BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In the United States, students should be guaranteed two years of free tuition to a communi

I apologize for having to forfeit the last round and for this late reply. I had exams this and last week. I ask the voters to please not take this too harshly into consideration while voting.------------------------------------------------Re-affirming Pro Case------------------------------------------------Contention 1: Having two years of free college would improve the lives of impoverished peopleMy opponent's argument that tuition is only 40% of school costs still proves that it would improve the lives of less privileged people. Having free tuition is just one less thing to pay for, and just because there is free tuition would not mean that the Pell Grant is no longer viable. Having the Pell Grant in addition to the free tuition would only help even more, so my Opponent's first contention is inadequate in today's debateContention 2: The first 2 years free will help with the skill gap in America I did have evidence in this contention. With 26% of jobs requiring less than 4 years of post-secondary training, community colleges would be able to provide a wide range of technical training. David Baime, as vp of the American Association of Community Colleges, is a very credible source and my entire argument was not only his quote. All he said was that "this is a proposal of historical proportions and could dramatically increase access to community college." And, on the Affirmative side, I agree with him.Contention 3: Two years of free tuition can help students to lower debtIn response to this contention, my opponent mentioned that it would only be translocated to taxpayers. However, having more educated students, who can get better jobs because of this, would allow them to be better able to pay their taxes.------------------------------------------------Final Thoughts------------------------------------------------If my opponent can prove that having a Pell Grant alone would be better for students who otherwise would not have the opportunity to attend college than having a Pell Grant AND two years of free tuition, then only then does my first and third contentions fall. On the pro side, I am standing for those who are less privileged and their rights. Why should they not have the same opportunities to go to college than someone who can afford it without any problems? This will help to alleviate them out of this poverty not only right now, but in the future as well.For the facts presented, I urge you to please vote an Affirmative ballot.
Resolved: In the United States, students should be guaranteed two years of free tuition to a communi

Sources from contentions: http://www.pbs.org...... 3 Authors: Anthony Carnevale, Nicole Smith AND Jeff Strohl. http://admin.americanthinker.com...... http://www.nytimes.com...... http://www. gituition.com/2010/05/how-can-the-montgomery-gi-bill-help-veterans/ http://pellgranteligibility.org...; http://www.johnlocke.org...... http://www.cnn.com...... http://www.defense.gov...... http://www.defense.gov...... http://www.gituition.com...... http://www.military.R...... My opponent has not rebutted any of my arguments, so they still stand. To rebut her first contention, tuition is only 40% of all school college costs, so the most impoverished people would not be helped. Also, impoverish people already have the Pell Grant Program to cover tuition, as I showed in my first contention. Second Contention: No facts, simply quotations from David Balme. Also, this would increase outsourcing if anything, because countries want cheaper labor. Also, many remedial classes are offered by community colleges, and do not count as college credits. Against lowering debt, this plan would simply translocate the student debt to taxpayers, making no difference. Please vote a negative ballot due to the facts presented.
Resolved: In a fight without prior preparation, Batman would certainly defeat Spider-Man.

If Batman and Spider-Man were to fight, Spider-Man would beat the living daylights out of Batman. First, Spider-Man has superhuman abilities. Batman is an Olympic level human in terms of physical attributes. Clearly, Spider-Man is superior in this regard. Second, Spider-Man has the advantage in terms of intellect. Whereas Batman abuses his billions of dollars to buy fancy gadgets, Spider-Man actually creates his sophisticated devices (while using an extremely limited amount of resources) whenever he needs them. He is also well known for coming up with advanced battle strategies on the spot. In fact, due to his intelligence, Spider-Man was able to defeat the villain known as Fire Lord (a villain almost as powerful as Silver Surfer) in Amazing Spider-Man issues 269-270 without needing a rematch. Third, although Batman knows plenty of martial arts, Spider-Man has managed to develop his own unique fighting style that even Captain America (who is regarded as the best martial artist in the Marvel Universe)(someone who Batman thought of as being superior during both comic book crossovers) cannot help but praise. Fourth, Spider-Man has his spider sense, so Batman won't be able to count on surprising Spider-Man. Taking these four points into account, our favorite web head would mop the floor with the Dark Knight any day of the week. Some of these points may need elaboration. I now stand ready for my opponent's case.
God can't exist

Con has provided one counter argument: "2.Free will-we do have the ability of free will but it seems more likely that he knows all based on what he can observe and infer just like looking at our past and making a guess at what we will do."This statement does not support cons claim. Con says that God likely knows all from observation and inference based on our past to make a guess what we will do, however the definition of know is "to be absolutely certain or sure about something." The definition of Omniscient is "all knowing;"which means that an omniscient being must know everything with absolute certainty; no inferences or guesses allowed. So Cons argument is actually going against his case that God can exist.
God can't exist

First the definition of God: A being that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.I will argue based on three points.1. The Omnipotence Paradox2. The argument from free will.3. The argument from quantum mechanics.The Omnipotence ParadoxThis is an example of the Omnipotence Paradox: "can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it."If God can lift the rock then he's not omnipotent because he can't create a rock so heavy he can't lift it. If God can't lift the rock than he's not omnipotent because his strength is limited. So either way God is not omnipotent.The Argument From Free WillIf God is omnipotent he is able to create a being with free will. God must also be omniscient in which case he must know what choice that creature with free will will make. This is a paradox because if God know what choice the creature will make, then that creature doesn't have free will; its choice is already determined. If God doesn't know what choice the creature will make, it does have free will, but then God isn't omniscient because there is something he doesn't know. So either way God does not have one of his defining attributes.The Argument From Quantum MechanicsThis is an argument that I created. It goes like this: God is omniscient meaning that he is observing every particle in the universe. In the double slit experiment an electron was shot at two slits and passed through both because it was a wave and when it hit the detector it became a particle. This is called wave function; the double slit experiment showed that a particle is a wave until it is observed; when it becomes a particle its wave function has collapsed. Now if God is omniscient he MUST be observing every particle in the universe. However if this is true then the electrons in the double slit experiment wouldn't have a wave function since they would have been observed by God; but the electrons did have a wave function. Therefore God cannot be omniscient and has lost one of his defining attributes.ConclusionIn the first two arguments the defining features of God create a paradox and in the third it shows that God can't be omniscient without completely changing the way the universe acts. Since Gods properties create paradoxes and aren't compatible with the universe I contend that God cannot exist.Sources:Wikipedia My brain**Only for the argument from quantum mechanics
Sandy hook shooting is a conspiracy

My sources. CNN videos like the one of Robbie Parker laughing and the people circling around the firehouse, the Newtown bees article about the shooting that came out on the thirteenth, interviews on other programs like 60 minutes, abc and msnbc, united way fund, times, sandy hook promise web site, interview with Wayne Carver, cnn interview where Anderson's nose dissapears and is clearly blue screen, info wars. You should watch the infowars video "why people think sandy hook was a hoax".
Sandy hook shooting is a conspiracy

There are files from the lake county sheriffs office that show officers visited Halbig. The reason he went to Newtown was because he had been threatened. Otherwise the Newtown board of education would "not have even heard of him" as he said in an interview. He was a Florida state trooper and than a gym teacher. He worked as a national school safety consultant for 25 years. He has been to every state training officials how to keep their schools safe. He was present at the columbine massacre. His questions about sandy hook have not been answered. A video shows him confronting the Newtown board of education and asking these simple non offensive questions which they still didn't answer. Videos from infowars (I know alex jones can be a little crazy but the videos are real) also show him being harasses by Newtown cops. Why can't they just answer the questions?. Why try so hard to cover them up? Why did that boy on Dr Oz say they were having a drill? There's reason for people to stay quiet about this. Free homes for most of sandy hook (Connecticut online data base), big checks for all the cops, 27 million dollars in donation for Newtown, 281,000 dollars for the victims families . Anyway it's hard to tell what happened. Whatever the truth is we deserve to know.
Sandy hook shooting is a conspiracy

Once again, there's no evidence to Halbig's statement, you're going off nothing but his word. And before you ask, "What reason does he have to lie", well here it is: I believe he believes Sandy Hook is a hoax. Now ask yourself, what get's more attention; "Here's why the shooting is fake", or"Here's why this shooting is fake, and btw, the cops actually tried to threaten me to stop asking questions". He has motive to lie. And as o not letting parents see the body, it was to try to control the situation. With all the people there after the shooting, it was madness, so instead of upsetting the parents and adding more to all of this, he took pictures of he bodies to show them, as you can see in this video here . And as to he cop who parked 1/4 of a mile from the school, the first officer to arrive was, plain and simply, a coward. Instead of doing his job and going to handle the situation, he parked 1/4 of a mile away and called in for backup. This man's actions are cowardly, selfish, and idiotic, bu not evidence of a conspiracy. Read this article for more info: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
Sandy hook shooting is a conspiracy

I would like to point out that many men who have been or are in the military came out and said that it would be impossible for a 110 pound kid to carry all 40 pounds of military gear into the school and do what he supposedly did. And than on to what I said in my first argument. There was no rush to save lives. Even when the situation was neutralized only two children were taken to the hospital. EMTs take everyone to the hospital unless the person has been decapitated. 24 people were declared dead in 11 minutes. The question is by who?. In Connecticut only a doctor can do that. All Wolfgang Halbig wanted to know was who declared the victims dead, who didn't let the EMTs, who ordered the parts poddys, why no trauma helicopters were not requested, why the police parked 1/4 a mile away when they coots have parked up front and 11 other un offensive questions. No one returned his calls or answered his questions. They sent 4 cops to his house to threaten him. Why wouldn't they just answer the non offensive simple questions? Why are they trying so hard up get halbig to stop asking these simple questions? Why weren't parents allowed to see their child's bodies?. Most parents would break the door down to see their child no matter how many bullets were in them. Also the boy on the Dr Oz show said they were having a drill when Dr. Oz asked him his view of what happened that day. If you have time you should watch Sofia Smallstorms presentation called "unraveling sandy hook". I just had to point out the obvious photo shopping one more time. Even in the picture amazing atheist showed on his video Madeline and Samantha Parker do not have legs. Vicky Soto and Anne Murphy's hands look like paws in the class photo. There are many other photos where shadows and bots parts are in the wrong places or not there at all. Something is fishy about this whole event. It's obvious. Either it was a hoax where no one died or it was a planned attack with multiple shooters.
Sandy hook shooting is a conspiracy

In regards to the columbine shooting killing 13 students in the matter of an hour, Harris and klebold were sadistic young men who took their time with the killings; instead of going on an all-out massacre, they would kill someone, watch as everyone reacted in terror, and would kill again. And keep in mind the targets of sandy hook; unarmed children and faculty members. he had an automatic rifle, someone with only basic training (which he had) can easily shoot helpless targets from a not-so-far-off range. And about Halbig, while there's numerous reports on him, there's no actual evidence, simply his word against others. And I've already seen the "top 10 reasons sandy hook is a hoax" list long before this augument. When it comes to nothing but facts, they point to a legitimate incident, not a conspiracy.
Sandy hook shooting is a conspiracy

Thanks for debating with me. I'm not 100% certain that sandy hook was a hoax. I think there is a small chance that children actually died in that school, along with their educators. If it was real than it was a false flag operation and not some autistic kid who took 40 pounds of military material and shot 26 people in 5-7 minutes. That's absurd. There would have been multiple shooters. I believe there is a high chance that this event didn't really happen and that the families of the deceased children might be acting. I'm sorry if it offends people but that's when evidence shows. I highly recommend you read veterans today's article "top ten reasons why sandy hook was an elaborate hoax". I'll let you lost your argument first. Thanks.
There's No Such Thing as a "Good Person"

I must say, almost anytime i debate upon philosophic matters, I'm outflanked by a religious argument, but this time, i feel that this argument is easily voided. In the first round I created a definition of bad based upon what we know is good, it is simply an antonym of good. Now on the religious matter. While pro has brought up many specific texts from the bible, the affirmation failed to take note on the diverse set of faiths around the world. Take for example the old Pastament delivered down by his noodly appendage. I as a Pastafarian know that as long as i am not a jerk, and i take my pasta with joy, then i am good, and shall earn a place in the heavenly lands firmament along side the heavenly beer factory. I now may use the logical device, Newton's Flaming Laser Sword, which states, anything that can not be settled by experiment, is not worthy for debate. Now as it is impossible to prove with experiment which of faiths is true faith, if either of them even are, would leave with no choice but to eject any religious argument as we cannot progress debate any further until we do. In addition to what i just said, i'd like to take pro's closing statement, " there is no such thing as a "good person", at least before God. " That may or not be true, but that is not the intent of our debate, we are debating over whether or not good people exist, without regards to theological matters. Therefore with utilitarianism we can find that to be a good person, we must simply do more beneficial things compared to our detrimental things. Sources: The holy books The Loose Cannon, and The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, dutifully transcribed by Bobby Henderson, pesto be upon him.
There's No Such Thing as a "Good Person"

First off, I wanted to say that at first I did not say anything about "bad people"--I just stated there was no such thing as a "good person." Any definition of the term "bad people" came from your own terms my opponent. That being said, let me continue. Secondly, I will define what I mean by "good person." When we hear the term "good person" (or "bad person"), we always associate that term with their deeds. When someone was good to the poor (Mother Teresa) or someone died to save us from our sins (Jesus), we always as humans explain someone's standing before us (or God) by their works that they have done. Outside of that, the Funk & Wagnall's dictionary describes the word "good" as "morally excellent." No person in my mind attains that. Jesus clarifies what our standard of good should be based on God: "Why do you call Me good? There is no one good but One, that is, God" (Mark 10:18). So God attains our idea of "good" by being God, not by any other person. However, I did not say, "no one is righteous." This serves my third point. The Bible states that there is there is no one righteous, no, not one (b/c) there is no one who seeks after God (Romans 3:10-1). So righteousness comes from seeking after God. The Bible is even more clear when it says that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in our heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, we will be saved (Romans 10:9). So it's not just seeking after God that causes us to be righteous, but also believing that He died on our behalf so that we would be saved from sin through Him. What is sin? That leads me to my fourth point. Sin is what separates you as an individual from God. It's what causes us to do "bad things"--hence no person apart from God can be "righteous" or "good" (if you prefer). Because we are born with it, there's no way apart from Christ to separate us from the daily sin our lives. Hence because of sin, Adolf Hitler was able to do all those "bad" things. I'm not going to say that he was good anymore than I'm going to say that Mother Teresa was good because of their works. Unless they were saved by Christ, all their own goodness was "filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6) before God. So I return to my first statement--there is no such thing as a "good person", at least before God.
There's No Such Thing as a "Good Person"

To make the assumption that there is no such thing as a good person, would automatically assume, by logical deduction, that there is no such thing as a "bad person". This is because, if you had a "good person", it would be in reference, to a "bad person". By declaring There's no such thing as a "good person.", it would be no leap of logic to apply this statement and equate Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa, because neither would be considered a good person, it would make it impossible to say that one of them is a "bad person". As we know, Mother Theresa was a better person, than Adolf Hitler, we can logically deduce, that Mother Theresa is a better person, and therefore, a good person.
Rudy is better than whoever you support

Most of the claims you make are simply untrue. As for the radios and command center, there will always be critics. What people don't tell you is that the democrat-controlled city council decided to go with contreversial new technology from Motorola, which didn't arrive until aftre 9-11. That was not Giuliani's fault, but since he is mayor, he takes the heat from disgruntled survivors and morners. The command center was placed in the towers because the WTC was the most apt place to house the center. There will always be critics would analyse and break-down decisions. Giuliani has an outstanding pre-9-11 record, which qualifies him for president by itself. He reduced crime by 66%, completely turned around Times Square and the economy. He reported so many illegal aliens the bureau asked the city to stop. He is a shining example of Republican theory in action. He has the highest and best executive experience. Rudy has proven that he can turn things around. He worked miracles in NYC, despite what a few misguided survivors would have you believe. True, Giuliani has been divorced. I don't see how this makes him crazy. He is a policy and executive genius. Edwards is hardly a better candidate. He would overregulate the economy, bungling it into near-fascism. Every candidate has campaigned on reform, only Rudy has proved that he can do it, and on a massive scale. Edwards has proven that he has unrealistic goals. Even his own party sees him as a joke and that his policies, specifically on the war, are idealistic and impossible. He claims he would pull all troops out immediately, leaving none behind. This policy flies in the face of every military opinion we have receieved. Even if you don't like the war, Edwards is a bad candidate because of his radical and unactionable policy. Rudy doesn't want to stay in Iraq forever, but he realizes that a secure Iraq is in our best interest and that leaving would be unwise. He realizes the dissnetiment for the war, but also the current necessity for it. I'm not arguing that Ron Paul is a joke, just stated that I would prefer not to debate about him again. Rudy is better than John Edwards because of the practical and actionable nature of his policy. Even if you disagree with the war, Giuliani has the experience and policy that can be put to work. Edwards has nothing but rhetoric, which even his party sees as ludicruous and unaccomplisable.
Rudy is better than whoever you support

John Edwards is a better candidate than Rudy Giuliani because he's sane. Giuliani married his cousin. Giuliani has been married three times. Giuliani cheats on his wives. Giuliani wears dresses. Giuliani used the remains of 9/11 victims to fill potholes. Giuliani built his terrorism command center in the twin towers. Critics argued that those might be the attacked and would serve as a poor base. Giuliani failed to get firefighters' radios replaced after the 1993 attacks. This lead to the deaths of many firefighters who fell out of communication. Giuliani betrayed the heroes of 9/11 and is now fairly universally hated by the firefighters in question. Giuliani is running on nothing except his record of failure at 9/11. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Rudy "9/11" Giuliani would make a horrific president from his clear record of maleficence, dishonestly, outright lying, cheating, and compound fraud. http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com... http://graphics8.nytimes.com... http://www.jonesreport.com... http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com... In short, the man is a slimeball. When he campaigns, his numbers actually go down. To know him is to like other people. ----------- On the other hand Edwards is sane, would reform education, health care, and most importantly get us the hell out of this stupid war. As odd as Ron Paul is, he'd still make a better president than Rudy on just the Iraq War issue. That issue alone is more than enough any candidate a better candidate than Rudy, who like most of the Republicans wants to stay there forever...