BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War.

I think you're in desperate need of taking a crash course in economics. Communism can't handle feeding its own people let alone compete with the U.S. in proxy wars and an arms race. When there is no incentive to work harder than the workers under such a system will do the bare minimum. Ronald Reagan drove the USSR to its collapse much faster than it would have on its own. Reagan did a wonderful job of keeping the communists from expanding their influence and power by the policy of containment. He furthermore refused to be an appeaser which caused the USSR to spend money on military buildup that it didn't have. You seem to have immense difficulty in comprehending the overall big picture of an affair. The Soviet Union did indeed vote to split up because their government was inefficient. For some strange reason you don't then ask yourself why the government was inefficient. It was inefficient because it was pressured internally and externally. Who do you think handled the job of the latter? That's right it was Ronald Reagan. With communism's inherit inability to compete with the United States it was driven to collapse on itself. When there is no reward system for a higher quality of work then it's a race to the bottom. With this knowledge at hand there is no other conclusion but Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War.
Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War.

"You are wrong on #4. First think about whether the Soviet Union could just end the arms race. They could!" They could but did not. "The United States would not attack either way." Have you ever heard of the Cuban Missile Crisis? "Secondly, think about whether Ronald Reagan did anything to continue the arms race." Are you being serious? How could you overlook him stockpiling nukes and containing communism which was a major part of his legacy? "Or was it his advisers? Or congress? Or his predecessors?" You have provided no evidence to this speculation. "Thank you for this debate." Thank you for your time as well.
Jesus is God not an Angel

Quoting Bible is also called making assumption. In order Bible to be the fact, you required to show, Bible is accurate. But it is not. Easy to prove :Genesis 1:3-5 - "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."- How in universe, it is possible the existence of day and night, evening and morining without planet travelling around star.Genesis 1:6-8 - "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."- Above sky there is water. And Sun floating in water.- Later God created plants before Sun, and how they survived?! (It is rhetoric queston.)Only possible answer is, god created Sun one day later, so plants can survive a single day without Sun. It is FACT that Sun existed even before Earth. So Bible is wrong, wrong, wrong. So you cannot quote something which is proven to be inaccurate to, as a fact to support your argument. There is a word for it, and it is "FALLACY".
Jesus is God not an Angel

My opponent accuses me of using arguments that are based on assumptions. Well, as my reader could see, I already gave the evidences and facts since the first up to the last round of the debate. Am I to repeat myself? 1)) monogenes denotes " only offspring" as its literal rendering albeit "only one of its sort" also fits lexically. The only fact we need is the context per se wherein this word is found in order to determine which of thw two definitions fits. 2)) Based on the Sapiental books both in the inspired Old Testament and the intertestamental books ( i.e. Wisdom of Solomon, book of Sirach) plus with contemporary Jewish Sophilogy in the frist Century (i.e. Philo), the New Testament expressed all of its Wisdom tenets in its very form albeit personalized the personificiation of the divine trait as divine revelation dictates. Proverbs 8:22-31 LXX Psalm 45:1 LXX Psalm 110:3 LXX John 1:1 John 1:14 John 1:18 John 3:16 John 5:18 John 5:24 John 5:26 John 8:58 John 10:28-38 John 17:3 All of these verse points to a single fact: Before creation of the universe and all that is in it, God already has a Son and this Son is his own Wisdom per se. God is eternal Father because he has an eternal offspring. They are not two God's but one because his Son is his own trait of wiseness which denotes their inseparableness to each other. Therefore, the Son is equal to God in nature. 3)) A Son, who has an ability to do this and that but without authority to use it, doesn't mean that he is not of same nature with his Father. This logical stance on Mark 13:35 is based on hermeneutic principles in biblical exegesis and it doesn't in any sense contradicts other scripture and hence, remains acceptable to the Christain faith in all rationality and wisdom. It is evident that it uses anthropomorphism so as to explicate the transcendent deity to us humans. Hence, any arguement against it is automatically null and void for it is utterly logical , rational and scriptural answer per se. 4)) "Jesus didn't say that Elijah was reincarnated. John denies being Elijah in the flesh. He's only Elijah in function not in person.The New Testament rejects foreign teachings not peculiar to its distinctive message." This is the only logical conclusion we can have based o the totality of the Christian Bible as it presents its norms in its one faith. To all readers, You may scrutinize this debate so as to judge wisely who's the winner. Thank You!
Jesus is God not an Angel

1)) The 21st century trusted English Bible ( i.e. The NASB - New American Standard Bible and NKJV - New King James Version) still has those "begotten" word to Christ. They have both historical and linguistic support for its rendering. The theology attached to it is 2000 years old. The Wisdom Theology of the ancient Jews fits in Christian Sophiology. This proves the authenticity and veracity of the Chistian deity as evidently found in both Old Testament including the Intertestamental period. 2))A Son, who has an ability to do this and that but without authority to use it, doesn't mean that he is not of same nature with his Father. The fact that he's God's offspring proves that he is equal to God in nature. 3)) Jesus didn't say that Elijah was reincarnated. John denies being Elijah in the flesh. He's only Elijah in function not in person.The New Testament rejects foreigb teachings not peculiar to its distinctive message.
Jesus is God not an Angel

Jesus is "begotten" son of God.The word begotten is not fon in manuscripts, so in new editions of Bible the word "begotten"is used no more. So, Jesus is not begotten Son. If you knew this you would not use the verse. And it proves my point about recommendation. Jesus is claimed to be, but he never claimed to be. I can say Person X is god, but it will not make him god.My opponent wrote "The fact that Jesus can't use his omniscience at Mark 13:32 because of lack of authority or permission to do so." God who needs permission to do something, is not God.And if Jesus says he does not know, but in "fact" he does know, then he is "liar." And it is not first time he lied : MAT11:11-15 - "I tell you the truth, John the Baptist is greater than any other person ever born, but even the least important person in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John. Since the time John the Baptist came until now, the kingdom of heaven has been going forward in strength, and people have been trying to take it by force. All the prophets and the law of Moses told about what would happen until the time John came. And if you will believe what they said, you will believe that John is Elijah, whom they said would come. Let those with ears use them and listen!"JOHN1:21 - " They asked him, Then who are you? Are you Elijah? He said, I am not. Are you the Prophet? He answered, No." So, Jesus lied about John being Elijah.So God lies also.
Jesus is God not an Angel

My recommendations for opponent, read Bible, little knowledge about Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Humility cannot be attribute of God, if it is then it is hypocrisy. Adam never was a selfish, read the Bible. Adam did not sin when he ate the fruit. Proof: The 5-year old kid steals money. Is it sin. Answer is no, because he does not have the knowledge what is bad or good, what is sin what ii not sin. So, before Adam ate fruit, he did not have necessary knowledge, of good and bad (5-year-old kid example) so he cannot be held responsible for something that he does not no. If you are going to say He did not obey God, so 5-year-old kid also did not obey God.Jesus never said I am YHWH, read the Bible. The sentences from two different languages can be similar, but in the context of that languages they mean two different things, And you cannot compare Greek, which is too poor language in comparison to Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic).I say, "Before Abraham was, I am," and I can prove it using very simple logic, Are you going to worship me, if I prove it, if not, why then you are worshiping Jesus.God has tons of sons in the bible, Are they all Gods? For God sake, Jews are called gods in the Bible, Why you do not worship Jews also?"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'" MAT 7:21-23 Jesus does not know all, in act He does not know the Time of HOUR.The is no indication of trinity in the Bible.
Jesus is God not an Angel

Jeus is neither god, nor angel. If you say Jesus god or angle, then you are making an assumption and you have to prove it, using facts and evidences. When we are (rational people) talk about facts and evidences, people who say Jesus is god bring Bible as evidence, and they say it is "The Evidence", and reason for It being evidence is, Bible is the word of God. When you ask proof for Bible being the Word of God, they say it is revelation, and it goes on, circlular reasoning.Just for sake of argument, let's assume, Bible is word of God. Does it say Jesus is God or man or an angel?!First of all, whatever you say about Jesus, He never said, "I am God" or "Worship me" or "Pray upon me". He always said, The Father is one true God, Worship Him and Pray upon Him.In fact he, says his knowledge is limited, power is given to him, by God. However God is All-Knowing and God is All-Powerfull. Nobody gives to God knowledge or power.Bible never says Jesus is angel."Son of God"If you read whole Bible, you will be suprised how many sons does God have. Even in Psalms, jewish peole are addresed to be gods. THese are all methaphores if you had littlebit knowledge about semitic languages, you will come to know, these verses cannot be taken literally.As Stargate TV Series are scince-fiction, Jesus being God is faith-fiction, based on fictituous ideas.
Jesus is God not an Angel

Jesus is God (in a Trinitarian sense) and not an Angel ( in a Jehovah's witnesses theology). Proof that Jesus is God: Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of the light and the exact imprint of God's nature. Jesus has God's nature. He is equal to God in nature because he is the Son of God ( John 5:18). Jesus is not an ethereal creature but God himself.
Linux vs Windows

If you are a gamer Linux is not what you want most developers don't even make their games for windows and most common applications are not Linux supported. you can't even play indie games because they aren't supported and even some multimedia players aren't on the platform either and Alot of common windows applications aren't supported either such as: Microsoft Office,Microsoft Security Essentials,Paint.Net, are just some of the examples of applications that are not on the Linux platform
Linux vs Windows

I have to study for tests in the next few weeks, so let's get started straight away. The pro is Linux, the con is Windows. I'm aiming for comparison with Windows is Ubuntu, the most-used Linux operating system. First reason, security. Linux actually have fewer security risks, making it more security, which is the top reason for Linux in servers. And if it actually has, most Linux distributions are open-source which means that it can be fixed fast and clean in a few days, rather than Windows' a few WEEKS. Second, YOLO customization. You can go anywhere in this with a big variety in Desktop Environment, icon and theme packs, window manager, whatever. You can even use Hot Corners (available for macOS, Ubuntu, Debian,etc...) to do something quick like hiding your gaming window when your parent come into the room. Thumbs up. Revive your old PC and make it a home theatre machine. Install some lightweight Ubuntu branches like Lubuntu and Xubuntu, and you're done. Look at Windows 10 requirement. If you have a Windows XP machine and wanted to revive it, you're out of luck if you want to install Windows 10 on it. Oh, and what more? Say goodbye to installation wizard (mostly). Almost all Linux distributions have a package manager and an app store, so you can install over command-line or just go up the store. Know what? The apps are mostly free. That's all. Hope I can see some answer from the cons.
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

I have no idea why the hell I am taking you seriously, but whatever. Your claim that all disabled people are beggars and thieves relies on an obivous faulty generalization fallacy. The fact that you are using stock images serves as proof that you are not taking this seriously. The worst part is that you haven't specified that this is not a serious debate; next time put this into the "funny" section. Now let me utilize your own logic to make a counterargument. Everything below this is satire until further specified. Bro, clearly you don't know facts. The facts are that all non-disabled people are thieves, whereas only most disabled people are theives. Look at this picture:. https://pngtree.com...This is my proof; it's about as good as yours. This guy is clearly not disabled, he is healthy and yet he is stealing. What if we gave all beggars 100k annually? 100k/20k is also less than 7. Okay I'm done.
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

Special needs people never do anything productive or useful for society. All they can do is cause trouble and make things difficult on other people. Also, disabled people often are beggars. https://www.alamy.com... Since they basically take money from other people, it's logical to ask them to give more money. A thief must pay back 7 times: Proverbs 6:30-31 says " Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." See, the average beggar in the United States makes around 60 bucks a day. That's about $20,000 to $25,000 each year. And if we only ask them to pay $100,000 a year, that's already very merciful. 100,000/20,000 is less than 7. http://www.mypersonalfinancejourney.com... The average wheelchair costs $100 to $800, depending on size and quality. Many people with cerebral palsy, severe physical disabilities, etc. need wheelchairs. Since they basically waste materials when they are better off dead, they need to pay at least $700 dollars every time they use their wheelchair. If we count using the wheelchair for one day as one "use", then each year they owe the gov't more than $250K dollars. And that doesn't even consider economic inflation and taxes. https://www.karmanhealthcare.com...
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

I believe that physically and mentally disabled people need to pay more taxes to atone for their disability. Disabilities are punishment from God for one's sins. Those sins could include, but are not limited to, rape, murder, theft, and bullying. Sometimes, the sinner/criminal's kids receive a disability. That is why disabled people need to pay $100,000 USD, or the equivalent of their currency, every year they live. Also, disabled people use stuff like wheelchairs and crutches, which really waste material and production costs. With the same amount of material and money, we could build a time machine so we can go back in time and nuke India so they won't stink up the world. Indians today are indeed a problem: https://www.reddit.com...
Black people are significantly less intelligent than white people due to race and genes

Burden of proof lies on any claim made by both pro and con. 2. No semantics, trolling, insults, or logical fallacies. 3. Do not accuse the other party of a fallacy without an explanation. 4. Statements starting in "In my opinion. .. " "Well, actually. .. " or "I think that. .. " etc. are not allowed. 5. This debate is a debate of facts and statistics, not opinions or feelings. 6. No new arguments, Introducing new sources, or accusations of burden of proof in the final round. 7. No forfeiting 8. Be respectful I will be arguing as Pro (for) the argument that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.
Abortion Is Wrong

Short snappy answers are fine, I don't mind. You better make sure they have solid grounding though. And I gave us 10,000 characters just to be safe. I don't think any of us will near that limit, but better safe than sorry. And yes, I am about as pro-life as they come. Well to begin, abortion is the act of terminating a human life. Why? Well first, from the moment of conception, the fetus has all 46 chromosomes necessary to be considered a human, and it contains the entire set of DNA for it to be considered a completely unique individual. Now I will admit, the fetus does not have cognitive brain function, it doesn't even possess the ability to recognize its own existence. These arguments though hold no weight when you take a look at them. I'll explain why. First, if this fetus has less value simply due to its lack of a cognitive brain and a low level of development, then the same claim could be applied to a 6-year old girl and an 18-year old girl. You see, the 6-year old is not yet fully developed, there are many changes in a women's body when they go through puberty. But just because one is more developed than the other, does not mean one has more value. A cognitive brain is simply a function not yet developed in a human fetus, just like larger breasts is something not yet developed yet in 6-year old girls. Now if you claim we can kill it because it doesn't have the desire to live, or they don't know they're alive, that is also flawed logic, for the moment you say someone is worthless because they don't care to live, then you say a sleeping human is worthless. Someone who is at rest, sleeping away, has no more desire to live than a fetus in the womb does, but it would be considered an atrocious crime to kill him in his sleep, just as it should be. Now I don't exactly have you're beliefs to argue against, I'm only shooting in the dark, so I will let you explain why a fetus is not human/ valued.
Abortion Is Wrong

Listen, I'm following your debate right now: "The Big One: Abortion..." or something like that. And I'd love to have a debate with you. Same rules would apply as stated in the debate you're in right now. If you're too busy right now with other debates, that's completely fine, but I'd still like to chat with you about it or debate. I'm not sure if this is my first argument, so I guess this will just be an acceptance round. We'll have 3 other rounds to argue our sides. I'm really excited about all this even though I'm relatively new to debating (this will be only my second debate on this site). Thanks, and I hope to have a good debate.
Humans are the main cause of global warming

What is a greenhouse gas? Wikipedia says: A greenhouse gas is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. [1] 1. CO2 is increasing. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) as of June 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000"2009. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present before industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources. [2] The burning of fossil fuels has caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise from 280 ppm to 397 ppm. [1] 2. Methane is increasing, too. In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic was at 1850 nmol/mol, which is over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years before the industrial revolution. The Earth's atmospheric methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750, and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases (Excluding water vapour). [3] 3. Did the temperature rise? Statics say yes. The graph at [4] shows that it has risen by roughly 0.6 Degrees C. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
Humans are the main cause of global warming

The CON must prove humans do not play a significant role in global warming. I recommend a experienced debater that opposes global warming to debate with me. EDIT: Per Ron-Paul's request, the resolution is changed and the voting period is now 1 month. My Starting Arguments: Yes, the Earth is warming. Since the early 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 0.8 "C (1.4 "F), with about two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980.[1] Is it caused mainly by humans? Humans have increased the amount of Co2, a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases increase the Earth's temperature. "Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural "sinks" involved in the carbon cycle."[2] Plus, global warming could cause ice cap melting. Dan Miller said that the ice caps can be gone by 2020. (From video) http://www.youtube.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is US doing more harm or good to stop ISIS

That's why the president has the State of The Union as a plan to tell America how their money will be spent. While we are spending money oversees, their are benefits from it. "As of today, March 5, 2015, the United States has spent over $2 billion to fight ISIS since June of last year " and that"s probably an underestimate, since Congress in December approved $5 billion in spending against ISIS for fiscal year 2015. President Obama has asked for an additional $5.3 billion for fiscal year 2016." (1) As you can see, America has a plan on how money will be spent on stopping isis, besides wouldn't you want to stop something before it becomes worse? Think of all of the hardships ISIS has caused for us. "Approximately 4,000 Americans have been killed in terrorist attacks since 1970, including the atrocities of September 11, 2001. Since Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Peace Accords in September 1993, at least 53 Americans have been murdered by Palestinian terrorism. The list does not include American servicemembers killed on active duty. (2) Cites: (1) https://www.nationalpriorities.org... (2) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...