BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns rights are the most common denominators in shooting massacres/mas violence

Before we continue the debate, I want the understand my opponents stance on the issue and I quote; "it"s more than what I think is the most common denominator, which is the want of shooting." Originally, I had wanted for an opponent whom is pro-gun and believes that it is not the gun rights in America that is mainly causing such disasters. Regardless, I shall continue but please provide me with some background about where you stand. Let me begin with my original statement, my opponent brings a good point about there being "arrows". Let's not lie to ourselves, by shooting, many of us recognize it as a gun shooting. Instances with bow and arrows have certain classifications. My opponent has stated that he believes the most common denominator of shootings are generally "the want of shooting". But there are steps until the desirer gets to his wish, and the main thing that would get in ones way is getting the gun, which was not the issue for Omar Mateen in the Orlando shooting (Daly & Harris, 2016). CON argues that " one instance does not warrant your claim " yet he himself knows there are many other instances. Shooters in the US obtain their guns legally and that is one thing the United States should not allow. Sources: http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Any believer in the bible has to agree that the land of israel belongs to the jewish people

Let's start here:P1. Israel belongs to the Jewish people as a result with their Covanent with God. P2. Not all Jews have KEPT the Covanent of the Ten Commandments. P3. Due to P2, the Convanent is broken, null and void. Therefore, Jews have no Biblical claim to Israel. Okay, your turn.
Any believer in the bible has to agree that the land of israel belongs to the jewish people

One condition of the debate is that con has to believe in the bible. The bible says tons of times that the land of israel is given by g-d to the nation of israel. The boundaries are clearly delineated in the end of the book of numbers. Therefore i say that a believer in the bible cannot in any way think that the palestinians should get a state in the land of israel. For that would constitute theft from the jewish people to whom g-d gave the land as an eternal inheritance. I will just quote one of dozens of verses which state this clearly Genesis 17:7-8 "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." G-d bless the jewish people, and the palestinians should realize that their claim for palestine is a war against g-ds eternal word.
The Earth is Flat

Mangani, let me first apologize to you, as I used you unwittingly to prove another point. If I were talking to you in person I would have never been able to keep your attention. I suppose I should explain. I could have never gotten a better person than you for proving my point. Your absolute adherence to the scientific method is impeccable. You are a true scientist even if you aren't one. My point to prove was that when somebody is emotionally tied to the topic of the debate, the scientific method goes out the door. In this debate you didn't care where the information came from, you absolutely wanted to here it, analyze it, try to figure if it would make a change in the theory and through the scientific method proved it's inaccuracy in the greatest detail. You made no attempt to reject it because you didn't like the scientists political affiliation, the company he may have worked for or his personal beliefs. None of that mattered one bit. All that mattered was the information and weather or not if it was applied to the current available data, it would change it. It mattered not how stupid you thought the assertion was, you took the time to research it and explain the flaw so as to leave no doubt. And if there was some kind of inconsistency you explained why or why not the inconsistency had relevance or not. My point is that there has never been a scientific subject so politicized so as to allow the scientific method to be thrown out the door as global warming I find it impossible to have a coherent debate on this subject without my personal beliefs, my political affiliation or my personal position on the subject being the reason I am a skeptic. To all the people who call me a denier because I'm not completely convinced this is why and I hope it made a good scientific point. No matter how stupid you think I am or how stupid this whole thing was. My mind is open, convince me in this manner. I won't listen to anyone who rejects any information I give because they don't like the source. Who cares what the source is, if it's easy enough to explain away then do it. And it will bring me one step closer to your side of the argument. Starting off by calling me a denier and all of sources I provide junk science with out even so much as trying to explain why the information I provide is what keeps me a skeptic. Thaks for indulging me Manani, I'm sorry I wasted your time. Sadolite
The Earth is Flat

Sadolite, unfortunately due to the debate structure of this dialogue you would have to justify your line of questioning with regard to it's relation to your rebuttal against my premise. I can also be "smarter than a fifth grader" and list the periodic table of elements, but doing so poses absolutely no relevence to my premise or your rebuttal. I can also name the Three Stooges, recite the entire Dogg Food CD by Tha Dogg Pound, and repair any electronic device with my eyes closed. None of that proves that the earth is neither flat, nor round. My arguments not only have the reader's own logic in mind, they are consistent with third grade science, and I pose questions already answered by third grade science that you cannot explain under any "flat earth" theory. You haven't posed any arguments other than that you are not a good debater (which I am not known to be myself), you have not justified the need for the questions you pose to be answered in the context of this debate, AND you are wasting your turns to argue in doing so. I will not engage in discourse with you on any subject other than the topic at hand within the context of this debate, and if you wish to veer from the topic- by all means, create another debate and challenge me. You want to debate fishing? Let's debate fishing. You want to get the upper hand after accepting a debate you can't debate in? Challenge me to your favorite topic! I'll make you feel better!
The Earth is Flat

Sadolite, though your questions are in English, I fail to understand exactly what it is you are asking me. Are you suggesting you accepted this debate just for the sake of making a statement that I am being ridiculous by arguing a point that you were already arguing about on the comments section of another debate of the same title and topic in which you also failed to prove your point? Where are you going with this? First you tell me to post my argument or I will forfeit and lose, now you are opposing the fact that I am debating you even if you have given up? Maybe what you should be asking, and to yourself, is what the heck were you thinking even entertaining the idea that the Earth is flat... just a thought... By the way- this debate is about wether or not the Earth is flat, not about why I am debating, researching, or stating whatever I am or am not stating.
The Earth is Flat

Magani, let me ask you some questions. Why would go through so much trouble to debate such an absurd assertion that the earth is flat? You go out of your way to listen to any possible evidence, no matter what the source, that may suggest otherwise and compare it to known science. You try to look for any possible piece of information contained in the information provided to you that would suggest the earth is flat. And look for flaws in the information and explain why, in the greatest detail, why the information that would suggest the earth is flat is flawed. Why would you do that? Is there a scientific answer for these questions?
The Earth is Flat

I will not assume, and in the process make your argument more clear, with regards to your deference to Ockham's Razor. Your "ether" theory proves nothing other than the fact that a couple of scientists in 1887 could not prove the Earth was moving. They couldn't prove "ether" doesn't exist either. The relation between the two, and the scientific results of that relationship are unfortunate in that people are relying on unproven information to prove something that is just not logical. The questions I posted above are not answered under any "flat earth" society website- they are not even addressed. YOU have also failed to address those issues, and the fact that you do not understand why something is the way it is doesn't prove that it's not. To disprove that the Earth is a globe, you would have to discredit thousands of astronomers, scientists, US Air Force personnel and personnel from other countries' Air Force's, along with logical scientific theories that allow us to predict weather patters like tides, etc. You would have to disprove that the moon is also flat (because the way it's gravity affects the Earth is more evidence that the Earth is a globe), the sun, and the rest of the planets (for the same reason- gravitational pull). You would have to come up with hundreds of scientific rebuttals to logic going back almost 2000 years! I don't see you doing that my pleading that you are not a good debater...
The Earth is Flat

After reading extensively on the existence of "Ether," that being the hing on which I was going to base my entire argument, I am forced to accept "Occam's Razor" with regard to this "Ether". Let's be honest, I suck at debating. So I think you should feel sorry for me, kinda like little Johnny or little kids who play sports. You can't tell them they are wrong or they didn't win because that might hurt their feelings. You should feel the same for me. I think you should give me an honorary win for trying and send me on my way. Or better yet appeal to your sense of humor, and vote for me because Mangani's friends would rib him for losing a debate on "The world is flat". I think that would be very funny.
Obama is a historic success

Obama is a historic failure. Some preview points: 1) Obama has failed to adequately address America’s debt crisis. Despite promising economic recovery for America, President Obama’s stimulus bill and omnibus appropriations -both exceeding the total fiscal costs of the Iraq War- have produced greater deficits, greater debts, and greater uncertainties for the future (i.e. Social Security). The U.S. treasury has since lost its AAA lending grade and is now slowly inching closer to losing its status as the world's reserve currency. Obama should know that America’s $17.5 trillion debt and economic problems are the #1 security issues in the world today. 2) Obamacare is failed policy. As a law, Obamacare has fundamentally altered America by raising taxes on all Americans while discouraging small business growth through new income surtaxes, especially on stock markets & investment. Expanding Medicaid for the uninsured also does nothing to reduce the runaway costs of healthcare. President Obama, had he been serious and apolitical, should have pushed for tort reform and privatized nationwide health insurance instead. 3) Obama’s policies hurt the economy and have hindered job growth. President Obama's green energy regulations –as one example- hurt American industries by more than $16 billion a year while a $500 million handout to Solyndra fails to net a single job. Had Obama’s energy policies been serious about promoting job growth, he would have cut corporate taxes, reduced coal & gas regulation, ended the ban on deep-sea oil drilling, and created thousands of new jobs by constructing the Keystone pipeline. 4) Obama is failing to keep America safe. President Obama has thus far completely mismanaged the War on Terror by cutting defense spending and withholding surge troops in Afghanistan (2009) against the advice of his top commanders. Meanwhile, intelligence leaks concerning intelligence gathering and cyber warfare activities have hurt the CIA's and Israel’s attempts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. But perhaps most showing, Obama’s refusal to rescue a classified U.S. drone in Iran gave away America’s tech secrets to its most dangerous adversaries. 5) The Obama Doctrine has failed in Iraq and elsewhere. The number one reason for ISIS’s rise in Iraq and Syria is Obama’s innate failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with the Iraqis in 2009 and his inability to adequately address the Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War crisis beginning in 2010. Obama’s governing principle of “don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle for effective defense policy, and nor is “leading from behind” an effective way to lead the world.
Poker is a game of skill

As my opponent has not contributed anything new to the debate, but has instead reworded his original points and continues to attempt distractions using averages - all things that I've already addressed - I'll just extend my arguments into this round. I'd like also to ask that voters disregard a comment made on this debate containing arguments against my case which I chose not to entertain as it has no place in the debate between me and my opponent. It would be unfair when judging a debate to take into account uninvited arguments made by an outside party that were by choice not disputed. Thanks again to Pro for the debate and for the attention of the readers and voters.
Poker is a game of skill

"Due to forced bets[1], it's not possible for a player to continue folding until they have what they perceive to be a suitable opportunity to bluff; they will eventually run out of money. The player is at the mercy of whether such opportunities are present - an element of chance." It is not necessary for a player to wait for a suitable opportunity to bluff. It is often not necessary to bluff to win money. Also, if a certain situation is not favorable to bluff, a skilled player can recognize this fact and decide not to bluff. A less skilled player may not be able to recognize such a situation and thus he will be more likely to lose. "The law of averages may dictate, for example, that an amateur Player B won't receive a constant stream of winning cards while skilled Player A receives poor cards, thus affording Player A an opportunity to bluff, but this merely attempts to distract from the very real fact that these situations on a case-by-case basis are still influenced by chance." I think you are talking about short term scenarios where chance plays a larger role. This doesn't change the fact that in the long run, each player will see a negligible difference in cards, so skill will play the deciding factor in who will be a winner or loser. I would compare your argument to someone who says "In basketball, whether each basket goes in or not is at the mercy of chance. Although players can use skill to influence whether the ball goes in the basket or not, basketball is still a game of chance." This is obviously not true, basketball is a game of skill where chance plays a large role, like poker. Your argument that bluffing is influenced by chance doesn't change the fact that in the long run, skill decides who will be a winner or loser. I will say again that poker is a very complex game that requires a large knowledge and an innate ability, which few players have. The players that lack these things are at a disadvantage and will certainly lose in the long run.
Poker is a game of skill

"Chance has a limited effect on the outcome of the game due to the fact that each player has the same odds of having the best hand. Both players are at the mercy of their cards to the same extent, so skill plays the deciding factor in who will be a winner more often." I quote this to point out that we're in agreement on the fact that the cards and the players receiving them are subject to chance. - "This however does not mean that a skilled player cannot use the information available to him to choose the right time to bluff, in order to increase the odds of his bluff working." Due to forced bets[1], it's not possible for a player to continue folding until they have what they perceive to be a suitable opportunity to bluff; they will eventually run out of money. The player is at the mercy of whether such opportunities are present - an element of chance. - "An average player will not use the techniques as effectively as a skilled player, and thus the average player will lose to the more skilled player more often than not." The law of averages may dictate, for example, that an amateur Player B won't receive a constant stream of winning cards while skilled Player A receives poor cards, thus affording Player A an opportunity to bluff, but this merely attempts to distract from the very real fact that these situations on a case-by-case basis are still influenced by chance. - I reiterate my original point that bluffing is at the mercy of chance to provide the conditions and opportunities for its likelihood of success, regardless of what the law of averages may reflect. It's no use to a player in an isolated scenario who is constantly receiving bad hands to say, "Don't worry; on average, people get better hands than this." - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Poker is a game of skill

"I assume it will go undisputed that, in a fair game (i.e. without corrupt dealers, fixed decks or card switching), a player's success with the cards is down to chance. That is, a player cannot know his or his opposition's cards in advance, nor influence their selection. He is at the mercy of the random order of the cards. Therefore, we can agree that, between chance and skill, chance is the deciding factor on this point." Chance has a limited effect on the outcome of the game due to the fact that each player has the same odds of having the best hand. Both players are at the mercy of their cards to the same extent, so skill plays the deciding factor in who will be a winner more often. Regarding your argument about bluffing, you are right that chance decides the effect on the receiver. This however does not mean that a skilled player cannot use the information available to him to choose the right time to bluff, in order to increase the odds of his bluff working. A skilled player will have a good memory and will remember what situations his bluffs were effective against each opponent that he is up against. So while in your example, Player A's attempts at bluffing are influenced by chance, this does not mean that he cannot use skill to make bluffing an effective strategy that overcomes the role that chance has. "In summary, even though techniques can be employed, their effectiveness is determined by other variables present in the game which are decided by chance." You are right that the effectiveness of the techniques employed is determined by other variables which are decided by chance. However, this does not mean that chance is the dominating factor in determining the outcome of the game. An average player will not use the techniques as effectively as a skilled player, and thus the average player will lose to the more skilled player more often than not. There is no doubt that chance plays a large role in the game of poker. Chance plays a large role in many games of skill. The question is not whether chance plays a large role, but whether it plays a larger role than skill. Poker is a very complex game that requires a strong ability in math, an excellent memory, good people reading skills, and a large knowledge of all the strategies involved. Some of these things can be taught, but it takes years of studying the game. Other things cannot be taught and are dependent on a players innate ability. Few players have the necessary tools to be considered skilled, and fewer still developed their tools to the extent that the best players have. If an unskilled player faces the best player, the odds of the unskilled player winning is very small. The same is true for players of a more similar level of skill, but to a lesser extent. This is strong evidence that the outcome of the game is mainly determined by the level of skill of the participants.
Poker is a game of skill

Thanks for this discussion, freg. As a poker player myself, I am able to identify the factors involved and I believe it would be erroneous to say that skill plays a larger role than chance. I will first outline the three typical conditions of defeat: 1. Running out of money. 2. Being intimidated into quitting (as a result of bluffing, etc). 3. Having an insufficient hand. Inversely, the conditions for victory are: 1. Forcing other players to fold through either financial or psychological tactics. 2. Beating your opponent's hand with a superior one. To narrow down these points, I'll state that a player's financial reserves will be dependent on his success - which will be decided by the win and loss conditions previously defined. e.g. If you were to take a snapshot of the middle of a game and see that Player A has less chips than Player B, it'd be reasonable to assert that Player A has been losing games either due to losing hands or falling victim to Player B's bluffing. So the only remaining points to address are (a) good hands and (b) psychological tactics. I will do this below. - Regarding good hands: I assume it will go undisputed that, in a fair game (i.e. without corrupt dealers, fixed decks or card switching), a player's success with the cards is down to chance. That is, a player cannot know his or his opposition's cards in advance, nor influence their selection. He is at the mercy of the random order of the cards. Therefore, we can agree that, between chance and skill, chance is the deciding factor on this point. - Regarding bluffing: While it's true that a player's skill is a deciding factor in how well they perform the act of bluffing e.g. through saying the right things, keeping a straight face or falsifying body language, chance decides the effect on the receiver. I will try to clarify this with an example scenario: Player A has an awful hand, but is attempting to manipulate Player B into believing that Player A has a potentially winning hand, with the aim being that Player B will fold. Player B will make his decision based on a number of influences - and there are cases where, no matter how hard Player A bluffs, Player B won't falter. For example, if Player B has a hand that is impossible to beat: a royal flush. As we have already previously established that the cards are subject to chance, we can draw the connection and deduce that Player A's attempts at bluffing are influenced by chance. - In summary, even though techniques can be employed, their effectiveness is determined by other variables present in the game which are decided by chance.
Poker is a game of skill

A game of skill is a game where the outcome is determined mainly by mental and/or physical skill, rather than by pure chance. The question is, what is the dominating factor in determining the outcome of the game? If chance is the dominating factor, then it is not a game of skill. My assertion is that the the skill of each individual player plays a larger role than chance in the long term outcome of whether they will be a winner or a loser. For the sake of argument I will define long term as >500,000 hands. After this many hands, the luck of each player has evened out to a large degree. Many players have greatly exceeded this number of hands and have continued to win, which would be extremely unlikely if chance was the dominating factor.