BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Trump good for the US

"bro ur sources are legit vlogs. get an education" You have my congratulations sir. You are apparently quite comfortable with having no information on your side, and blindly eating up anything Trump gives you. You didn't even look up any of my sources, did you? So, if we go through the very challenging process of... looking things up, we can see that PEW Research is a think tank, TheBalance is an economic site with economic experts, Good is a magazine and the Washington Post is a newspaper. Is it really this challenging to look something up? Why do you participate in debates when you have nothing insightful or intelligent to add? I guess my opponent has gone online, seen all the people who bash the 'Liberal media,' got really angry about it and thought he would be able to plow his way through interactions. When people like my opponent run into facts however, they end up spouting buzzwords and showing just how oblivious they are, to what is actually going on. Until my opponent decides to take this debate seriously, I'm done with providing any long responses. Hopefully, my opponent can do a few weeks of actual research to educate himself on reality. Then, we can have a real debate. For now, however, I'm finished with going on for this long. I'll keep posting a sentence or two for the sake of a victory, but my opponent isn't worth an hour of refutation.
Is Trump good for the US

I think it is an obvious statement to say Donald Trump has done more benign things in the few months he has been in office. It's even more obvious to state that he has done more in such little time then Obama did in all of his 8 years. Yes, I shall acknowledge that he did do things, but were they good things? No, the most impactful thing he did while in office was have lunch with my favourite nigger rapper, Kendrick Lamar. Meanwhile our Lord and saviour Donald Trump has already cut down on illegal immigration and economic woes. Maybe Barack Obama was too busy working on his ball skills instead of unfucking his country's economy
The Kaballah of Hellraiser

Forfeited a round? I couldn't get back to my computer in time. You know, if any of my writings under an alias, and they all are, cashes in, how can I prove I am that, or those aliases, to cash in? When I had the WebTV I usually used the alias "Mike O'Dan the Snakeman". Lahunken is the Mayan name of my birthday. Bolonkib is the name of the day I was conceived. My father was so gay my mother knew the exact date I was conceived. And, I used other aliases. I saw your picture. You are a beautiful girl. It is flattering for you to think these writings have been plagerism. My writing career began with that term paper in the twelfth grade. I got plenty of practice spreading secrets every opportunity I could get.
Anthropocentrism Vs. Biocentrism

Greetings, Today's Topic is Anthropocentrism versus biocentrism I will take the side of anthropocentrism and my opponent biocentrism. This round is for Acceptance and definitions only. But Before My Opponent Accepts I have one rule 1.No Videos are Allowed to be used within this debate Now unlike most debate's on here this debate will focus one which is better. Basically Today We have a Comparative Resolution. So unlike Most rounds where the Pro has to prove something and the con has to disprove it, We will be arguing over to separate theories an which one is the best. Here are my definitions Anthropocentrism:Anthropocentrism is a human centered view of the world. It considers human beings to be the most important living thing on earth and argues that all decisions should be made to benefit human beings. Biocentrism:an ethical point of view which extends inherent value to non-human species, ecosystems, and processes in nature - regardless of their sentience I await the Con
Democratic Socialism would be an improvement over Capitalism/Social Democracy

I will be arguing against the statement that "Democratic Socialism would be an improvement over Capitalism/Social Democracy." However, I will only be making the argument that Social Democracy is superior to Democratic Socialism. While I will be doing my best to win this debate, I also hope to learn more about both sides of the debate and make a personal decision in the end on which system I prefer. Lastly I would like to say good luck to my opponent and may the best argument win.
Democratic Socialism would be an improvement over Capitalism/Social Democracy

Very simply, my opponent will need to argue that either/both capitalism and/or modern social democracy is superior or prefereable to democratic socialism. The definitions below are guidelines - I understand that in any debate, the boundaries between concepts are liable to shift. This debate may freely range between political, economic and social issues.DefinitionsCapitalism - a socio-economic system in which the primary organisation of the economy is based upon free (or regulated) trade, necessitating private ownership (including the means of production) and property rights. 'Pure' capitalism or anarcho-capitalism would involve the barest minimum of interference from the state (if any) in economic matters. Modern liberal democracies, even those with considerable state interference, will be considered capitalist for the purposes of this debate - the most state-oriented by also be regarded as social democracies. There are no social democracies which are not also capitalistic.Social Democracy A capitalist society which, due to the worker's movement, has madeconsiderable concessions to socialist demands. This may include state provision of a number of services (healthcare, education and so on), as well as some significant redistribution of wealth through more progressive taxation. The scandinavian countries offer the best modern examples of social democracy.Democratic SocialismThere are no existing democratic socialist countries. Democratic socialism would involve a political system of direct, rather than representative democracy, and collective ownership of the means of production, including all factories, power plants and natural resources. Ideally, democratic socialism would be global in scope, although it could also (albeit with more difficulty), in one country of sufficient size, or in multiple countries bound together in a union, such as the EU. All major decisions about how resources are to be utilised would be decided using democratic machinisms (voting) - wealth would be more equitably distributed than in any present arrangement.
Democratic (pro) versus state (con) socialism.

Quantifiers: 1) "State socialism" does not necessitate a total lack of democratic function. 2) "Democratic Socialism" is a term that is often poorly defined; but typically uses decentralized democratic bodies to manage means of production.Important to note: 1) Socialism is a primarily economic, rather political doctrine. Communism which is what I will hence forth call "State socialism", is a political doctrine informed by economic theories of socialism. A brief argument against Democratic Socialism: Have you ever seen a co-op survive for more than a generation? It's not a common thing. The means of production, meaning agriculture, an aquaculture for food. Equipment production for tools, houses, the building of the houses themselves. Under Democratic socialism, each farm, factory and so forth would be managed by individual unions, which are inherently democratic in their actions. This is, perhaps a pure form of socialism. It is the goal of Democratic socialists to turn the means of production over to unions in this way. Reality however is not so kind.imagine for a moment, you have a city of 1,000,000 people. This city needs food, water, electricity, clothes and other consumer goods. Diapers, medicine and other health goods. All of it has to be produced; by groups of people who form their own voluntary work unions, show up when the group decides and works on what and when the group decides. ... It doesn't take alot to see where this is going. Brief Argument for Communism or "State socialism". In contrast. the necessity of the state is in the requirements that goods and services remain consistent through out the territorial agent ( the state). In Employing the state, you are enabling the central command and control of resources, the standardization of schedules, supplies. The state is able to ensure that all factories working for the people are producing what is needed, when it is needed. That all factories have proper access, and that properly skilled persons are working the machines. The heads of the State maybe elected through democratic means, they are however inherently Technocratic and utilitarian in nature. Summary of brief contrasts: A State socialism is analogise to taking the best people you can find in each field and having them form a planned operation of government so as to provide goods and service for the betterment of all people. The unions which form with in the factories and the farms serve a communications role as well as important structural roles within the national government. A democratic socialism is by contrast. to take a group of people of varying skills, put them in a room in order to form a plan, along side other people in other rooms, also of varying skills.. than you take the result of each group in each room and attempt to form coherent and functioning policy out of it.
Is schwarzenegger better than stallone

I agree with you now that you say it. I will say that Rocky is not an action movie. First Blood was such a great movie it was one that I walked away from that with my brain actually contemplating what I had just seen. My mom introduced me to Stallone and I have loved him ever since. In cop land he showed that action movies aren't just about killing and shooting. He also played in more drama movies than Schwarzenegger like Rocky, Victory, and Over the Top. In all of his drama movies he is able to combine it with action or sports. I finally agree. Now tell me your favorite Stallone movie.
Is schwarzenegger better than stallone

I'd have to disagree with you on that point and say the Stallone was the better action hero as well as the better actor: 1. Stallone is a better actor. Sylvester Stallone is a far better actor than Arnold Schwarzenegger and has a much greater range in his performances. Instead of simply playing the stereotypical tough guy in each and every movie Stallone can give more complex performances; in his most famous role (Rocky Balboa) he played a troubled young man who overcomes to become great instead of just having a cliche masculine greatness heaped upon him. The distinction between the complexity of characters they like to play can even been seen in Rambo where Stallone plays a Vietnam dischargee who is an outsider danged up upon by a group of local policemen. 2. Stallone is more than just an actor. He has written many of his best roles and for this reason his talent as an entertainer generally is much larger. He has written and directed most of his most popular films including Rocky and First Blood. His talent to create as well as act I think is one of the things that helps him stand above Arnuld. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...
The teachings of Christianity are immoral

==Argument==i. The definition of immoral"not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles:[ttp://www.merriam-webster.com...]ii. Decalogue"You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make idols. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet."If Christian teachings went against generally moral principles, which they don't, then they would be teaching killing, stealing, lying, etc., would be okay; however that is not the case as clearly shown here as Christian teachings claim murder, stealing, lying etc., is not right and is not going against generally moral principles. iii. Revenge"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all...Romans 12:17-21[http://www.openbible.info...]As you can see, the Christian Bible tells you to not avenge evil with evil, but do the right thing. This also does NOT go against general morals.I made my 3 statements. I leave it to pro now. I'll rebut, and make 3 more statements in round 2.
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

Anyone who knows anything about research knows that Wikipedia is the best point to start research on any topic. Naturally there is a problem if someone's research stops at Wikipedia. --- In this debate it was the task of the instigator to prove that there is extra-terrestrial life. He has singularly failed to produce any proof. There was a passing mention of aliens and big bang. Later he tried to pass of a scientific hypothesis as a fact without producing a single source. Rather, I presented reasons why life on other planets is unlikely. Neither of my objections, about rarity of Goldilock zone or Anthropic principle has been answered at all. The only answer presented has been an in toto rejection of Wikipedia. The result should be clear.
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

1)Wikepedia anyone that knows anything about research would realize an analytical is WAY better than using wikepedia wikepedia is like writing something down in a notebook and trying to use it as pure evidence 2)Proof their is proof. although their might not be 100% legitimate proof that will be able to be proven 100% of the time their still is proof 3)Multivers Hawking showed through a mathematical equation that their are in fact more than one universe... SPACE.COM-->> Believe it or not, theorists have an answer. And the answer appears to be, Yes. To understand why, you have to go back to the Big Bang, that mysterious, mother-of-all-explosions that most astronomers believe spawned our universe. One second, according to theory, there was nothingness. The next, our cosmos sprang into existence. Nature seems to have pulled off the feat of getting something -- in fact, everything -- for nothing 4)Goldilocks although scientist may believe it is small.. no definition
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

1. You want links from peer reviewed journals? Check out 'external links' section on wiki pages. Incidentally you have not posted a single link except mentioning alienvideos. 2. Aliens: Many people have imagined things. Many people have exaggerated. Many have mistaken something else. And most simply lie for cheap publicity. Till date - there is no established alien sighting. Of course aliens may exist. But till date there is no PROOF. 3. Multiverse : Did Hawking say that multiverse is a fact or even falsifiable scientific theory. Or was it just speculation. I am afraid - there may be a problem in your understanding. 4. Goldilocks Zone: Sure narrow and rare are opinion. But not mine - It is the opinion of large number of scientists. 5. Anthropic principle: Without understanding what anthropic principle is, you decided to pick on one word I used - 'unique'. My mistake. I rephrase: Anthropic principle indicates we earthlings are alone in the universe.
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

I'd first off like to state every single one of his cards are from wikepedia... anyone can write anything on wikepedia. 1) aliens alot of things have never been established scientifically.. but many people have spotted aliens and still the existence of only us living in the universe is very unlikely. 2)multiverse it has been proven by steven hawking in a 2 hour long lecture showing it through a mathematical equation. 3)goldilocks zone he states the goldilocks zone is extremely rare and narrow.. rare is an opinion. their is narrow for a worm and narrow for an elephant until he can give me a definition his point does not stand 4)unique of course we're unique other lifeforms may be totallky different from us but the chances of any of the theorys of life coming to existence in other areas other than earth is highly likely.
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

1. Existence of aliens has never been established scientifically. http://www.skepdic.com... 2. Multiverse is an unfalsifiable scientific hypothesis. It is Interesting to read - but can't be used as proof. http://en.wikipedia.org... I don't want to win this debate just based on burden of proof. Let me show a few reason why life on other planets is unlikely. 1. For a planet to be hospitable to life, it has to be located in 'Goldilocks zone' - which is extremely narrow and rare. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Even with right condition, the creation of life is extremely unlikely. Indeed scientists use 'anthropic principle' to justify our existence. This principle indicates that we are most likely unique! http://en.wikipedia.org...
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

1) the proof of aliens in this quote from alienvideos.net you can see that their are in fact aliens which proves that their are living creatures somewhere else in the universe. "The most commonly reported alien, The Grey, typically stands no more than 3 to 4 feet in height, has long thin arms, large black eyes, and an enormous skull circumference. The large black eyes are speculated to be a type of artificial lens. Underneath, they would actually have a white color and pupil." 2)multiple universes steven hawking proved that there were more than one universe. He showed that they connect very similar to a figure 8.. he described it as squeezing a balloon in the middle and the two circles were the universes. 3)the bible doesn't prove it the bible doesn't prove that it isn't true but as my opponent stated that it doesn't confirm it either... that was my whole point stating that you can't use the holy bible or the big bang theory to back you up.
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

Thanks a lot for starting this debate. You have said : "my opponent might state that their's no way to prove it, but their's no way to prove alot of things. but on the other hand their's not really a way to prove that it's NOT happening." And you are completely correct. However - as the instigator and pro for this debate it is your responsibility to prove your case. An inability to do so means you fail to prove your case and lose. You have offered no proof whatsoever. You have talked about 'big bang theory' taking place in other galaxys. Big Bang occurred once in the UNIVERSE. As per our current knowledge of science - there is only 1 universe. You have argued that the Holy Bible (or what is important in my case - The Quran) does not deny the possibility. But these books does not confirm it either! The fact that God has not talked about his creation on other planets is an indication that there are no such life forms.
Their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe.

I would like this to be an analytical debate.. thank you Because i agree that their are other lifeforms elsewhere in the universe I offer the following case. 1) With the big bang theory this can still be true The big bang theory could have very well happenened to many other galaxys and/or planets. althought we might be the smartest life form does not make us the only 2)With Christianity this can still be true The christian bible only shows the happenings on earth and nowhere else. it states no where in the bible that their are no other lifeforms or that he only made "adam and eve" and then stopped their or that "adam and eve" were his first creations 3) There's no way to prove it my opponent might state that their's no way to prove it, but their's no way to prove alot of things. but on the other hand their's not really a way to prove that it's NOT happening.
'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

Though his argument may have been short, I thank him for an intriguing argument for me to refute. Rebuttals "Yes not many people know that god can mean a object but also not many people know what DNA stands for[sic]" I am not entirely certain what my opponent is trying to say by 'DNA'. Deoxyribonucleic acid has nothing to do with God being an object. "by the way when I said everyone has something they adore and put there faith in I ment atheists as well. Atheists put there full trust in science and logic. That's basically saying one nation under science which equals what some people absolutely adore which can equal god as a object. Buddha equals what some people adore and praise which equals god as a entity as seen by the online dictionary. [sic]" I understand Con's reasoning in this statement, however I disagree with him. God does not equal science and logic, nor does he equal Buddha. As I mentioned in my first argument, we must follow 'minority rights'. The minority must have their rights. Atheists do not equate God to science, so they do not agree with 'Under God'. When this phrase was added to the Pledge, is was used to fight back against communism. It was added in 1953 as a direct hate stance against the Communists (specifically the Soviets). Even then, it was highly controversial because people thought it was defying the separation of church and state. "so by saying ONE NATION UNDER GOD we are saying ONE NATIONS UNDER WHAT EVER WE TRULY BELIEVE AND ADORE. [sic]" As I have just stated, that is not what was intended. It was created by Christians to create a pledge that complies with their particular religion. It has never means whatever people truly believe. As I think I have refuted all my opponent's arguments, it is time for the conclusion. Conclusion Now, I believe it is time for my opponent to post his last argument. Once he does, this debate will be in the hands of the voters. I would like to say some things before I close: Please do not penalize Con for spelling and grammar, for he has made it clear that his computer is not functioning correctly. Next, I would like to talk to the voters about a vote for Pro. In this debate, I have come to support the rights of the minority, as well as supporting the law that has been made very clear since the time of the founding fathers. Now, I understand that Con does not have a lot of time, however in this case, it does not matter very much. I have two words: Vote Pro. I have enjoyed this debate and I await Con's final rebuttals. Thank you.
'Under God' should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

I am running out of time so I will make two quick rebuttals. Yes not many people know that god can mean a object but also not many people know what DNA stands for http://en.wikipedia.org... or not many people truly know the constitution. That is there fault that they do not know. ( by the way when I said everyone has something they adore and put there faith in I ment atheists as well. Atheists put there full trust in science and logic. That's basically saying one nation under science which equals what some people absolutely adore which can equal god as a object. Buddha equals what some people adore and praise which equals god as a entity as seen by the online dictionary. As you quoted founding fauthers earlier They are correct religion is between a person and his/her god but there's no denying there are thousands of Christians in America as well a Buddhists and atheists and agnostics and sciencestologists. We are country with many religions(including atheism) so by saying ONE NATION UNDER GOD we are saying ONE NATIONS UNDER WHAT EVER WE TRULY BELIEVE AND ADORE. For America to say One Nation Under Buddha that would truly violate rights because we are not a nation under one god/belief but multiple gods/beliefs. Basically what the people believe is what the country is under.