BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans are stupid

I am pretty sure if I say "Indian are stupid" or "german are stupid" or "Polish are stupid", they'll get mad at me and say that those are offensive. In your view, I would just say you guys are all STUPID!!!! In another word, the whole world is stupid because I think their country is stupid and they say that it's offensive. "The debate is 'American are stupid', not 'All American are stupid' " Why not add the word "some"? You also forgot a country. The North Korea. What amazes me is that they waste most of their resources on the statue of their leaders and the military. Also, you forgot other country. I am pretty sure many countries (Especially the First World countries), remember sports trivia, celebrity gossip, entertainment news, music lyrics, movie trivia,Tv trivia, etc. Good Debate! (Equivalent of GG)
Americans are stupid

The debate is "Americans are stupid", not "All Americans are stupid".I have shown that American are stupid at one thing or another.Not all Americans are stupid when it comes to math (for example), but the ones smart at math can be stupid at something else.Considering the amount of stupidity in America, I would say that most Americans are stupid when it comes to a topic they should know about (science, math, history, politics, civics, law, geography, foreign languages, etc.)What amazes me is that most Americans are well educated on things like sports trivia, celebrity gossip, entertainment news, music lyrics, movie trivia, TV trivia, Bible versus and other worthless knowledge. The time and brain power wasted on such things is really stupid.Just the fact that this debate "offends" or is meaningful to some Americans shows how stupid they are. It's a debate.So compared to the populations of other countries, Americans are, indeed, stupid.Thanks for the debate.
Americans are stupid

First of all, may I point out that the statistic did NOT say 100% of Americans can't spell the simple words or don't believe in evolution. Therefore, not all Americans is stupid. Second of all, most of the the number of Americans that is "stupid" is half or less than half. 50% of American can't spell. HALF of the 18-24 year-old couldn't locate New York. I'll admit defeat on the Ohio part. 29/196 is about 30/200. 30/200=15%. 1/3= 33.3333333333% I will admit defeat on the Angel part. Youtube part: How old is that video? 1/4=25%. LESS THAN 50%. Can I also point out that some of the Pro's resources is outdated?
Americans are stupid

American are stupid. http://youtu.be...50% of Americans can't spell simple words.http://www.medindia.net...The most recent National Geographic/Roper Poll (2006) found that half the 18–24-year-old Americans surveyed could not locate New York on a map of the United States, and nearly 6 in 10 could not locate Ohio.http://www.esri.com...In mathematics, 29 nations and other jurisdictions outperformed the United States by a statistically significant margin, up from 23 three years ago,http://www.npr.org...One-third of Americans don’t believe in evolutionhttp://www.foxnews.com... Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in angelshttp://www.cbsnews.com...Americans don't have a clue about Astronomyhttp://youtu.be...1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth, Survey Sayshttp://www.npr.org...I can go on and on...but I think I made the point.
The Trinity is Not a Bible Teaching

We, as humans, are each an individual person. Being made in the image of God, here we have a reason to believe that God is an individual person as well. God has given us logical minds to understand the creation and its creator. When we use our logical minds, the trinity seems illogical. How can Jesus be God and God's Son at the same time? How can he be fully human and fully God at the same time? How can three equal one? Obviously, Trinitarians have explanations for these things. Logically speaking, Con has the burden of proof to adequately prove the trinity adequately. In the absence of convincing arguments, the natural default doctrine is that God is one individual person. Bible verses Trinitarians try to use are easily refuted. Therefore, without good reasons to believe otherwise, it is logical to believe that the son and Father are separate beings just as it is logical to assume Moses had two arms unless there is valid evidence he had three. I have been busy, so I didn't have time to make my argument much longer, but we can all participate in the debate now in the comments with more detail!
Unions need to be made MUCH easier to form

You CANT have it BOTH ways. Either Unions are GOOD for employees or BAD, you don' get both. USUALLY the Republican talking point is that Unions are SO good to employees that it is IMPOSSIBLE to FIRE someone in a Union. First of all, i WISH that were the case, because employees NEED protection from their employers. I've worked in HR for McDonald's, Walmart, Coca Cola,, Hewlett Packard, AT & T, United Health and they ALL had the SAME entry level employee ABUSIVE behavior towards those at that bottom of the ladder
Unions need to be made MUCH easier to form

Unions get more workers fired and less hired. When they force employers to give them higher wages and benefits, the end result is the employers being forced to give them less hours, lay off more, and hire less. Contrary to what Bernie Sanders wants you to believe, not all employers are evil vampires sucking on the system. A lot of employers are just out there trying to run their business the best they can, and when unions interfere, that hurts both the employer and employee. More power to unions = a worse economy for everyone
Unions need to be made MUCH easier to form

You're right, you can't have it both ways. In fact, there's only one way you can have it; bad. Bad for the job market as a whole, and bad for the employers. If you start at the bottom, of course you're not going to get special treatment. But that's the whole point of working, so that you can move up the ladder, not so you can just be handed benefits on a silver platter. http://www.investopedia.com...
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

Don't play the punk pity party with me the way you KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY p**S people off to gain your sad pathetic attention. Oh and yeah, my mother died due to bone cancer in the most horrific of ways. My father who is a millionaire several times over called me up and asked me when I could come on up and say my goodbyes. I give him the date and he says "nope I have to wait another 30 days because the airplane fair will be another $150 cheaper. That night I would have been there, she died you s.o.b. I have to live with this, my dad doesn't. AND both my brother and sister took my father's side and said "That's dad". Needless to say I do not talk to ANY of my family anymore. That's only a billionth of what I have been through and I could tell you of others who have had it far far far worse. I could easily tell you true stories that would turn your pathetic soul black. You have it super easy as you prey on others for attention.
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

No. You are just a jacka$$eth holiness who is a true child who thinks he can come on in here and f--k up people's debates and play in the grown up's league because he wants attention that mommy and daddy nor his stuffed animals gives him during his first bubble bath chewing gum to see which tree he can get stuck to the longest. WE who are p**sed off at you never asked you to take up arguments in which your utter lack of intelligence and edumacation and intelligence CLEARLY shows, so that leaves you unqualified for ANY debate that you've signed up for. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say, which is 0. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. http://www.youtube.com...;"Christians don't understand the character of God" 6:45 or watch the entire thing. http://www.youtube.com...;Atheist Experience 21.49 with Tracie Harris and Don Baker. Call starts at approx 47:30. Picks up after a long introduction 54:45 and really gets into it 1:03:30 - 1:11:30. Pay attention everybody to vidie #2 and how YOU as a christian can easily misinterpret YOUR bible which is one of the reasons why YOUR god would --- NEVER --- use text as a form of communication. Don Baker, one of the hosts here in the vidie also briefly mentions it. And he's 100% correct! Rules:For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.dsjpk5will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Consitution

Attack on my opppnents case: :First, all citizens DESERVE the same rights, but those rights can be limited based on actions and/or circumstances. :For instance a criminal loses the right to bear arms because of their criminal act. Thus, the idea that positive rights :cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. The rights granted to citizens are limited based on actions and/or circumstances. BUT, birth should not be one of those circumstances. What does birth have anything to do with your ability to run a country? NOTHING. :Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. I am not stating this idea. I am merely suggesting that the circumstances in which such rights would be GRANTED need to be changed. You have been mistaken. :Second, I would argue that some rights are privileges, or something that must be earned. Not all rights are given to :you at birth. E.g. life Some rights are priviliges indeed. Thus, the circumstances in which we can aquire such privilges should be equal. We all get a chance at these privilages. "All men are created equal." This quote is contradicted when we do not allow equal means to equal privilages. :In the case of a natural born citizen vs. any other person, the natural born citizen would most likely have no other :loyalties to a foreign sovereign state. The natural born citizen has been a US citizen for his/her whole life, whereas a :citizen that came from another country has had past loyalties, not to the US. Can we not have such loyalities to other foreign nations and still be highly qualified for Presidency? Relations with other nations have no effect on a persons ability to run a country. :Basically the natural born citizen is the most appropriate pick to fill the top office in dealing with the contractual duties :of the US (People --> Government --> People Can you tell me reasons why this is so? :The natural born citizen has no other sovereign loyalties and thus has a clear contractual duty with only the US. Not ONE person has suggested or insinuated that one who has had other soveriegn loyalties can NOT have clear contractual duties to only with the U.S. And who are we to assume that they have even had other sovereign loyalties. They could have moved here when they were young children or babies. We need to judge someones ability for Presidency not on their birth location which they had NO control over.
Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Consitution

I'll go AC, then NC AC Premises: 1. All men are created equal 2. All legal citizens deserve the same rights 3. All legal citizens (natural born or not) deserve the right to be eligible for president I concede premise 1. 2. All citizens deserve the same rights --> I have 2 responses: First, all citizens DESERVE the same rights, but those rights can be limited based on actions and/or circumstances. For instance a criminal loses the right to bear arms because of their criminal act. Thus, the idea that positive rights cannot be taken away is totally fallacious. Second, I would argue that some rights are privileges, or something that must be earned. Not all rights are given to you at birth. E.g. life 3. All legal citizens (natural born or not) deserve the right to be eligible for president --> This will take use directly to the NC: I negate: Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution Contention I: Social Contract Theory Ronald Reagan once said that "A nation without borders is no nation at all." This quote can be sufficient negation of the resolution and links in to the social contract theory. Also, it can be taken literally and philosophically. We will look at it from a philosophic angle. In the case of a natural born citizen vs. any other person, the natural born citizen would most likely have no other loyalties to a foreign sovereign state. The natural born citizen has been a US citizen for his/her whole life, whereas a citizen that came from another country has had past loyalties, not to the US. Now, link this in to the SC Theory. Basically the natural born citizen is the most appropriate pick to fill the top office in dealing with the contractual duties of the US (People --> Government --> People). The natural born citizen has no other sovereign loyalties and thus has a clear contractual duty with only the US. Furthermore, link this idea into the Reagan quote. The only way to have a legitimate (philosophically) nation is if it has borders and a contract between people and state. If not, it is not a nation anymore and lacks sovereignty. For this reason you can negate.
Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Consitution

"All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is implemented at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Denying the right for all legal citizens to be eligible for Presidency is contradicting what our founding fathers set forth for us over 200 years ago. Because all legal citizens should be entitled to a full set of equal rights and since all citizens are equally American, I stand in resolute affirmation of this idea. It states in Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution that no person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States may be eligible for Presidential office. By stating this in the constitution, are we condemning others for where they were born by denying this right? Should we be punishing others for wherever they were born, which they had absolutely no control over? This is utterly ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd and contradictory for the so called, "Melting Pot" to deny this right to immigrants. All legal citizens whether they be natural born or not, should be entitled to an equal set of rights as stated in my first contention. Being a natural born citizen of the United States does not make you more qualified than someone who was not. We should judge someone who is qualified for Presidency, not by where they were born, but by their passion, knowledge and character. Holding such absurd principles that we have now defies the fundamental principles of our nation. If one doesn't have to be a natural born citizen to hold a position in the House or Senate, then why is one denied the right for Presidency? After all, isn't the sole purpose of the checks and balance system to maintain equal power among all three? If this is so, shouldn't the same qualifications apply for the same amount of power? Not allowing the same standards for all three goes against the sole purpose of this system. In addition, being born in America does not make you more "American" than others. Where you were born is by chance, not by choice. But we have the choice to amend the constitution and follow what rights our founding fathers granted to us. In summation, because being a natural born citizen does not make you more qualified than someone who others and all citizens are equally American, I urge you to amend Article 2 Section1 of the United States Constitution.
Amend Article 2 Section 1 of the Consitution

"The rights granted to citizens are limited based on actions and/or circumstances. BUT, birth should not be one of those circumstances. What does birth have anything to do with your ability to run a country? NOTHING." --> Extend my logic I placed in my NC. "I am not stating this idea. I am merely suggesting that the circumstances in which such rights would be GRANTED need to be changed. You have been mistaken." --> I was merely making an observation as a reason to not vote on that issue. "Some rights are priviliges indeed. Thus, the circumstances in which we can aquire such privilges should be equal. We all get a chance at these privilages. "All men are created equal." This quote is contradicted when we do not allow equal means to equal privilages." --> You totally misunderstand the context of that quote. When Jefferson stated this he was talking about the inalienable rights. Life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness. This has nothign to do with qualifications to be president. "Can we not have such loyalities to other foreign nations and still be highly qualified for Presidency? Relations with other nations have no effect on a persons ability to run a country." --> Yes, it would have major impact. For example; lets say that we get a President who was born and lived a lot of his life in Argentina. And then during his presidency Argentina gets in a war. His loyalty to that nation would be the primary reason why we would fight for them, instead of looking at the circumstance. A president must have no other loyalties then the country he is serving, namely the US. "Can you tell me reasons why this is so?" --> My NC case. SC theory and intertwined with other loyalties. "Not ONE person has suggested or insinuated that one who has had other soveriegn loyalties can NOT have clear contractual duties to only with the U.S. And who are we to assume that they have even had other sovereign loyalties. They could have moved here when they were young children or babies. We need to judge someones ability for Presidency not on their birth location which they had NO control over. --> If there are other loyalties, other contract so to speak could be formed. Ok, that is true, but then what their families who have loyalties as well. "Power by the throne" is an important issue. Again, another stab at the contractual duties to the country. [Extensions] 1. Basically extend all logic off the NC (my case) because she never refuted it, she jsut asked me a question about it. Thus she has conceded and can be extended. For these reasons you can negate.
Capitalism

I am challenging the user, thebestdebate, to this debate. Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be 1 less than the total number of rounds since I am not using round 1 for argument. This is to keep the number of rounds used for argument even between us.3) The last round used for argument should just be rebuttals to your opponent's argument and/or a conclusion. No new arguments in this round. There can be new facts and statistics brought up in this round, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.Definitions:Capitalism: "an economic system based on private ownership of the menas of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets" [1]Private Property: "a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities."[2] I only defined what I felt was necessary for my arguments against capitalism. If my opponent wishes to define more terms that are part of the definition of capitalism I selected, they may do so. They're not important to me for my argument though. Additionally, if my opponent has an issue with my definitions or rules, they may say so in the comments before accepting the debate, and then we can discuss alternative rules/definitions and I will change either one depending on what we discussed.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
what better fererari or honda civic

Honda civic actually is a much better option in certain areas. Engine swaps are much easier to preform in a civic then any ferrai. The reason for this is because there is much more room for the engine. You can put a much faster and more powerful engine than a ferrai. It also has much room in the trunk so youll be able to go to the store and get your groceries. you also wont have to constantly worry about your car and have pictures taken.
Is trump a booly

Seeing as my opponent only allows a maximum of 500 characters, I will be brief. 1. Many people insulted by Trump attacked him first. 2. People who personally know Trump don't think he's mean, like Rudy Giuliani. 3. You can't be 'racist' towards Muslims (religion) and Mexicans (nationality). His plans target illegal immigrants and radical Islamic terrorists only anyway. 4. His website lists policies like healthcare, taxes, gun rights, etc. 5. America needs a strong outsider leader.
Is trump a booly

I believe trump is a meany booly because he insults people is a bad influence and is generally mean. He also is racist towards Muslims And mexicans. He insults people with disabilities and had absolutely no policies except build a wall. He is unfit for presidency and is not what we want to be our nations representation and we don't want him as a role model. He is a mean bully of a person. Trump for Detention 2016 With the principal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chicken and Waffles Are Better Than Bacon, Egg, and Cheese

If timeliness is such a concern for my opponent, then why is he worrying about "leaving the eggs out" anyway? If he's rushing off so quickly that he can only eat a nasty pile of boxed, microwave chicken and a sheet of toasted flour, then why is he suggesting I sit and stare at my eggs until they go cold? Should I put them in the freezer too so he can actually be right for a change? Heat retention is a non-issue. As for protein, 4 strips of bacon and 2 eggs already has as much or more protein than a serving of chicken strips (8-12 being the average numbers). I, myself, tend to eat more eggs and bacon than that though, because I'm not a child. Quit comparing a full serving of your nasty box chicken to a single piece of crispy bacon. We're talking breakfast vs. breakfast here, are we not? Simple fact: bacon and eggs has more protein. When you add in the eggs, the whole meal nutrient density of bacon and eggs makes chicken and waffles look like nutrient-free cardboard.
Chicken and Waffles Are Better Than Bacon, Egg, and Cheese

Thank you for debating. Unfortunately, my opponent has made a "from better to worse" fallacy. If we were to compare Eggo waffles and frozen chicken strips to a Jimmy Dean breakfast sandwich instead, then it would be all the more obvious why chicken and waffles are better than bacon, egg, and cheese. Likewise, a freshly poured Belgian waffle is a scrumptious marvel and still takes less time than it takes to fry bacon and eggs, and the depth of a piece of fried, baked, or even grilled chicken leaves much more meat after the fat sizzles away. I will leave it up to the voting readers to judge which has more protein - a smaller or larger piece of meat? Please note that my opponent admits that the nutrient profiles of both meats are similar as well. Unfortunately, bacon servings just happen to be much smaller and crumble apart easily. Likewise, my opponent clearly has never eaten eggs and doesn't understand how when you leave eggs out, they get cold rather fast.