BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama is the best choice for president.

Please excuse my ignorance, as this is first formal debate I have ever had the pleasure of hosting. I did use my own opinion and I did not provide evidence. 1.My argument is Obama is the best choice for president. . So please state you case on why you believe Obama is not the best choice. 2. I also believe the health care bill should not be repealed. Please include why you believe the bill H.R. 3590 and the affordable care act should be repealed if that is the stance you are taking. 3.The other argument I made about Mitt Romney being fake it is my opinion, solely based on my experience in this world. When I look at Mitt Romney talking on camera I believe in my heart that he is fake. I can see it in his eyes. This is my opinion; it applies to my argument that he is not the best choice for president. But as I have no evidence to support the claim please ignore it and continue with meaningful arguments I made. 4.As for Mitt Romney not having America's best interest at heart. Mitt Romney did say he doesn't really care about very poor people, because they already have a safety net. "Very poor people", are still Americans. If he doesn't care about them then he doesn't have their best interest at heart. http://blogs.villagevoice.com...
Same sex marriage.

Round three rebuttals"Let's get this over with ASAP.Same sex marriage is bad because America's a nation built on christian principles[1]. And christian principles are against gay marriage [2], so gay marriage goes against what our country stands for." RepconFirst, some of our founder fathers had deists leanings. Second, there are many other religions other than Christianity. Third, there are more denominations of Christianity, 33,000+ than the 31,000 passages in the Bible. Fourth, our country also had slavery when it was founded. We no longer have slavery and perhaps we should no longer have Christianity. Finally, some Christians interpret the Bible as allowing one to one partnership."6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21." [8] Our country was founded on avoiding religious persecution. Specifically Christian on Christian religious persecution. How can my opponent be sure that his/her interpretation of the Bible is more correct than his/her neighbors? My opponent cannot be sure. Source.8. http://www.gaychristian101.com...
Same sex marriage.

Round two argumentsOutlineI. Benefits of marriageII. Being Gay is not a choiceIII. Financial gain to governmentIV. Separation of church and stateV. SourcesI. Benefits of marriageThe first question, is why would someone want to get married? The answer is there are 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections available for married couples by federal law. Therefore, there are many logical reasons why people would seek to reap these benefits. "There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]II. Being gay is not a choiceThis might sound silly, but you can't just will yourself to be straight or gay. "Most scientists would disagree. Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. " [5]"Gay conversion therapy, as it is known, supposedly helps gay people overcome same-sex attractions. But mainstream psychologists say the therapy is ineffective, unethical and often harmful, exacerbating anxiety and self-hatred among those treated for what is not a mental disorder." [6]That means by denying gays marriage we are practicing discrimination. Discrimination is unjust. III. Financial gain to governmentMarriages licenses are a source of revenue. This relieves tax burdens off of straights. Therefore, straight people gain a financial advantage from gay marriages.IV. Separation of church and stateAlmost all arguments against gays seem to originate from religion. Yet, the separation of church and state disallows religion to interfere with government affairs. Banning gay marriages on religious grounds would be a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" [7]By banning gay marriages based upon a religion, congress would be respecting an establishment of religion. V. Sources4. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...5. http://www.livescience.com...6. http://www.livescience.com...7. https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be president

I suppose it would go to the Supreme Court if a question was raised about his eligibliity as a presidential candidate. I believe the SC would rule in his favor because: A. The phrase "Natural Born Citizen", scholars say, has its roots in the constitution from a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington. He said that the phrase should be added because he fears that foreigners would try to run for president. The Supreme Court knows this. B. The letter from Jay also stated: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." He is clearly stating his fear of a foreigner (someone who has little or no American blood) taking control of the US armed forces. John McCain, whose parents are both American, is certainly not a foreigner. C. John McCain's citizenship status clearly falls under section 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Also, a Democratic presidential candidate wouldn't dare argue the citizenship of John McCain because he is a war hero, and there would be much political backlash from challenging his citizenship because his father was serving our country, not to mention a loss of votes.
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be president

You seem to be forgetting that the Pan. Canal Zone was a US territory at the time McCain was born. Also, a congressional act in 1790 stated: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." The US State Department says that this law is again honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Also Section I, Article II of the Constitution states: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Even if he is ineligible it is unknown if anyone would even have legal standing to challenge his candidacy prior to being elected. And even then, it is still unclear. Your reference to the statement by the US State Department is reffering to a scenario such as a woman of the country the base is located in gives birth in a military hospital. In this case, the woman is still on her native soil, so American law is void.
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be president

Since our last debate ended in a tie, I will challenge you to this one instead. My knowledge of the American Constitution is that any AMERICAN can run for president. Was John McCain born to Panamanian parents? No. Was he born to parents that were Hispanic, African, or Asian? No. Therefore, regardless of his birthplace, he has just as much of a right to run for president as you do. To say that an American born to American parents can not run for president simply because they weren't born in the US is quite ridiculous. And, if I'm not mistaken, aren't US military bases American land?
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be president

I am reposting this debate as I find it interesting and the last person bailed. As much of an open Obama supporter that I am, I also vehemently support Senator Mccain. In an election between any other democrat in the field and Mccain, I would probably vote for Mccain. I say this not to pander but to show my bias. As much as I like Senator Mccain, I do not believe he qualifies to be president, legally. My argument has only one main part and I would be happy if someone can convince me that I am wrong as I truly do like Mccain and I would like justification to vote for him. Before we debate I will not try to spin this debate by defining certain terms to my advantage like SOME members here do. I prefer a "layperson's" debate where we debate substance and we don't just debate on who can throw out the most jargon and get the most "intellectual" or "philosophical". Senator Mccain parent's were both veterans deployed to a military base when mommy was pregnant. This base was in the panama canal free zone. Senator Mccain was born in this zone, on a military base, in panama. The constitution says (Article 1 Section 1) "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Senator Mccain fits the latter criteria. He does not fit, imo, the natural born citizen argument as he was born in panama. Please discuss
That Space Exploration should not receive public funding

Now on with the debate! RebuttalsR1: While it is true certain resources are dwindiling, looking to space for these resources is not a good idea. The better option would be to explore the 95% of ocean on earth that is a mystery in its self. Explorng the oceans and looking for the the resources we need there would save us way more money then that of going to another planet. Also, the issue of global warming is also a highly debated topic. In order for it to be recognised my opponent must prove that it exists in the first place. R2: Human curiosity is not a good reason to spend millions if not billions of dollars on something. 95% of the Earth's oceans are unexplored. The mysteries down in its depths are unimaginable. It would cost less so then sending people to the faqr reaches of our galaxy. My ArgumentMy caseI will be negating that space exploration should receive public funding. My next set of contentions will prove that space exploration just isn't worth it. C1: The scientific benefits of manned space programmes are severely overstated. Organizations such as NASA spend most of their budgets on telescopes and ground-based research. Also, big time space exploration spenders Russia and China have not reported any major scienfic discoveries in rescent yours. C2: Space is excessive. Here on earth most of the surface is ocean, and 95% of that ocean is uncharted. Why should we explore space when we haven't even explored the whole of our planet? We say we are running out of resources and yet we have only gotten the resources of not even half the planet. We should search and explore the rest of the planet before we look beyond. C3: It would be bad for international relations. Sending people into space or to other planets they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before in the past. China’s manned programme is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime’s huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush’s pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars programme was a direct response. This is bad not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into larger international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space, thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield that could result in doom for everyone on and off our planet. Conclusion Do to the lack of progress in the space program, and the fact that that not even half of our planet is charted. Not to mention the large chance of world and offworld war. I say that we as people of planet Earth should not publically fund the exploration of speech just yet.
Year Round Schooling (With Medium-Length breaks periodically)

There are several reasons that kids should not attend school year-round. One important reason is the cost. Teachers would need paid more, the school's utility bills would go up, and overall maintenance would cost more. Teens who need to work to earn money for college or to support themselves might have difficulty finding work during the summer since they would not be able to work days. Summer camps would also be a thing of the past, meaning that kids would lose out on an educational setting in a fun environment where they can interact with peers outside of their norm.
Year Round Schooling (With Medium-Length breaks periodically)

Here Is Round Two:-Parents, teachers and students need to be able to focus on children learning as much as they can from school. Following the agricultural type of calendar does not maximize learning time for students. http://www.lifescript.com...-When public schooling first became available to students, our society was mainly agricultural and children were needed during the summer months to help maintain and gather crops. Today’s society is a technological society and there is no longer a demand for child labor during the three month summer vacation. Nowadays, many students work a part time job or spend their summer at home alone while parents work. http://www.lifescript.com...-The major benefit of year-round education is that it facilitates continuous learning as the students are not ever out of school for a long period of time. As a result, the students forget less over the shorter breaks, and teachers spend less time reviewing pre-vacation material. Another real benefit of year-round education is that schools can offer an extra session of remedial and enrichment classes to some of the students between sessions. http://school.familyeducation.com...-The most popular form of year-round education is the 45-15 plan, where students attend school for 45 days and then get three weeks (15 days) off. The usual holiday breaks are still built into this calendar. Two other ways to organize a school calendar are the 60-20 and the 90-30 plans. http://www.nea.org...-But, according to the National Association for Year-Round Education, more than 2.3 million U.S. public school students attended year-round schools in the 2002-03 school year. The number has steadily grown since the 1986-87 school year, when only about 360,000 students were enrolled in year-round schools. http://www.edweek.org...
Year Round Schooling (With Medium-Length breaks periodically)

A couple of cons i found on a website: The Cons of a Year Round School or Longer School Day "School maintenance costs, including day-to-day upkeep and utilities, can increase up to 10 percent if schools are open for longer. (Silva, 2007). "Students who have difficulty with attention, either due to disability or because young elementary students are not developmentally ready to attend for longer periods of time are unlikely to get more out of a longer school day. This, too, may increase the amount of behavioral issues in the classroom. "Teens who need to work to help support themselves or make money for college may have difficulty holding or finding a job. (Silvernail & Bickford, 2009) "Budgets and staffing issues simply may not allow for extended school programs. Many schools already struggle to pay teachers a competitive wage, making it hard to keep high quality teachers. The cost of teaching as a full-time endeavor may not be feasible either locally or federally. "Multi-tracking programs mean that parents could possibly have students on different schedules. "After school activities, such as sports or the arts may suffer or get lost in the shuffle (or budget) if school days are longer. "Students in year round school may miss out on opportunities to spend time with children of other ages and/or learn about nature as typical summer camp experiences may no longer be a part of the childhood experience. Website: http://childparenting.about.com...
Sprinkling Converts With Water Is Unscriptural

When the bible only commands baptism, which means to immerse (see my previous article), then to not immerse would be to break that command and therefore would be unscriptural. Do you agree that to break a command of scripture, is to be unscriptural? If so, then to sprinkle breaks the command to baptize (Immerse). By the way I hope my opponent does not try to challenge the theological definition of "baptism" in his round in this debate as I will have not opportunity to respond. That would be unfair and not very gentlemen like. Especially since I forwarded it in my last round when he could have dealt with it and left me an opportunity to rebut. With that being said, the definition of baptism should stand as immerse. So, again, if the bible commands immersion, and it does by it's command to baptize, then to do otherwise would be disobedience. When the bible commands to do something that by nature eliminate the possibility of the opposite or something else. Again, ladies and gentlemen, the command is to baptize, immerse, submerge, and therefore we must or we violate the command. If he says that we can disobey this command, then what other commands can we disobey? Maybe the one on repentance, believing, murder, adultery? Romans 6:4 KJV 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Baptism is a picture of the burial of Christ. Christ was covered completely in his burial, and ours is a picture of his. When you bury someone you don't just lay them on top of the ground and sprinkle a little dirt on them, you cover them completely. So, baptism is a burial.
Sprinkling Converts With Water Is Unscriptural

While the mode of baptism is not essential to salvation, the mandate of baptism is essential to obedience." Hank Hanegraaff http://www.equip.org... The above link is the most interesting perspective on Baptism My Opponent Says "If sprinkling will do, then why not one example to show it's acceptability." Using the same logic, then why not one example to show it is forbidden? "Surely there were people in the NT that had the health issues that you talk about and still no example of sprinkling." There are lots of things that are not mentioned in scripture that are not forbidden or unscriptural. "The bible is way to specific and God is way to willing to save to leave out any acceptable means." Way to specific is an opinion........ and how do you know the mind of God? Romans 11:34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord?" Arguing the mode is not essential. Your correct in saying that most evidence suggests that submerging in water is the preferred mode of baptism, however this does not forbid sprinkling or render it unscriptural. The below scripture offers a Christian perspective on how do deal with differences between believers. Romans 14:5-18 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment.....
Sprinkling Converts With Water Is Unscriptural

In my my first speech I directly stated that there are no examples in the "New Testament". So there was not need for you to assume what you did since in my opening I mentioned only the NT. If the Bible teached immersion, and you say that it does, and does not teach sprinkling in baptism, and it does not, then sprinkling would be unscriptural and immersion would be scriptural. None of your sprinkling examples that you gave are of people that I saw, so that would be irrelevant to this discussion. In order to show that sprinkling was acceptable scripturally you would need show it in scripture which you cannot do. If sprinkling will do, then why not one example to show it's acceptability. Surely there were people in the NT that had the health issues that you talk about and still no example of sprinkling. The bible is way to specific and God is way to willing to save to leave out any acceptable means. As you are aware, there are an abundace of examples of immerssion in the scriptural record, and if neccessary I shall supply them. Not to mention that the word baptize means to dip or immerse. I submit only one example from scholarship if you need more I will offer it. The following is copied and pasted form Joseph Henry Thayer, one of the most athoritative greek scholars in modern times. G907 Thayer Definition: 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to overwhelm
Sprinkling Converts With Water Is Unscriptural

Hello good sir. I look forward to a pleasant debate. I assume you are suggesting that sprinkling Christian converts with water is unscriptural. I also assume unscriptural means against or opposed to the Doctrine of the Bible as a whole and not just the New Testament. First let me explain that baptism occurred prior to the New Testament. It was for Jewish converts. If one wanted to become Jewish they had to be dipped in water, amongst other things. John the Baptist came around telling Jews they had to be Baptised too. Some didn't take to well to this because that was for unclean people not Jews! Anyway...... I think it is important to look at the original intent of Baptism in that is symbolic and a public confession of faith. The main scriptural evidence for the mode of sprinkling is found in the Old Testament where sprinkling is enjoined to purifying or cleansing. There are several instances in the Old Testament when blood is sprinkled to symbolize atonement, cleansing and the covenant of God with His people Israel, such as Exodus 24:8, which some Christians believe is symbolic of Christ's blood which atones for sin and is demonstrated through baptism by sprinkling. I don't disagree that the preferred mode of baptism is to submerge, however sprinkling is certainly not forbidden or unscriptural. There are times when a convert can not physically be submerged due to health, location, etc. Sprinkling is certainly acceptable in these instances. To argue the point misses the meaning of the whole of scripture and is somewhat likened to a Pharisee or legalism.