BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
angel=demon

so which type of demon is not a fallen angel?a demon rising, is an angel, demons are angels im talking about, the guy believing in unicorn heaven that you disagree with, you are an atheist todisbelief is belief to the contrary, you say yes to the priest while a guy that says get out of here lier, is an atheist.. unless he knows the bible is false or a lie..angel=positive=up=addingdemon=negative=down=retractingadding is retracting, you cant add without retracting.. you cant put an apple on the table without taking it from somewhere or letting go of it
angel=demon

My opponent asks me to point out a flaw. The flaw is that all that they have stated that actually makes any sense is that 1 type of angels are demons. Yes, I know that you have stated that an angel is a demon rising. Explain to me what a demon rising is, since you have failed to define the terminology. I agree, demons do equal negative energy but that statement has no purpose in this debate. I also agree, that angels are equal to belief and belief is equal to positivity. I disagree that a demon is equal to disbelief since by belief I am assuming that you mean the belief in God. In order to believe in the Christian God or various other Gods that believe in Hell then you still believe in the Devil. Maybe Satan does have angels, however if Satan does then God definitely does and there is more evidence to back up this claim than there is to back up your claim. Since you have made this claim without a source I feel that I should not be critisized for making my claim without a source since it is a more well known fact that God has angels than it is a known fact that Satan does.
Justin Bieber

I am assuming the the resolution is entitled: Justin Bieber is a talented singer, as CON has not expanded on this subject. Please contest this resolution, Con, if you disagree, in the next round or comments. I am assuming the first round is for acceptance only, as Con has not posted any arguments. Okay let's get into some definitions:talented: having natural ability or aptitude. . http://dictionary.reference.com...singer: someone who sings. http://dictionary.reference.com...Burden of ProofAs Pro, I must prove that Justin Bieber is a talented singer. As Con, Dunnuck must prove that Justin Bieber is talentless and is "trash".
Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'NIGGER'

Your profile picture is of a man choking a woman...yeah, I get the idea that you're a nut. The n word IS hate speech, actually. So is chink, spick, and all the other ethnic slurs. It's not that hard to figure out. Calling anybody something because of their skin color is wrong, because within a particular race, people can be very different. Martin Luther King Jr. was black. O.J. Simpson is black. They're totally different people, they're both just black. These are kindergarten level ethics. I hope your mother washes your dirty little mouth out with soap, ya lug nut. Nigga and Nigger are not the same word. One is used by the race, the other is used against the race. However, I do not advocate either word. I prefer if black people use the word "friend". It carries a lot less heat. The other day, a black guy said the milder version of the n word, and a black lady told him to knock it off, so some black people hate it. And that makes sense. They're both highly derogatory. Black people use it to sound cool. It's about as cool as trying heroin. Not cool. The two words are not just the same word pronounced by white and black people. Black people pronounce things in the same way white people do, our speech is the same. Our vocal cords are the same. Some pronounce it incorrectly, but I have heard black people pronounce it either way. They can pronounce things correctly if they want to. Have some respect for other races you bigot. Black people use the n word because, after centuries of hearing it, it has become ingrained in their skulls until they can no longer stop associating themselves with it. We should tell them to knock it off, because some people find it utterly disrespectful. Neither white or black people should use the word. It's evil.
Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'NIGGER'

Nigger and nigga are exactly the same word. One is simply how black people pronounce the word as they have difficulty pronouncing everything. They’ll pronounce giner as ginga or trigger as trigga. It’s mildly ignorant that you’d assume a black person pronouncing the ‘err’ of a word as an ‘ahh’ is trying to use a completely different word. Have some respect for other cultures you bigot.If we can stop denying the truth and assert that black people are indeed using the word ‘nigger’ only pronounced as ‘nigga’ on a regular basis, then we can also assert that by denying specifically white people from using said word, an act of racial prejudice is being enacted upon white people.For arguments sake a black person would get away with saying ‘nigger.’So I ask you Frank. Why do black people get to use the word ‘nigga’ or ‘nigger’ while white people cannot and is this racist against white people?
Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'NIGGER'

The moment I saw this debate, the very MOMENT I saw it, I knew it was you. Hello, Masterful. Here we are yet again, with a disgusting piece of garbage that you made for no reason other than to irk me. Well, I'm going to tackle it. "Nigger" is hate speech. It's the most vile, contemptible word that mankind has ever uttered. I am not black, but I know this for a fact. It was used in the south as a way of degrading those who were forced to toil in the fields of blood with no pay and no freedom. Even suggesting that the word is OK is wrong. It is a slur, and black people do not wish to hear it, and if they do not wish to hear it, then they do not have to. It is not protected under free speech. It is a word which is profane and lewd, and, just like the f word, if you go out on the street and start yelling it out, the cops will come and arrest you as a raving lunatic. It is not the same as "nigga". Nigga is a word used to express companionship among black cohorts, and is a word exclusive to the black lexicon, essentially meaning "friend". In reality, neither one should be said, and an educated black person will tell you that they're equally detestable. "Nigga" evolved from "nigger," because, I suppose, after centuries of hearing that slur, black people decided to adopt it as their own, ironically. They should not have. Both words are hideous, evil carryovers of a time when people were judged for the color of their skin. Both words are unacceptable and should not be uttered by civilized people under any circumstances. I await your next argument, Masterful.
Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'NIGGER'

Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'Nigger' it's not hate speech and is protected under free speech, as you can't get arrested for it.Nigga is the same word as nigger, it's just having big lips makes you drop your vowels apparently. I am giving black people the privilage to accept this debate on the condition that-1) You do not speak about chicken.2) You do use proper 'white man' grammar. No saying 'Ohh hell naw' or whatever it is you people say.3) Do not sling sh*t.4) 'OOO EEE AHH AHH!' Is not an argument.
Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'NIGGER'

Black people have been trained to use the n word. people have said to to them for eons and eons of time, why shouldn't they begin to associate it with themselves? It's simple psychology that, when they hear it enough, they start saying it. If I said "Watermelon" to you over and over again, you'd start saying it too. Simple mental suggestion. They should not use it to mean "friend," it means much more than "friend". It refers to skin color, something that does not affect in any way how a person acts or behaves. Terms also come about because of where the person grew up. If his parents told him to say something disgusting, he'd say it. Children of any race are impressionable, so parents of all races should refrain from using profanity or ethnic slurs around them. If raised well, a child can be well behaved and mature. If they are not raised well, their conceptions of the world are incorrect. I assume that's how your childhood was. The black man can help himself from using offensive vocabulary, and he should, because many, many people have grown tired of that word, a word which speaks loads and loads of hatred. We can all refrain from speaking it. We should all refrain from speaking it. It is a disgrace to humanity that, over a century after the civil war, we still use it so callously and without any remorse for the decades of death we have imposed on people. Nobody should use it. That's my argument, essentially. I guess I have gotten off on a few tangents over the course of this debate. Please forgive me for that. My opponent wants everybody to use it. I want nobody to use it. Black people are not racist to white people. Rarely, maybe, but mostly it is the other way around, and we and our ancestors should be put in prison for the unspeakable acts of cruelty we inflicted on them. Except for me and my ancestors. During the civil war, my ancestors lived in Canada. We had nothing to do with slavery. Nobody should say that word. It should be banned, thrown from the dictionary, buried in the ground, dead. It should never have existed, no racism should ever have existed, so why does it exist now? Why do we prolong its existence? It's evil, evil speech, and nobody should use it, whether they're black or white or Asian or Russian. Context doesn't matter, it's a word that came from Satan's fart. Vote fairly, judges.
Everyone should be allowed to say the word 'NIGGER'

"Black people use the n word because, after centuries of hearing it, it has become ingrained in their skulls" This is simply a fallacy. My opponent seems to believe that black people are constantly saying 'nigger' because it has been ingrained in their skulls over the generations, as if it has been bred into them, as if they cannot help themselves. This logic is racist and disgusting. His stance is for white people to not say the word, as if white people need to show the black man they're better than them. It is not that the black man cannot help himself saying the word like my opponent would have you believe, rather, the black man has embraced the word as part of his culture and language. The issue is, the black man has claimed this word and will attack anyone who says it whom is not of his skin color. Is that not the very definition of racism? We white men can not deny the black man the use of the word, nor should they be able to deny us the use of the word. If the word 'nigger' is hate speech, then why do black people openly use it to refer to their friends? The answer is obvious. Because you will be judged by what you say based on the color of your skin. My stance is to abolish this racism and allow free speech to be enacted by all. Stop this anti-white racism. So while my opponent is arguing semantics and trying to separate the words 'nigger' and 'nigga' (which by the way, neither can be said by the white man) Let me remind you that anything can be made into hate speech if said in a hateful context. We should evaluate hate speech based on the context of what was said, rather than the color of the speakers skin. The message is simple. Don't deny or attempt to control what people say, it's their right to say any word so long as it's not a threat of violence.
Proof does not exist.

To clarify, my position is not that absolute truth does not exist; rather, it is that there is no way of knowing or constructing an argument which could prove its existence. Therefore, I am refuting the evidence, not the statement itself.DefinitionsProve - "to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc." (Merriam-Webster)1) Unknown source of inputMy argument is that no evidence can show the truth of anything without making a leap of faith, and I refer to the concept of subjectivity. If it is accepted that conscious beings respond to stimuli from an unverifiable external source, all external information cannot be used as evidence to support any absolute truth. What that leaves is computations occurring from within an observer.2) Logic is limited by unverifiable assumptionsWhat is commonly used to support a concept or idea is logic. However, logic is limited by the assumptions one makes. If two people share similar assumptions in an argument, the logical position wins.John is a musician. If two people believe that all musicians are poor, and yet one of those two people claims that John is rich, one of them would be logically inconsistent. Logic, considering those assumptions, would dictate that John be poor.Therefore, the limitation of logic is clear. John may be poor, or John may be rich; the logic itself does not verify which is the truth. Logic is only as true as the associations or assumptions an observer makes.The pre-requisite for true, validating logic is true, valid assumptions. The idea that the universe exists, for example, is an assumption that is necessary in order to carry out many logical discussions. Similar to the example of the two people who believe that musicians are poor, it is likely that both debaters agree that the universe exists. But that assumption can not be proven, and thus the logic is not necessary valid.I'd like to remind my opponent that the burden of proof lies on him.
Proof does not exist.

I will attempt to argue the position that there is no way to prove anything. Despite our mortality, we humans tend to operate under the god-like assumption that what we perceive and think is true, but can anything truly be proven from a subjective observer? As I claim that proof does not exist, I don't believe the burden of proof, of proof, lies on me. Please use logic and/or evidence to support the idea that proof does exist, and that subjective observers can actually know something with absolute certainty.
Michelle Obama's Comments "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country"

Il will use this round to argue against the feelings my opponent poured over the last couple of rounds. Like I earlier said, Mrs Obama made the claim that she was proud of her country. Your debate was about her not being proud of the said nation. I hope you and the readers recognize this fact. Mrs Obama is proud of her country. In other words, you worded the title of your debate in an inappropriate manner, perhaps out of the passion you feel against what she represents. On this point alone, I should win the debate. I could close, but I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. "...because the only thing she's proud of her country of doing is voting for her husband..." What you are doing is calling into question her integrity. She clearly made the claim that the voting was not the reason she was proud of her country. The reason for her pride is the fact that "people are hungry for change." I'll tell you why she is right to be ashamed of everything that has happened in her adult life. Blood for oil. How many people has this country caused to die in its search for oil? Can anybody be proud of a country that kills other people for its financial interests (pardon my statement, the financial interest of its elite???? - Two Gulf Wars)? You mentioned aid to Africa. How many of the dictators that rob Africa of its worth has Washington had ties with over the years? Mobutu? He visited Washington in during Mrs Obama's adult years, that was 1993 http://en.wikipedia.org.... What is there to be proud about when red and blue cannot come together and talk? Whats there to be proud when inexistent voters decide the outcome of an election (2000, 2004). What is there to be proud when the racial undertone of this debate is so heavy, its title might as well be "don't let the half black man and his black wife into the white house". "Do u want a Presidents who's wife can't do that...because the only thing she's proud of her country of doing is voting for her husband..." We want a president who can bring law makers together to solve problems that are plaguing this country. Medicare and Medicaid are in a state of decay. We want a leader who can do those. Ohhh, about his wife...she could or could not be proud of her country. She has enough reasons not to be. That says nothing about her abilities as a first lady. If some parties cannot get away with it, it is because they put themselves in such situations This ought to make my opinionated and open minded readers and my opponent think.
Michelle Obama's Comments "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country"

Welll,...My opponent has failed to reply so ley my arguements stand: Round 1: "This is absolutly ridiculous. Obama was born in 1964, meaning her adult life began in 1982. So...she was never proud when we tore down the Berlin Wall?...When we have sent billions of dollars in relief to Africa for AIDS?...In her countries courage after 9-11 to stand up and live another day?...The Civil Rights Act of 1991?...and only now when her husband is winning the election she decides to be proud of her country... Do we really want a President who's First Lady isnt proud of her country???" and Round 2: "But she's "proud" for the wrong reasons. the reason she's proud is the people are voting for her husband...who happens to be black...thats ridiculous... if she's proud were making strives for equality then why wasn't whe proud when we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991???...To be proud for the first time in fer adult like which has lasted 26 years...:-o...thats ridiculous... To be a First Lady you have to represent the United States and you have to be proud for all the positive things its don in the last 26 years (tearing the Berlin Wall down, senting billions of dollars in relief to Africa for AIDS, Civil Rights Act of 1991, its courage after 9/11) Just to name a couple...Do u want a Presidents who's wife can't do that...because the only thing she's proud of her country of doing is voting for her husband..." So pease come back and defend urself...please
Michelle Obama's Comments "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country"

But she's "proud" for the wrong reasons. the reason she's proud is the people are voting for her husband...who happens to be black...thats ridiculous... if she's proud were making strives for equality then why wasn't whe proud when we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991???...To be proud for the first time in fer adult like which has lasted 26 years...:-o...thats ridiculous... To be a First Lady you have to represent the United States and you have to be proud for all the positive things its don in the last 26 years (tearing the Berlin Wall down, senting billions of dollars in relief to Africa for AIDS, Civil Rights Act of 1991, its courage after 9/11) Just to name a couple...Do u want a Presidents who's wife can't do that...because the only thing she's proud of her country of doing is voting for her husband... Do i have to say it again... ... ... ... ... ...Ridiculous
Michelle Obama's Comments "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country"

This is absolutly ridiculous...I heard this on the News and i was outraged...If you hadn't heard them then then this is the whole thing straight from the mouth of the potential "First Lady": "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country … not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change," she said. "I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment." This is absolutly ridiculous. Obama was born in 1964, meaning her adult life began in 1982. So...she was never proud when we tore down the Berlin Wall?...When we have sent billions of dollars in relief to Africa for AIDS?...In her countries courage after 9-11 to stand up and live another day?...The Civil Rights Act of 1991?...and only now when her husband is winning the election she decides to be proud of her country... Do we really want a President who's First Lady isnt proud of her country??? I set up the pins so someone please try to knock 'em down... ... ... ... ... ...
Should the government end welfare in the US.

A welfare state is a concept of government in which the state plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of its citizens. It is based on the principles of equality of opportunity, equitable distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of economic and social organization.[1] The sociologist T.H. Marshall identified the welfare state as a distinctive combination of democracy, welfare, and capitalism. Scholars have paid special attention to the historic paths by which Germany, Britain and other countries developed their welfare state. http://en.wikipedia.org... We are not unique in a civilized world that we would want to take responsibility, to feel a duty to be a citizen of this country by paying forward the possibility of giving someone a decent start. We are unique at this time that we are becoming a throwback to what we are to satiate our own personal desires. Almost all civilized forms of government have some form of welfare. We are a civilized world. We as a civilized race should be concerned about the well being of the citizens. One reason is purely ethical. In a place where there is so much wealth, there should not be children going hungry. People should not be sleeping in the street. We should have more pride as a educated public to ignore the fact that not everyone can be over 21, white and healthy, as my grandpa used to say, if you have been so fortunate to not be needing the essentials of life, you should be happy to help those less fortunate. The second reason is much more important, we have worked hard as a civilization to wipe out diseases that kill. If people cannot afford to get shots, those diseases will come back. They may morph into a disease that becomes unresponsive to therapy. You then may get a disease that will kill you or your family, because you did not want to help out those less fortunate. There are rules that people used to follow. The Golden Rule. There but for the Grace of God goes I... We as a people, a government and as families should have more feeling for our neighbors, family and friends than to let them go hungry. It is against God and it is against the morality of humanity to become the results of the Seven Deadly Sins. Ask yourself if you want to be greed, or gluttony, etc. I hope we can rethink the immoral way we are treating people and become the people we should be.