said it produces better business BECAUSE it's illegal. And yes, pot DOES become worse when it is legal, because it is sold cheaper when it is allowed, which makes the seller make less money! My opponent states that weed should not be outlawed just because it is a gateway drug. It's not outlawed because it is just a gateway drug! It is outlawed also because it is bad for your health!