BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government has been complicit in spreading HIV in poor and black communities

My opponent can't see ill intent in inaction, and I believe that is the largest stumbling block in this debate, and perhaps will ultimately decide the, "winner." The problem that we're facing, however, is that we are all losers with zero-tolerance drug laws, and with the puritan ethic that ignores the real world consequences of apathetic government policy. To clarify one point, as my opponent asked, women who have sex with IV drug users can be infected without their knowledge. This is certainly not a matter of personal responsibility on the part of women. My opponent cites government sponsorship of private needle exchange programs, and defends them as adequate against my charge of neglect. The problem with this approach is that the government is still taking a hard-line against drug users, driving them underground, and making them a lot less likely to participate in these sorts of programs. Owning needles without a medical reason can lead to a felony drug paraphernalia charge. In this sort of environment, how can anyone expect chronic addicts to trust a needle exchange program? The simple fact remains that the enforcement policy is not working, and it hasn't been working for decades, it has cost many lives, and the enforcement policy remains the same. We have proof that the enforcement is inadequate, because we have 100s of thousands of people infected, and we haven't changed our tactics. My opponent also apparently doesn't recognize the long-held responsibility of government to contain transmissible diseases. At one time, people were locked into asylums for the crime of having TB, or cholera. Today, the government stands by while people get a lethal disease. I don't have the answer, but I know that neglect doesn't work. Anyone who looks at the statistics can at least agree with that. Freely available government condoms might be a start. My opponent asserts that heroin withdrawal cannot be fatal. From the NIDH: "sudden withdrawal by heavily dependent users who are in poor health is occasionally fatal." (http://www.nida.nih.gov...) This is tangential to the point, however, which is that heroin addiction is a serious physical illness, not a simple personal choice. The first time someone uses heroin is a choice, on that much I assume my opponent and I can agree. In closing, we have a government that stands stubbornly to outdated policy, in the face of hard statistics that tell them (us) that their policy has a human cost. If a hurricane struck, and the government delayed relief for months on end, choosing to do nothing, they'd rightly be condemned as responsible for the devastation and consequences of that inaction. The fact that the HIV epidemic was not a sudden storm makes our government, and by extension, us, no less culpable.
The government has been complicit in spreading HIV in poor and black communities

Your first paragraph does not address any of my rebuttals, and you've lost me on the first paragraph. It seems you are implying that the human cost of the drug war is blacks acquiring HIV. You haven't made a link to that in your arguments, so I can only suppose that is what you meant, but I cannot rebut based on an assumption. Your second paragraph attempts to make the same point, but you don't help the reader to make a logical connection though it may be in your head. The government's policy toward drug use is somehow responsible for women getting HIV from drug using men? You haven't made this point clear. Your third paragraph, again, makes a claim with no factual references which would allow the reader to make a logical connection to your claim. Whenever I've used condoms I've purchased them. I don't know what the government has to do with access to condoms in America. I assume you are speaking of the black community in America, and the US Government when you say "the government". Otherwise this debate is moot because "governments" may be responsible for the spread of HIV in poor black communities, ie. African governments who refuse to properly allocate AIDS prevention funds provided by international donors; African governments who refuse to provide condoms where they are not available, etc. The US is a free and wealthy society where condoms are available in every "poor black community". Hey, they put a liquor store on every corner, and I've never been to a liquor store in the hood that didn't sell condoms. I don't see your point. In your fourth paragraph you imply that invoking personal responsibility is akin to asking the tide not to roll in. The tide rolling in is an act of nature. Are you implying that blacks using IV drugs is a natural occurrence akin to the tide rolling in? If not, then lets assume you meant the junkies- those who are already addicted. You assert that withdrawals could cause death, but you are wrong. Even if you had a point- blacks will use drugs and/or junkies cannot quit- they can use clean needles. Heroin is expensive, needles are not. Should the government assume the responsibility of making sure a heroin addict spends his money on a new needle every time he buys a gram? That's ridiculous. As for people having sex- why should the government be involved? The statistics you provided referred to adults, not children who would need sexual education. Why should anyone be involved in the personal choice of a full grown adult? You claim the government is complicit in a crime, but you don't identify the criminal. Who is committing the crime of which the US government is complicit? As for your analogy, it doesn't fit. Some people don't know how to swim. I have already provided links with references to the US government's role in funding syringe exchange programs, which is your main concern. If you want free condoms visit your local Planned Parenthood, but don't expect them to bring the condoms TO you...
The Trinity Doctrine: Three Different Persons, All Equally God, All the Same God

Let me just say that first, I agree personally with Pro. However, for a challenge, I'm going to go against it. Matthew 19:16-17 "And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?' And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' " Jesus did not say that to have the eternal life of paradise, man should believe in him as Almighty God or worship him as God, or believe that Jesus (pbuh) would die for his sins. On the contrary he said that the path to salvation was through keeping the commandments. When asked, Jesus merely repeated what Moses had said earlier: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29 He also said "I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgement is just; because I seek not my own will but the will of the Father who has sent me." (Imagine God cant do anything himself?) I'll go into more Scripture later, but this generally explains it.
The Trinity Doctrine: Three Different Persons, All Equally God, All the Same God

Fist of all, I would like to apologize for the unusually long title. I needed more space in order to encompass the topic I would like to discus clearly. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate! The Trinity Doctrine is a rather controversial topic, and there are amy people on both sides of the argument. I believe that The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. I believe that they are all equally God, and that they all make up one God. With that, I will allow my opponent to make the first arguments. Thanks! Renzzy
The Trinity Doctrine: Three Different Persons, All Equally God, All the Same God

Since my opponent missed his last round my arguments still stand. I would like to reiterate the fact that my I did NOT leave any of my opponents arguments, but rather refuted them all. Anyone who actually reads the debate will see this clearly. As of right now, the following scripture stand as defended proof of my argument: John 17:3--- "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 1 Tim. 3:16--- "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." John 10:29-30--- "My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." John 17:10--- "All I [Jesus] have is yours [The Father's], and all you have is mine. And my glory is shown through them." Acts 5:3-4--- "Peter said, "Ananias, why did you let Satan rule your thoughts to LIE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT and to keep for yourself part of the money you received for the land? Before you sold the land, it belonged to you. And even after you sold it, you could have used the money any way you wanted. Why did you think of doing this? YOU LIED TO GOD, NOT TO US!" Matt. 12:31-32--- "So I tell you, people can be forgiven for every sin and everything they say against God. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, now or in the future." 2 Cor. 3:17--- "The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." I would also like to add the following verse to my list... 1 John 5:20--- "We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." Jesus Christ IS the true God, as are the Spirit and the Father. My arguments stand and await refutation. Thanks, Renzzy
The Trinity Doctrine: Three Different Persons, All Equally God, All the Same God

Your own Scripture supports my conclusion. John 17:3--- "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. The only true G-d AND Jesus Christ? If they were the same, that's redundant. But John takes the time to specifically differentiate between Jesus and G-d. And then we get more (from you): "Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. " So, there's G-d the father then. .. .. a different manifestation? They make the clear distinction. They then go on to say how the manifestation (Jesus) was vindicated by the Spirit. How can something vindicate itself? If Jesus was the same as the Spirit either, 1) Both needed vindication or 2) Neither did. Either way, this verse makes no sense if they're all one. John 10:30 - nice trick. Let me post a little more context to the verse. "29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no" one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one. " Either Jesus has a thing for 3rd person address, or when he said "I and the Father are one" he meant, we work for a common goal. Since I dont think it makes sense that Jesus liked to talk himself, I think a Neg vote is in order. ""All I [Jesus] have is yours [The Father's], and all you have is mine. And my glory is shown through them. " So is Jesus talking to himself? If he is, this is how the sentence would read "All I have is mine, and all I have is mine. " Does that make sense? No. He's addressing a seperate being. Next you used this: Acts 5:3-4--- "Peter said, "Ananias, why did you let Satan rule your thoughts to LIE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT and to keep for yourself part of the money you received for the land? Before you sold the land, it belonged to you. And even after you sold it, you could have used the money any way you wanted. Why did you think of doing this? YOU LIED TO GOD, NOT TO US! " So if I lied to my mom, and I lied to my dad, do my dad and mom have to be the same person? This proves my point:: "So I tell you, people can be forgiven for every sin and everything they say against God. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, now or in the future. " So what it says is: 1) Speaking against the Holy spirit is NOT PERMISSABLE. But speaking against the Son of man IS permissable. If they're the same, how can the same action have different results? All of these show how there are distinct and seperate relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Your entire point four serves only to Glorify G-d (yay! ) but doesn't further your point, whereas I have shown REPEATEDLY through Scripture how they're different. Plus, he dropped all of MY scripture.
Is God real

You present nothing about the structure of the debate and so I will go about refuting your opening statement and then presenting my own opening argument against God's existence. Your first argument appears to be based around a prediction in the Bible, it states that Syria and Israel will be left in ruin. You claim that with the conflict in these regions the Bible's predictions will soon be fulfilled and so God must be real. No firstly I must remind you that the Bible's predictions have yet to come true, Damascus is still a large city and Syria and Israel are still functional countries, the Bible's prediction will not necessarily be correct and assuming it will be is a massive leap in logic. Secondly even if the prediction in the Bible was correct it wouldn't mean anything, anyone could write a story and make some predictions about the real world in it, some of those predictions may end up being true, does that mean the story was real? Of course not. Finally a present my argument against God. There is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that supports God's existence, with this it's impossible for us to assume God exists. Of course we can't be 100% certain God doesn't exist either but with various scientific theories removing the need for a deity there is a very small chance a God of any kind is real.
Is God real

Ggod is real. There is evidence. For example in Isaiah 17Good News Translation (GNT) it states that, "God Will Punish Syria and Israel 17 The Lord said, "Damascus will not be a city any longer; it will be only a pile of ruins. 2 The cities of Syria will be deserted forever.[a] They will be a pasture for sheep and cattle, and no one will drive them away. 3 Israel will be defenseless, and Damascus will lose its independence. Those Syrians who survive will be in disgrace like the people of Israel. I, the Lord Almighty, have spoken." 4 The Lord said, "A day is coming when Israel's greatness will come to an end, and its wealth will be replaced by poverty. 5 Israel will be like a field where the grain has been cut and harvested, as desolate as a field in Rephaim Valley when it has been picked bare. 6 Only a few people will survive, and Israel will be like an olive tree from which all the olives have been picked except two or three at the very top, or a few that are left on the lower branches. I, the Lord God of Israel, have spoken." 7 When that day comes, people will turn for help to their Creator, the holy God of Israel. 8 They will no longer rely on the altars they made with their own hands, or trust in their own handiwork"symbols of the goddess Asherah and altars for burning incense. 9 When that day comes, well-defended cities will be deserted and left in ruins like the cities that the Hivites and the Amorites[b] abandoned as they fled from the people of Israel. 10 Israel, you have forgotten the God who rescues you and protects you like a mighty rock. Instead, you plant sacred gardens[c] in order to worship a foreign god. 11 But even if they sprouted and blossomed the very morning you planted them, there would still be no harvest. There would be only trouble and incurable pain." The current Syria is full of civil war and espicially that Donald Trump bombed Syria. Als it states in the bible that, there will be WW3.
The US government ought to guarantee universal healthcare for its citizens.

I'm not sure what occurred but my opponent did not submit an argument, thus he has forfeited the second and final round of this debate, which resulted in a failure to refute my arguments. Sadly, this should result in an uncontested victory for me. Though not obligated, I will refute Pro's position by declaring that while it may be desirable for some citizens to receive universal healthcare coverage, namely those previously without benefits. It is not a service that the US government is obligated to provide and that was the focus of this debate.
The US government ought to guarantee universal healthcare for its citizens.

DEFINITIONSTopic: The US government ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens. Ought: defined as an obligation or duty. Universal Health care: An organized health care system that provides health care benefits to all persons in a specified region. * *This definition seems to fit best into the given context, it can, however, be altered at Pro’s request. The resolution states that the US government ought to guarantee universal health care […], the moral obligation, presented by Pro would claim that all citizens must be guaranteed health care benefits. Yet, US citizens were already receiving health care benefits; for example, Employer Supplied Insurance (ESI), Medicare, and Medicaid who continue to provide health care benefits to the disadvantaged, elderly, and employed [1]. Furthermore, Medicaid is specifically intended to provide benefits to the most vulnerable; the poor. Each state is reimbursed a portion of their expenditure from the federal government, with poorer states, based on average per capita income, receiving the most funding [1]. The moral obligation of aiding those who are aged and financially disadvantaged is a sentiment shared by most, Medicare and Medicaid offers health care benefits to these groups. It would seem a tad redundant to claim that the US government ought to guarantee health care benefits to groups who are disadvantaged and already have access to benefit programs. The social implications of instituting a UH system must account for the aging population, lack of primary care capacity, and the closing of hospitals. These factors all suggest that, according to Lynn Massingale, MD, patient volume in emergency departments will increase [2]. While at this point, we can only speculate as to the severity of the issue its significance and impact can be observed in other nations with a UH system. To summarize my argument, to state that the US government ought to guarantee UH for its citizens under the proposition of a perceived moral obligation is, quite simply, a morally righteous and oversimplified response to health care progression. In a heavily polarized political climate such as the US to guarantee a UH policy seems to suggest obedience as opposed to morality. [1]: . http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2]: . http://healthcarereform.procon.org...
Is Jennifer Lopez the Thickest Woman in Hollywood

There is no evidence put forth that Jennifer Lopez is a woman, nor that she is in Hollywood.I have evidence that supports Jennifer Lopez being in a music video, as opposed to Hollywood and supporting the idea that she isn't a woman because women are supposed to show respect to men.http://www.youtube.com...Not to mention, to be thick is to be stupid and nowhere thus far has it been shown that the supposedly female Jennifer Lopez is less than intelligent.
Curling is a sport

Thank you my friend for your kind words and your courtesy :) I will now post my second round of arguments as to why curling is in fact, a real sport, and they are rather simplistic. For this round, I will focus on the fact that curling involves more than one person, and will unpack more familiar terms such as are common to sports in Round 4. This argument I will post focuses on just this one simple statement: Curling is a sport built on teamwork. Curling involves a team of four individuals, and they all have unique roles to make sure their end, or round, is a rocking success, pun intended for a small laugh :). The team's first player is the lead, whose job according to dummies.com is to lay a strong foundation for their teammates. They throw, or slide, whichever you prefer, the first two 40 pound stones down the ice. It is their job to guard their house, or target, from the other team's stones, and also be good at sweeping in the event a third sweeper is needed to get the rock over the hog line, approximately 14-15 feet from the house itself. The second player on the curling team is simply known as the second. It is their job to throw rocks three and four down the ice sheet, and they sweep the first two stones down the ice. It is their job also normally to take the other team's stones off the house if their lead has sat stones in there. The second and the lead must sweep as one unit, as a team, as they bring the third and fourth stones down the ice sheet. The third player, is simply known as the third, or vice-skip. It is their job to post the score for the teams at the end of each end, or round, and to set up the shots that the fourth player on the team will have to throw in mere minutes. The third also throws the fifth and sixth stones of the end, and must be good at draws, or guard shots, to prevent the other team from taking off their hard earned rocks that sit inside the house. The fourth player on the team has probably one the most critical role. They are known as the skip, and it is their job to throw the final two stones to finish the end strong for their team. The skip is also the team's leader, or captain, and they must be someone that is a good strategist, and knows all the shots of curling very well. It is their job also to hold their broom on the area of the house they want their teammates to target when they throw their stones. They are also in charge of telling their teammates when to sweep, and how hard to do it, as even a small mistake can cost the entire team that end. I rest round 3 with this simple argument-curling is a sport, because curling is not just a one man affair, it takes all four individuals to make a successful end, and it takes teamwork, thereby sealing curling as a sport, because most sports need a team to function well. I turn the debate back over to my friend, and look forward to the arguments he will present. Thank you for the debate.
Curling is a sport

I extend a warm and kind welcome to my opponent, I look forward to an insightful, and pleasant debate with you. With that, let us commence the arguments phase. This will be my one of my sources for this opening argument: http://www.sportsonearth.com... Let us begin with by saying that curling takes an enormous amount of endurance to do. You are walking on a sheet of ice, the temperature is between 18-32 degrees Fahrenheit in a pair of shoes, most likely cleats, which in itself takes balance. The ice is usually pebbled [sprinkled with water droplets] to make it easier to walk on, but it is still slippery [I should know, I have fallen on it before several times] According to another article I am using here, this sheet of ice is 146-150 feet in length according to mycurling.com, which tests one's physical endurance. You are likely wearing a coat to stay warm, but still curling tests your tolerance of cold, often to it's limits after an eight to ten end game. This comes from sliding 40-42 pound stones, the "rocks", down this sheet, and then sweeping with carbon fiber brooms, sometimes very hard at the ice, in order to keep the stone sliding toward the target, or in curling terms, "house." This wears at your mental, and physical fitness, and it requires grit to keep sweeping on the ice with all of your strength. These are my opening arguments for why curling is a sport, I turn the argument phase back over to my worthy opponent, and look forward to your arguments. Thank you for the debate :). Sources: http://www.sportsonearth.com... http://www.mycurling.com...