BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump is good

My opponent has called into question the reliability of PolitiFact as a source. He claims that it's extremely biased and implies that it's unreliable. I will admit that the site has a liberal bias, but it's still one of, if not the most reliable fact-checking websites available and the site has won a Pulitzer prize. [1] Pro has also discredited my other sources saying that they are biased against Republicans and pro is right in this aspect. However, this doesn't discredit them. They still provide factual information against Trump and at least I provided sources. "I will let you know that Donald Trump has abstained himself from drinking and smoking, not like our fellow Democrat you have mentioned earlier (Barack Obama)" Obama's drinking and smoking had little impact on his ability to be the president of the United States and that fact does not have too much impact on this work ethic. I will commend Trump for his abstinence of Alchohol and tobacco, but again, he has golfed more than Obama even though Trump would bash Obama every time he went golfing " In what way would the deportations increase illegal immigrant crime" -As I have said before, focusing on deportation would take resources away from pursuing illegal immigrant gangs and drug smuggling rings "Are you saying you DONT want ISIS taken down?" - I want ISIS to be destroyed as much as any other person but without a clear plan on what to do after they are destroyed, another organisation could rise in its place that will probably be as bad or even worse. "Yes as he has learned from his mistakes and gotten back up" (I'm assuming this is about the bankruptcies). I would hardly call going bankrupt 4 times as learning from his mistakes. Sources: [1]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Trump is good

"He has high standards and a top class work ethic which he is known for" Trump has played golf every 7.8 days compared to Obama's every 8.8 days [1] This kinda ironic considering how much he bashed Obama for his golf playing "A multitude of people are killed or buying drugs from illegal immigrants and now that he is president that will stop." -Trump's plan for getting rid of all illegal immigrants has a lot of problems with it. The realistically do this, the American Action Forum, a conservative-leaning research group, predicted that it would take 20 years and $400-$600 billion dollars. It also predicts that if this was done in just two years, it would shrink the labour force by 10.3 million workers and reduce the real GDP by $1 Trillion dollars. [2] Sure, you would get rid of illegal immigrants but you would also destroy millions of jobs and drastically shrink the economy. The deportations would also, in fact, increase illegal immigrant crime and drug dealing as immigration officials would have to focus on mass deportation and have fewer resources to track and capture drug dealers and gang members.[3] So any attempt from Trump to stop all illegal immigration is unrealistic. "He will be extremely tough on ISIS" He may be tough on Isis and defeat them during his presidency but the real problem is the aftermath. with the political chaos in the middle east, another terrorist group could easily take its place and considering he has no plan, the US under Trump could entangle itself in a perpetual civil war [3] and we all know how terrible Iraq and Afghanistan was. "He is good with money, could possibly turn America's 22 trillion dollar debt around" -He went bankrupt 4 times. Is he really the best person to deal with America's debt? "He is a top class dealer" Business dealing and Political dealings are different things and Trump has shown that he doesn't understand political dealings [4] "He speaks the truth, publicly accepted or not." -As I have said, Politifact rates 70% of his statements were false or mostly false. I will abstain from addressing Pro's arguments in round 2 out of respect as he had no opportunity to do so himself. I do await his speedy response so that I can defend my sources. I would also like to see some of my opponent's sources as well Sources: [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2]http://www.npr.org... [3] https://www.usnews.com... [4]https://hbr.org...
Trump is good

I personally believe that Trump will make a terrible president based on his character and what he has done during his campaign and his time as president of the United States My point: -He is a pathological liar who has blatantly lied on multiple occasions.Politifact has rated 70% of this statements to be mostly or completely false [1]. This is unacceptable for the leader of anything. -His staff has also had a massive problem with giving false information such as Sean Spicer and his claim that Trump had the largest inauguration crowd ever, which has been shown to be completely false [2] along with Kellyanne Conway's famous 'bowling green massacre" which has again proven to be completely false[3] -Trump has been at the centre of multiple concerning scandals. Trump University has been for [4] "swindling thousands of innocent Americans out of millions of dollars"[4] and some of the instructors had a criminal background or had massive troubles with money in their past [5]. The lawsuit was settled for 25 million dollars[4]. The Trump Foundation, which is supposedly a charity organisation, was used multiple times by Trump for personal such using $258 000 from the foundation to help with legal costs [6]. There are much more but I'll just link to a site which contains the majority of them if anyone wishes to read through [7]. Theses are just the two that I find the most revolting -Trump has gone through 4 bankruptcies[8] -Last but not least, some Trump's appointments are completely disgusting. Trump's secretary of housing and urban development is Ben Carson, someone who had no experience in politics or anything related to housing and urban development[9]. His education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is even worse. DeVos has never been part of any public school nor has she sent her child to one, has rerouted taxpayer dollars to charter/private/religious schools, [10], has little knowledge of public education laws such as when she was confused on what the "Individuals with Disabilities Education act' and her performance at her confirmation hearing shows general lack of understanding of what basic functions of the Department of Education [11]. These are all of the points I wish to make. I did not refute or rebuttal any of my opponent's arguments for the sake of fairness as he has no opportunity to do the same in round 1. Sources: [1] http://www.politifact.com... [2]http://www.politifact.com... [3]http://www.politifact.com... [4]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [5]http://news.nationalpost.com... [6]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [7]https://www.theatlantic.com... [8]https://www.washingtonpost.com... [9]https://www.theguardian.com... [10]https://www.forbes.com... [11]http://www.vox.com...
Trump is good

I am tired of people talking trash about trumpIf you dont like him and want to debate dont just say "hes racist" or "hes sexist"My points- He has high standards and a top class work ethic which he is known for.- A multitude of people are killed or buying drugs from illegal immigrants and now that he is president that will stop.- He will be extremely tough on ISIS- He is good with money, could possibly turn America's 22 trillion dollar debt around.- He is a top class dealer - He speaks the truth, publicly accepted or not.Thank you for answering in advance, good luck!
Pokemon vs. Digimon

You have to remember, not only does Pokemon have toys, games, tv, shows, trading cards and a massive fan base, we also have full length movies. I had to laugh at what you said about Brock, because it's so true. Now we BATTLE!!!! Blastiose uses Water Cannon on Vermon, and Sceptile uses Leafblade on Wormmon. (both these attacks are the best in the games, and even more because my pokemon are level 100) (also, do digimon have levels? just wondering)
Pokemon vs. Digimon

yes pokemon has different people and pokemon every season, but everything is almost the same. the only difference is that team rocket's attempt get more and more unrealistic, and brock gets more and more horny. Sometimes it will have things like their back story, like how meowth learned how to talk, or why they try so hard to impress ganovi. The story of all the seasons, with the exception of some of the more recent ones, is ash and some other people that he met along the way, go adventure and battle gym leaders, then go somewhere else, learn a lesson, then find another gym leader (and give team rocket a massive dose of electro-therapy). But for Digimon, the story progresses, from digimon adventures 1, where the digichosen train their digimon by defeating several villans, such as devimon, then myotismon, and several others, to get them ready for their next enemy, apocalymon, who almost destroyed the digiworld and merged with the real world. and then in digimon adventures 2, there is another group of digidestened, but they know the origonal ones, and they act as a teacher of the new digidestened and they follow a somewhat same path, but a new villain is introduced, which is another digidestened, that was corrupted by a mysterious creature, that really isnt explained. but the origonal digidestened are like the masters, who lead the group, and help with their battles, giving insight to the second generation. in the end they reveal the digiworld to the real world, the digidestened have children, who too become digidestened, and every child has a digimon partner. but in the 3rd series it all changes and reveals that that was all just a show, and that the government was actually hiding the real digiworld. by now you can tell that there is a progressive story, with a resolution at the ending of each season. but for pokemon, the only resolution is that ash will continue his journey. (i have alot of typos, but im lazy)
Pokemon vs. Digimon

i think digimon is the best show because even though it did end, it had a ending to a really good story line, whereas pokemon is basically a repetition ever league, and ash doesnt even beat the league, he just goes somewhere else with someone else. not to mention that ash is really in a coma, and the whole story is a representation of his conflicts and emotions. but that isnt specified in the show. and digimon actually did start as a pocket game like tomigchi, but that was before the anime or manga release now as for my digimon, i shall choose vemon (with azulamons power so he can digi-volve into imperialdramon) and wormmon, but starting at stingmon so he can DNA digivolve with vemon. Im using the digimon from the digimon adventures 1 and 2.
Pokemon vs. Digimon

Ok just letting whoever accepts this that i kno nothing of digimon. That means i'll be debating for Pokemon. These is how this is going to work; 1) Which is better? 2) Pick 2 to battle with 3) Cant be a leganderay. Round 1) Acceptence Rounds 2-3) Agruements Rounds 4-5) Digimon vs. Pokemon battle.
Pokemon vs. Digimon

ok, i'll allow it (but they are digimon, and imperialdramon has had diabolimon (in his most powerful form) attack him with his giga blaster (i think thats what its called) which is basicly a giant lazer, multiple times, and still lived.) i use both the d3's to give imperialdramon his ultimate sword, and power boost it using them too. all enemies are now dead. it can kill millions of digimon in one blast. omnimon couldnt even do that. so i think i won here. also, you should have allowed legendary, that would make the battle more interesting (patamon and gatomon (angel digimon, rookie form) against areceres (the god of pokemon, not sure how to spell) and mew 2). also, i feel like i should add that in digimon there is actual danger then in pokemon. pokemon is to childish (even for a kids show) and digimon goes from one side to the other, depending on the season. and digimon are much stronger than any pokemon. even apocylipmon could kill ever single pokemon and trainer, with only his willpower.
Pokemon vs. Digimon

i just noticed that if i chose patamon while i have the crests and tags, i would win from there (he can just digivolve into Seraphimon and its won from there (he is the closest digimon to god digimons)) no they dont, and even if it is the strongest attacks, its still just a powerful hose and a razor sharp leaf. well wormmon and veemon recover from that pretty quickly, and dna digivolve into Paildramon, and use the power given to them to digivolve into imperialdramon fighter mode. he uses giga crusher, (which is the his strongest attack, that managed to destroy the strongest virus type digimon) its span can attack both at the same time.
Abortion

http://www.youtube.com... No nation devoted to individual liberty should force women back to the days of back-alley abortions. No women should have to bear a child against thier will. Free-will. That's what I stand for. No, no. That would be terrible, un-ethical and generally wrong. Women with free-will? God-forbid! The fact is that women will always still desire to have an abortion, which some may follow through with. This will never end abortion. You have no control over that. It is estimated near 1 million women saught for illegal abortions each year before Roe Vs Wade. Thats atleast 1 million babies. End of abortion? I think not! Thousands died, tens of thousands mutilated, forced to behave as if they were criminals. A law making abortion illegal would make a law stating that all fetus' are superior to women. Apparently women aren't as important to you as fetus' are. Good thing women don't have feelings, or you would be in trouble! If the government can decide if the women gives birth or not, when will they stop? Outlaw abortion, and more children, will bear children. 40% of all 14 year old women will become pregnant before they turn 20. Do you want this happening to people you care about? More children is more UNWANTED children, leaving millions hurt, alone and abused. So you say you are pro-life. Is life when a women is lieing face down in a alley dead from an illegal abortion? Is that respect for life? Let's just return to the days when women had to cover thier faces or even had to wear skirts insted of pants. Last time I checked, womens bodies were not public property. Keep your roasries off my ovaries. That is all.
Abortion

==== No, I have not given birth to a child. But I have the potential to. You,on the other hand, do not. I have heard that childbirth feels like you are being ripped apart through your vagina on up. We could debate for hours if this is worse or better then having your skull crushed, because neither of us know that. ==== None of us are in a position to say how much childbirth hurts. I have had to have stitches in my head, though, and that hurt like crazy. I can imagine my skull getting crushed would be worse. I have also broken 3 bones; I knwo how much it hurts to have things disembodied. I can tell you it isn't fun. That being said, I think it is safe to say that the latter two are the most painful, especially with today's modern painkillers. However, pain is not a function of ethics. No matter how much the pain, "... a person is a person, no matter how small." You may not have the potential to, FemaleGamer. You could be barren for all we know. I could break out in pink spots right now (though that would seriously clash with my clothes.) ==== Just because that small 5% isn't the majority you choose to ignore them? It doesn't matter, there is only 5%, I don't care ==== Just like the system of our government, I will choose to help thje vast majority over the minority. Even still, you choose to help the majority of people who are morraly corrupt -- prostitutes, etc. Then there are those who just don't care about the baby, and I am always opposed to them. ==== Also, how do you know the women has the money/healthcare to pay for a C-section? The rich go get safe precedures, the poor go to back alley ways with a coathanger. Safety First! ==== I do not know wether or not they can afford them. Like I said before, though, only about 6% of abortions are due to the health of the mother. However, if you look at the sites I listed above, it shows the age and income of people who have abortions. ==== The old man has people around him. If you hear on the news a 91 year old man stabbed to death on the highway, do you get the slightest bit upset? No, no, nobody cares. ==== Just like your Timmy, know one would notice until he smells. ==== No one has the right to kill, but does one have the right to privacy? ==== You just said no one has the right to kill, yet you still support abortion? This is not about privacy, this is abotu the freedom to live. The RIGHT to live, and the inability to kill. Thank you.
Abortion

"I realize childbirth is painful. You seem to forget, though, that abortion is as well. Have you ever given birth or had an abortion, Female? If not, you really are not in entitlement to make such statements. Regardless of how painful it is, it isn't death. I SEVERELY doubt it is as painful as having you skull crushed, or having your limbs torn off and bleeding to death." No, I have not given birth to a child. But I have the potential to. You,on the other hand, do not. I have heard that childbirth feels like you are being ripped apart through your vagina on up. We could debate for hours if this is worse or better then having your skull crushed, because neither of us know that. "Look at my source. At the bottom you'll see five other sources confirming my statements, one from Planned Parenthood itself. (They are not linked directly there -- I don't know why, but they should still be acessible.)" Well mine is from Catholic Education.org I should have known better then to trust a church. Woe is me. "At most, abortion should be a way to take little girls who were raped and make them a bit better -- although, as I said before, this is not the case about 95% of the time. Therefore, I will go with the majority and assume (quite correctly) the majority of abortions are just selfish for their own good." Just because that small 5% isn't the majority you choose to ignore them? It doesn't matter, there is only 5%, I don't care. "Financially unfit -- Adopt; don't have sex in the first place. Mentally -- Adopt; don't have sex in the first place. Physically -- C-section, adopt, don't have sex in the first place." Thats called abstinence. That is a whole different debate. Also, how do you know the women has the money/healthcare to pay for a C-section? The rich go get safe precedures, the poor go to back alley ways with a coathanger. Safety First! "WHAT!? I'm OLDER than YOU? O_O" I'm 12 1/2. Im flattered you thaught I was older. :P "I said, and I quote, "That old man, with no family left and no one's care, is unwanted. ... That poor man on the side of the highway, with no family or home, is unwanted." What do you mean there is a family?! I said there is NO family -- no one wants them." The old man has people around him. If you hear on the news a 91 year old man stabbed to death on the highway, do you get the slightest bit upset? No, no, nobody cares. No one has the right to kill, but does one have the right to privacy?
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

And I would like for my opponent to know that I am glad to debate in Spirit and in Truth. My opponent seems to argue in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 the word “psalms” is a clear indication of stringed instruments in worship in the church. First of all, that does not mean an Old Testament psalm. The meaning of psalm is a song unto God. Secondly, God approves in the Old Testament SINGING WITH instrumental music (II Chron. 29:25). Before the New Testament was completed, the church used the Old Testament scriptures as their primary source (Acts 17:11; 18:28, etc. ). They had the very scriptures before them that approved and encouraged the use of instruments right down to the naming of specific types (2 Chronicles 29:25-26; Psalm 150). And at the time of the early church, instruments were available and many Christians had the talent to play them . .. yet this talent was not exercised in worship! The Old Testament scripture was not followed. Answers to the Questions: Question no. 1 is a very good question and I am happy to answer it. Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16, Matt. 26:30, James 5:13, I Cor. 14:15 etc. No mention of instruments here just singing only. What about song books? That is a good question; singing is a kind of music, is it not? Instrumental music is a kind of music. God specified the kind he wanted (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:9). A song book is not a kind of music! Here is a song book, what are you doing when you use it? You are singing! What is the command? Sing! You are still not doing anything other than what the command includes. People sometimes say, “Well, you say you do not have a piano. The Bible does not say anything about using a song book. ” No. But the bible says sing, and when you use a song book you are not doing anything other than singing. That is the difference. My first argument maybe a little short but as the debate goes I will make it longer. I look forward to the next round. God Bless.
Instrumental worship for New Testament Christians can be justified

This is my first argument so if my format is not what the norm is on the sie please excuse and correct me. Although this is my first debate on this site this is far from my first debate on this topic. What I'm proposing: New Testament Christians can worship God accompanied by instrumental use (only stringed instruments) and the bible is not silent on this matter. Evidence of my proposition to be true: Christians in the New Testament were plainly instructed to sing and do it from their heart, but from Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 the use of the term "psalms" is a clear indication of allowance of stringed instrument accompaniment within our song worship. Things to make my position more clear: Instruments of any kind that wouldn't allow the player to sing would not by definition be what God wants for New Testament worship. The bible is NOT silent on instrumental use because of the word psalms. All of the Old Testament Psalms that I know of were only accompanied by a harp, or possibly a lyre. The only indication I have is the footnote above the chapter but I have never seen one that explicitly said one was accompanied by anything other than a stringed instrument. Psalm 150 may talk about other instruments but that does not prove that the psalm itself was accompanied by the instruments that is mentioned within that chapter. Also, I would argue that Psalm 150 shows that God accepted in the Old Testament instrumental music alone WITHOUT the accompaniment of voices to be worship. I say this because David explicitly says to praise God on these instruments with no indication of singing as accompaniment and the only logical conclusion is what I'm proposing. One might argue that verse 6 which reads "Let everything that breathes praise the Lord" that this is specifically meaning singing. What you have to understand is that singing is praising but not all praising is singing. Also, within context of this chapter it makes more since to think that the "praise" in verse 6 is in reference to praise just instruments and instruments alone. If though the "praise" in verse 6 means to sing David is not saying sing with the accompaniment of the instruments he just mentioned to praise God with. If so, I would like to know where. Questions to my opponent: 1) If stringed instruments allow the player to also sing and the word psalms by definition allows accompaniment of stringed instruments, where do you draw your conclusion of sing and sing only? 2) If you argue that we were only instructed to sing and sing only and that to do anything else while we sing (such as playing an instrument) is sinful, then would you agree that using a song book (reading while you sing) would be adding to the commandment of just sing only? I hope to find another good debater and that if I'm right that I have enlightened someone to Truth found in God's word and that if I'm wrong someone will show me the Truth and where I am erring. Thanks and I'm looking forward to the debate with whoever decides to be my opposition.