BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On balance, Donald Trump's presidency is susceptible towards failure

If your going to engage in a juvenile attempt to chide and troll this debate, than at least be more origninal about it. A 5 year old could make a better troll case than you. Nonetheless, Con does set forth notions that many Trump supporters agree upon. "As a small example, Pro clearly has no idea that the "Bush Tax Cuts" had nothing, whatsoever, to do with a Flat Tax. " Obama increased taxes on the rich. A tax rate for people who made above 500,000 dollars under the Bush administration was between 15-20%. It is now 35% thanks to Obama. "At any rate, Donald Trump is simply the most accomplished and sucessful person who has ever achieved the office of President of the United States." Trump Airlines-Trump invested 362 million dollars in this business. It left him 362 million dollars in debt. Trump Casinos-Donald Trump’s gambles don’t always go as planned. Especially when that gamble is gambling itself. In February 2009, Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for the third time in a row — an extremely rare feat in American business. The casino company, founded in the 1980s, runs the Taj Mahal, the Trump Plaza and the Trump Marina. All three casinos are located in Atlantic City, N.J., where the gambling industry has faced a decline in tourists who prefer gambling in Pennsylvania and Connecticut instead. Trump defended himself by distancing himself from the company, though he owned 28% of its stock. “Other than the fact that it has my name on it — which I’m not thrilled about — I have nothing to do with the company,” he said. He resigned from Trump Entertainment soon after that third filing, and in August of that year he, along with an affiliate of Beal Bank Nevada agreed to buy the company for $100 million. The company reported it emerged from bankruptcy in July 2010 Trump Steaks- A complete flop Trump Magazine-The business commenced in 2007, and declared bankrupcy in 2007 GoTrump.com-It was meant to be a compete with Travelocity, yet the website shutdown mysteriously. Trump University-In 2005, Trump opened the non-accredited, for-profit Trump University. In 2010, four students sued the university for “offering classes that amounted to extended ‘infomercials.’” Following the suit, the “university” changed its name to “The Trump Entrepreneur Initiative,” before ending operations one year later. In 2013, the New York Attorney General sued Trump and the “university” for $40 million for allegedly defrauding students. http://time.com...
There are no contradictions in the BIble

One example of God using us humans as vessels for His work? Moses, Noah, Jonah, and many more. You see, Dan, that there are so many people in the Bible that God used, spoke to, influenced, showed signs to, etc. Not to mention that just about every author of the Bible are people that are influenced by God (especially in the New Testament). You said there were added falsifications? Where? Most of the books of the Bible are personal accounts written by people, not documents or anything. But anyway, let's get back onto the contradictions. I know of many false contradictions that have been cleared up and been taken back into reality (some 430 or so), but do you have any? if not, then you really have no proof of a contradiction(s) in the Bible. *maybe we can have another debate on your claims of the Bible having "just a few additions, subtractions, and political falsifications along the way".
There are no contradictions in the BIble

Hi Anthony im glad you are a believer and to answer your question? no I am not a Christian. Is there any chance you can show me where in the bible god uses vessels to actually write the bible... No offence but I kind of missed that part. Look i'm not criticising the bible for what it could be. Though I must point out there has been just a few additions, subtractions and political falsifications along the way (first council of nicea) to name one...I could go on, to mention the dead sea scrolls and many of the non mentioned gospils and books of the bible..Enoch being one of my favourites. My friend to say that the bible in one of its most popular formats I.e king James has no contradictions...really?
There are no contradictions in the BIble

Hi Dan, I am glad to see that you accepted this. Now, let me ask you this- are you Christian? If so, then you should know that God does not make mistakes. That's the first and foremost statement. The entire Bible isn't just some collection of works from a bunch of crazy, insane people out in the desert compiled into one book. The Bible is an amazing collection of writings and guides and historical events and prophecies. On top of that, these people that wrote these books weren't just at random, but specific people that God inspired to write what He said to them. The authors were pretty much a vessel through which He was speaking to us. If you look into the Bible, you will see no contradictions IF you read it in the context, and not "cherry pick" as I like to call it. People have tried it before, but have failed to completely see any contradiction throughout the entire harmonious masterpiece that is the Holy Bible.
There are no contradictions in the BIble

The actual debating will start on Round 2. For the first round, we will take the time to introduce ourselves (I will get to that in a sec). I do want to state that I am on the defensive side for this debate, so the burden of proof is on you. here is the order of the debate ahead: R2: opening statements R3: my rebuttal to your argument R4: your rebuttal to my argument R5: closing statements *I will note that I may become inactive. if so, I apologize in advance.* Hi, my name is Anthony. I am a devoted man of God, and love to defend His name. I will not reveal my age (but it is on my profile). I hope we can have a civil debate, and I hope we can both walk away satisfied with the work we have produced.
There are no contradictions in the BIble

Dan, despite your lack of proof, and inability to realize what I have been saying, I am proud of this debate. I not only have disproved everything you said, but proved my points. I would like all those voting to keep that in mind, and I hope that some people learned from this. Thank you for this opportunity, I had a blast. God bless, ChristTheRedeemer (AKA Anthony)
There are no contradictions in the BIble

Oh, I apologize, and should have mentioned it before- I am using the King James Version. The other versions aren't as reliable. If you are referring to that time people not writing it down for many generations, then youre right. theyre often perceived as legends. However, the Bible is quite different. The Bible is first hand- accounts. If you read it, you'd know. Unless you're talking about parables or example stories. Those are quite obviously made up. So... your claim is false. As your claims to slavery, may I add that there are verses that show and say to have kindness toward the slaves at that time such as... Exodus 21:16, Colossians 4:1, Exodus 21:26-27, Proverbs 22:16, and several other verses. Then there are some passages that tell the rules for either the slaves or the owners of the slaves at that time; you still must keep in mind that at that time, slavery was an accepted thing, and it even was the standard. It was the era of time, and it was the culture. Here are some verses for rules/laws for the slave/owner: Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 4:1, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18, Exodus 21:26-27, and several others. And there are also some figurative passages that it talks about slavery of either the soul, or to sin... Galatians 3:28, Matthew 11:28, John 4:36, John 8:34, and several more. Since you have failed to tell me where these verses are in the BIble, you still have no evidence to back your claim up. You see, this is what I have been trying to get at- this entire debate I have given you sources and real proof. All you have done is given me a bunch of claims which either cannot be backed up with your lack of evidence, or I have disproven (or both).
There are no contradictions in the BIble

Unfortunately Anthony I not only feel that the bible has contradictions but I also believe the church has proven to be not only contradictory but In many respects not only unholy but inhumane also. Now starting with the bible and its many vessels I have very limited primary evidence to suggest the accounts were first hand and more importantly what most are reading today is a many times translated, account of an account of an account. I fail how you could argue your point knowing this information. Further you are arguing a very one dimensional point if your not specifying what bible/s you are refering to, as I hope you recognise there are just a few. For my most important and which I hope seems relevant. The church and the pope endorsed slavery with use of the bible and the whip. Just a small contradiction I suppose!
Even if the Judeo-Christian God existed, he would be a horrible god to follow

Even if someone is God's adversary or enemy, He still loves us. "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life" (Rom 5:10 ESV). That is not the action or love of a God who is horrible, but One who is worthy to be followed.
Even if the Judeo-Christian God existed, he would be a horrible god to follow

For something to have an attribute, it must exist. So to continue this debate, we must agree that God does exist, at least based on your premise that He has an attribute. 1. The definition of a murder is: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The Biblical New Testament (NT) record does not record Jesus Christ [who claims to be God in the flesh] as taking the life of anyone. Therefore, He is not a murderer according to the NT record. Jesus Christ does talk about murderers, but He came that men may have life. "The thief does not come except that he may steal, and kill, and destroy. I came that they may have life and may have it abundantly" (John 10:10). These are not the words of a murderer, but of someone who values life. The NT does however give an account of Jesus voluntarily giving His own life so that we can be forgiven of our sin and sin nature. "Even as the Son of man [a title of Jesus] did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mat 20:28). 2. Your point #2 is a false premise - that evil would not exist if God is good. If you say God is good or evil, then again you are assigning an attribute to His Person; an admission on your part that God does exist. I say that God does exist and that He is good and not evil. 3. Many people called Jesus Christ a criminal. The NT is full of many examples. But here is His take on the matter; He said, 'They who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; they who would destroy me are mighty, my lying enemies; then I restored what I did not take by violence" (Psalm 69:4). Jesus Christ lived a perfect life, yet His intention was to restore what He did not take; in other words, He gave His innocent life on behalf of those who were/are not innocent. This is not the mindset of a murderer or a criminal, but one who gave His life on behalf of murderers and criminals. Jesus Christ [God in the flesh] spoke these words to a man named Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
Even if the Judeo-Christian God existed, he would be a horrible god to follow

In this debate, I will prove to my opponent that, if the Judeo-Christian God exists (he does not), he is a absolutely horrible god, and even dictators such as Stalin and Mao were better than he is. My arguments:1. He is a psychotic murderer. In the bible alone, God murdered an estimated 25 million people [1]. One could argue that these killings were to "cleanse the earth", or "he killed them because they were evil", however, one only has to look at a single example to realise how ridiculous this premise is. In Exodus 12:29-30 [2], God murders the firstborn child of every Egyptian. The estimated fatality count was placed at 500,000 [1]. How could one possibly call a God who murders 500,000 innocent children "good"? 2. He does nothing to prevent evil. The three traits associated with the Judeo-Christian God are that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If God is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, evil would not exist. The common refutation of this argument is that evil stems from free will, and that God only allows evil to exist because he allows free will to exist. However, this argument completely disregards evil that does not stem from free will. For example, in 2001, a massive earthquake struck Gujarat, India, and resulted in an estimated 20,000 deaths and 166,000 injuries [3]. Why would God allow something this terrible to happen? This surely left thousands of children without parents, thousands of families without homes. Why would a benevolent and all powerful God do such a thing to his own people?3. By today's standards, god is a terrible criminal. Ask yourself: Is a man who puts a gun to a woman's head and demands her purse a criminal? Most people would respond "Certainly!" to that. Now ask yourself: What does God demand of you? He demands ultimate commitment, to the point of death. He demands complete and total submission to his rules, without exception. He demands worship. And what, might one ask, is the punishment, if these rules aren't followed? Eternal torture and burning in the worst place imaginable. You are threatened with eternal agony if you do not completely sumbit to this insane psychopath.Sources:1. http://goo.gl... 2. http://goo.gl...3. http://goo.gl...
The constant paradox

Oh wow. I sincerely apologize. I'm quite embarrassed now. I don't think the truth can be opposed. I mean, it can be, however, I define the truth as absolute. However, our current definitions of the truth can be dated with new discoveries, and I don't ever think we could find an absolute truth that would stick with us as the truth for eternity. Which leads me to believe, that the pursuit of the truth is foolish and a waste of time. It is better to just accept the current truths than to argue them and pursue an absolute truth which cannot be opposed. A paradox isn't a question with an answer. A paradox is an unanswerable question. However, one could argue that it is answerable, but that would be a pursuit for an absolute truth which cannot be challenged, which in my opinion, as I have said, is a foolish waste of time. It is much better to accept that a paradox is a paradox, and it will never be answered, and that is the undeniable truth, whether it is deniable or not. Just like it's much better to accept that the chair I am sitting on exists. While you could argue that it doesn't, it is much more beneficial to society to just accept the chair as a truth. Without question or answer, I don't think life would be possible. Or at least, free will. Question and answer with our selves is what we need to thrive. We need to be able to ask ourselves, am I hungry, and questions of that caliber. However, if other beings can ask questions, then you can define truth. But I believe in your scenario, no one can have questions or answers, therefore, there is no truth. If you could excuse me, I still do not understand the concept of the constant paradox, so I will refrain from making commentary. Thank you for this enlightening debate.
The constant paradox

I don't deny the possibility of opposition justifiably as true as position. However a neutral point of view would not be to mock the very root of truth. Argueably the question seems to be weather truth offends you or not? Truth is considered relative to the observer which is an absolute. That leaves me with a question weather truth can be opposed or not? As for my writing: Wouldn't you think of your argument as a paradox? You are against yet you consider me to have achieved my challenge. Truth is I don't renounce any points of view without first haven given it thought and consideration. As a peer this should normally lead to a neutral standing on the envoy of definition which must be absolute. However you are denying me the privilege of definition. Do you consider truth in content to be whether one person is right or the other? Truth is in the search for it. Seriously enough quite an underestimate and short complaint yet interesting in its defiance of any human attempt to weigh truth in opposition to its understanding core. Accordingly you find my writing untrue. Do you deny me the ability to observe with your statement defining the question for a constant paradox is the answer? That's brilliant my friend. However more interesting in context: Is a paradox a question with an answer to itself and vice versa? How could I without question or answer define truth? I truly appreciate your giving me the authority to make definition. However there is no paradox in judging one argument against the other. Or is there? A closer look on the proposed stated issue here. If we both agree my writing is a constant paradox how could we explain this to be true? The logical outcome of your statement would be ruined by the constant paradox due its essential nature to oppose itself? In more certain words the constant paradox is not found untill the end of time in its beginning to be both true and false. Which obviously aren't properties my writing, or your, possess. This in fact is a definition of unexplainable concern. The constant paradox is that making a definition of it actually absolves it's existence. How would you refrain to this challenge?
The constant paradox

Opposing the question-answer logistics. The posibility of defining truth without progressive denial or approval. A theory than truth consists of negation and position: How would you define truth without these prerequisites. Twisted mind games. I've been thinking of this for a while and found some consistment in the paradox as is logic and contradictionary at the same time. Could it be that the mended stature of yes and no is the very root to truth? Would it be that a paradox is closer to its definition? First of all paradoxes aren't easy to come up with. Farther more difficult the constant paradox. As paradoxes are relative to its root. How would you provide a natural progression in explanation of yes and no with a paradox? The usual two instances of a paradox appear under the same essential claim that they are equal in reference to eachother. Think of this for a while. Could the essence of time refer to a paradox that never ends? Truth is constantly evolving. Would it be reason to define truth as an absolute? Is the paradox the closest one comes to an explanation of relativity? If both yes and no is true only the paradox is the essentially defining a probability. Would a probability or a question be closer to truth as within an answer? I hereby challenge yous all to find the constant paradox which I haven't yet.
Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know was the best song of 2011

Dropped/Conceded Arguments1 Song of the Year2 Album of the Year-213 Record of the Year4 Best Pop Vocal Album of the Year5 Producer of the Year6 Short Music Video of the Year7 Popularity8 Records soldRebuttals1 RITD was best Music Video of the Year. STIUTK wasn't even nominated.2 Stop motion has nothing to do with quality of song itself.3 Age groups that like the song do not determine quality.4 Being "genre-less" does not make it better. Winning every award it was nominated for like RITD does.
Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know was the best song of 2011

Complete artwork of body painting! Stop motion animation! Standing there semi-naked they were photographed every time 6 or 7 shots were drawn on them Was a 12-hr shoot The song itself is not of a specific genre, it's genre-less. http://www.heraldsun.com.au... As per YouTube analytics:the song is most popular with Female-13-17; Male-25-34; Femal-18-24 For my opponent's song: Female-13-17; Male-45-54;Male-35-44 Irrelevantly, my song thus is liked by girls 13-24! Thus "Qualitatively" my song is better
Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know was the best song of 2011

"Rolling in the Deep" by ADELE. http://www.youtube.com... Awards: Grammy's 1. 2011 Song of the Year 2. 2011 Album of the Year (21) 3. 2011 Record of the Year 4. 2011 Best Pop Vocal Album of the Year 5. 2011 Producer of the Year 6. 2011 Short Music Video of the Year Popularity: "Somebody That I Used To Know"--141,000,000 views. --600,000 copies sold. "Rolling in the Deep"--273,000,000 views--6,700,000 copies sold. Sources:http://www.debate.org...
Mac (pro) vs. Pc (con)

Before I attack my opponent's arguments, I will state my contentions. Contention 1- Faster boot up/shutdown time New destop mac startup :28.7 seconds New destop Pc startup:1 min 13 sec New desktop mac shutdown:4 seconds New Desktop pc shutdown:44.3 seconds http://www.popularmechanics.com... Contention 2- Mac's can run windows applications http://www.apple.com... Contention 3-Mac's are built with better parts. -Metal casing on Mac's vs plastic cases on Pc's -The charging cord of a mac laptop is a magnetic one, when the cord is pulled, it will simply detach instead of pulling the entire computer to the floor, where it could either break on impact, sustain serious damage or be stepped on. Contention 4- Simplicity - When you buy a new mac it is more of a "plug and play" system, while pc's require a lot of programs to be downloaded in the beginning and throuought the life of your pc. -The toolbar at the bottom of a Pc is very confusing when compared to the dock of a mac. - Although there are a few viruses that target macs, pc's become infected more often. As for my opponent's arguments, My opponent has stated, Pc's have been around longer. But this statement does not give me any reason to believe that thy are better, and is somewhat irrelelvant to the debate.
Gay marriage

Like I stated before it doesn't matter if your gay or straight or whatever sexual orientation you have we are all human. You make homosexual feel like they don't belong in this world, statistics show that homosexuals are two to three times more likely to commit suicide through ages from elementary to high school. One in 100 American women and two in 100 American men identified themselves as homosexuals and the other 4% say they are bisexual. over the years children with same-sex parents have raised tremendously. Statistics show 10%-15% of kids with out homes commit suicide, and they show 60% of the females become prostitutes and 70% of the men become criminals. http://www.statista.com... http://www.lifelongadoptions...
Gay marriage

A child needs both a mom and a dad. If a gay couple adopts children, they're either not going to have a mom or a dad. If you're a guy and you have two moms, how are you going to talk to your mom about guy stuff, and if you do, she's not going to be able to relate and sometimes its hard to give advice to someone if you don't know what if feels like. If you're a girl and have two moms, you're not going to have a father so who is going to be there to support the family. Teenagers that grow up with one gender parents, tent to do drugs, alcohol, smoke, committe suicide, and teen pregnancy. We obviously don't want people doing drugs or alcohol because that means more violence. 1) http://www.frc.org...
Gay marriage

What your stating that if homosexuals were to adopt it would mean welcoming a random baby into their home. But the child would still be welcomed into a random home, as they had already been put up for adoption in the first place. Having a children doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. You can still have a child no matter what, even heterosexuals can't have kids forcing them to adopt or have a someone else have a baby for them. They won't have a biological union with their kids, but should it matter because they would love and nature the child the same.