BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gary Johnson would make a better POTUS than Donald Trump

Hello! It's nice to be back... I think. For those of you who don't know me, I mostly identify as a libertarian, which means I often identify as a Libertarian. While I favor individual rights and a voluntarist society (that looks much different than the status quo), I accept that for realistic / pragmatic purposes, we sometimes have to accept the "lesser evil" if for no other reason than force. As such, I propose the best candidate running for POTUS in 2016 is the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. He is not as libertarian as I am, and he is not the Libertarian candidate I agree with most (surprisingly that would be Austen Petersen, according to iSideWith). But in this debate, I will argue that Gary Johnson is the preferred mainstream presidential candidate, and that voters should support his candidacy over the other frontrunners. Let it be known that I am not a fan of democracy or voting in general, and the federal government is not something I generally support. Again I am looking to argue that Gary Johnson's platforms are simply better than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's, though in this debate I will focus on Donald Trump. In another, I'll throw Hillary under the bus. For the record I also believe that Gary Johnson's platforms are superior to Bernie's, and I would be open to debating that as well. For the time being however, I will assume that Hillary Clinton is getting the Democratic nomination. While "better" is an ambiguous term in defining a president's success, for the sake of this debate we will be arguing the merit of each candidate's platforms. I am looking for a thoughtful discussion on overall better values for this country, based on where the candidates stand on key issues (not how many friends they have in Washington). I will be arguing that Gary Johnson is not only better suited to be POTUS, but that he is on the right side of many social and economic issues that Trump is not. As such, he and his platforms would be better suited to lead the United States if they were to come to fruition.My opponent is free to make opening statements in Round 1, and/or wait for me to begin in Round 2.Thanks for your time! - Danielle
We have free will.

First of all, you have not addressed any of the reasoning I provided in my opening post. I don't think you have made an argument here, you are just describing what the world would be like if determinism were true. You argue that time is a line stretching into the future laid out before us, and that a time traveler would be able to jump in and out of this line. But that's not an argument, it's just a description of a deterministic universe. A different way of looking at time is as a garden of forking paths, rather than a single line. If we have free will, then this is what time has to be like, since we have the ability to make choices that aren't determined by external factors. To show that this description of time is wrong, you would have to argue that we don't have free will, which you haven't done. Indeed, if free will is an axiom, as I argued in my first post, then time can't be like you describe, since your description of time contradicts an axiom.
We have free will.

If we simply take a look at the dimensions in which we live, you can see that free will and choice are illusions. The first dimension is a line. on it exists infinite points that you can travel to in the first dimension but you cannot travel to a different line. This last point I just made is solved in the second dimension which is a plane, one of which has infinite lines that you can travel to, including the two I mentioned earlier. In the second dimension however, you cannot travel to different planes, the third dimension is needed for this which is depth, this creates what we know as 3D objects and are an object with infinite planes, lines, and points. The fourth dimension is Time or duration, which is like a line passing through all of these 3D objects and connects them all on a moving, lasting line. Similarly to the other dimensions, this 4D line connects all the moments in time and allows us to move through life. Therefore, if you were in or out of the fourth dimension and its effects were not acting on you, you could travel to any point in time, including the future. That means if someone traveled to the future and saw that I chose to run a red light and died, then they came back to the present as I was reproaching the red light, they know I will run it. To me it seems as though I have a choice but since it has already been seen and happened at a point in time then while I am seemingly presented with the options of running the light or not, there is only one possibility, one "choice", I can make.
We have free will.

I really do not get your argument. You start by saying we have free will, then prove it by saying it is an axiom, appealing to popularity which is an ad populum fallacy. Then when I introduce a way of looking at time itself, you simply say no lets look at it this way because its the right way, or rather just your way, which is a black and white fallacy. Along with that you brought up time being a forking path and if you want to look at it that way then you have to look at multiverse theory which is that as time progresses and we make choices each choice creates a fork in the time stream creating a new universe. So if we do say that time is a forking path and that each fork creates a different universe, then no matter what choice you make you will stay in your universe, the one you were, lets say, "predestined" to be in. You cannot leave it since, while the other choices fork into different realities. you are only in this one. Therefore for matter what "choice" you make you will stay in the same universe meaning that there never was a real choice just two options with one outcome. All of that to say that according to you we live in a world where time is an axiom, and seen as a forking path. You or me personally though only follow one line in that path and other versions of ourselves are in the rest meaning that you cannot escape that universe and travel to a different choice-created universe. note: also if there are infinite universes like in multiverse theory there are technically universes with free will and ones that do not.
We have free will.

By a forking path I mean that there are multiple possibilities. If determinism is true then there is only one possibility about what the future will be, so it would be a single line, as you said. If we have free will, then there are multiple possibilities, so the future is a forking path. Judges, regardless of what you think about the arguments that have been made so far, I hope you will keep in mind that my opponent hasn't introduced any arguments or responses to my arguments up to this point. Even if he introduces arguments in the last round, it's not fair to me to not make any arguments until the last round when I can't respond to what he says.
Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

Circumcision's original purpose[1], while unknown, does have many practical uses. Done since at least 4000 B.C. by Egyptians[2], it has been one of the safer practices throughout it's practice. The Egyptians practiced this due to the cleanliness and possibly to avoid infections that could be caused by sand becoming stuck between the foreskin [3]. This is the main reason it has been continued, and due to it being recognized as a health hazard at times when human sacrifice was prevelent, shows that had to have been hazardous in some way. To avoid a painful circumcision, it is almost always practiced on infants, so any pain experienced is nontraumatizing, except when ritually done in which case morphine is applied, and carefully removed. This was a very important step, and pain tranquilizers have been used since ancient Egypt. While an infant can not give consent, it is the best time to do the operation to avoid any unnecessary trauma. It is still debated whether or not it affects sexual pleasure, and while the majority of evidence points towards it decreasing sexual pleasure, there are still reports it actually increases pleasure [4, 5]. While seemingly strange, as it is the norm as the majority do it, it would spare children possible incidents that would occur if left uncircimcised, such as taunts, insults, and possible uncertainty or self-loathing due to being "different". Due to mass amounts of anaerobic bacteria being present on uncircumcised penises, it has been successfully experimented that circumcision seemingly affects HIV (Unfortunately my Ipad is not allowing me to scroll down any further, so I have to post the links by the reference marks. Sorry about confusion and inconvenience everybody).[6: http://www.scientificamerican.com...]. As such my, grantedly smaller, conclusion is that parents and doctor should consult on what is best, as done now. [1]. http://www.circlist.com... [2]. http://www.nocirc.org... [3]. http://www.circinfo.net... [4]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [5]. http://www.male-initiation.net... [6].
Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

I thank Shifter for taking this argument, and I affirm that I intend to continue this debate through round 5. I will begin by stating my main arguments against the procedure. Throughout the developed world, women almost universally enjoy something that many men do not: genital integrity. This human rights and gender equality issue, which an unfortunately low number of people see as such, has been a widespread phenomenon in the United States since before the second world war [1]. Today, sexism in the developed world regarding mens' reproductive rights has led to the general population being comfortable with MGM but disgusted by FGM. In the United States, more than half of men do not have an intact penis [2]. Male genital mutilation is bad for mainly the same reasons as female genital mutilation: Both procedures reduce sexual pleasure [3] [4], they can cause numerous complications [5] [6], they are extremely painful, they take away the genital integrity of the person on whom the procedure is performed, and, when done on an infant, they are irreversible, mutilating procedures that are done on people who are completely unable to give consent. The reasons behind continuing the procedures, too, are oddly similar and equally erroneous: mutilated genitalia, in areas where it is common, is seen as "less weird" or "cleaner" (often times mutilation is justified by the opinion on the aesthetics of intact genitals by the opposite sex), The fact that is reduces smegma (easily mitigated by regular cleaning), the idea that the risk of infection from STD's is reduced in mutilated individuals (also unsound [7] and much, much more effectively mitigated by use of condoms), and, more specifically associated with MGM, the idea that the procedure increases "sexual performance" which can be increased by less harmful means (and is also false [8]). The foreskin plays many important roles that benefit men who have them, naturally lubricating and protecting the glans, housing nerve endings that aid sexual pleasure, and causing even more sensation by sliding up and down the glans during intercourse [9]. Men without a foreskin suffer from a glans that has thickened, less-sensitive, keratinized skin as a result of having it exposed to abrasions from underwear throughout the day [10]. In conclusion, neonatal male genital mutilation is a permanent, harmful procedure done on people who are unable to give consent which is out of place in modern society, and it can easily be compared to FGM, which has been illegal in the United States for over a decade. [1] http://www.historyofcircumcision.net... [2] http://www.cirp.org... [3] http://sciencenordic.com... [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [5] http://www.circumstitions.com... [6] http://www.who.int... [7] http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org... [8] http://www.sciencedaily.com... [9] http://people.howstuffworks.com... [10] http://www.cirp.org...
Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

I will be arguing that neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations. My opponent will argue that neonatal male genital mutilation should remain legal. First round is for acceptance and definitions. Rounds 2-5 are for opening arguments, rebuttals, and closing arguments. Definitions: Male genital mutilation (MGM): Removal of the male foreskin Female genital mutilation (FGM): Removal of clitoris and clitoral hood
Neonatal male genital mutilation should be made illegal in developed nations

As this is the last round and I missed my last round, I will be forced to not only meet Spotchman's two arguements here, but also provide an superior conclusion. As you have stated, if an adult is willing and prepared to have the surgery done, and if done properly there should be little to no harm done to the patient, and while some of the danger's I'd mentioned included anaesthesia[1], it is relatively harmless if like you said, he is prepared for the surgery and the end result. Making this surgery illegal would force him (if he is determined to have the surgery) look for it in unsafe areas, that might offer not only inadequate performances, but endanger him with unsafe environmental conditions or cleanliness. We deem the Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs on Blood Transfusion as unethical due to the fact that it endangers the infant's life, something that a simple circumcision could not do. However, as stated, many people find the Jew's belief of Kosher Food as animal abuse as it requires the person to slit the animal throat instead of more humane ways of killing it. However, Jews defend this act, and still say that it is not an act of animal abuse. Despite living in oppisite ends of the world, both studies showed similiar results, that uncircumcised children are more prone to certain diseased than those that are circumcised. While the bathing may be lacking in Africa, there is regular bathing in Canada. Despite easy cures, it is in fact very dangerous, as they can scar the liver. These two studies show that circumcision is a less risky and safer option of the two. As I now have fifteen seconds left, I will post whatever left in comments.
should guns be alowed

Just as a heads up, I might not be able to submit next round's argument. However, this round will be as strong as possible in the time allotted. Guns should not be allowed in all of the US. For example, prison cells. No prisoner should have the right to a gun, as he will surely misuse it and probably kill someone else. Also, guns should not be allowed in the care of minors, such as day care or a school environment. Children will likely fire a gun accidentally and possibly even kill someone. Another place where guns should not be allowed is in the hands of visitors to the White House. Would the death of our president be beneficial to anyone? No. One of the final places guns should be banned is in an office of a high-ranking official. If the CEO of a major company such as Apple, Google, or Microsoft was murdered, many people would protest the use of guns everywhere in the United States. I am anxious to see my opponents response to this round of arguments. Thanks for reading.
Sex before Marriage

Couples who wait until marriage are happier than those who don't . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... As well as that, having sex with a wide variety of women would make sex less intimate, and you would automatically compare your partner to any other sexual experiences you had. And the same, your partner would do to you. Because of this, theres a high likely hood that you wouldn't be able to please each other, killing the relationship. And lastly, God's design was for sex to be between married couples only, between one man and one woman. Anything that goes outside of these boundaries goes outside of god's intention.
Sex before Marriage

I will be debating on having sexual intercourse before marriage. My position is pro/for. There will be five rounds. Round one is meant to for both sides to introduce themselves and briefly explain their stance. After that, I believe both should try their best to win. My stance: for having sex before marriage. 1) I believe that having a sexual intercourse is a natural instinct that should not be anyhow restricted. As long as it does not represent any danger, in terms of inflicting pain or being involuntary. 2) The idea of not having sex before marriage is a constraint that takes away the privilege of making free will decisions.
Animal Abuse Should be Legal

Animal abuse should be legal because it is consistent with our belief on the subject regarding hunting and eating meat. It does not make sense for people to be okay with eating meat and hunting, but go ballistic because a puppy was thrown out the window. Another point is moral clarity. To the large majority if the population, if animal abuse was legal then they would still not abuse animals. However, they would probably stop eating meat. This is because they got a dose of reality; they realize that if they think hurting animals is wrong(and they would have to think this because if the government made animal abuse legal, then people would be all over this), they should probably stop eating slaughtered animals if they don't want to sound inconsistent with their beliefs and principles. The main reason why is because of the deer infestation from where I live. If animal abuse was legal, then the community would be able to solve the infestation in a year or so. This is not an isolated incident; loads of small communities are infested with deer due to killing of the top predator of the food chain. As humans, it is our responsibility to take the place of the top predator, or else we let the all the deer starve and he forest go brown due to the deer feeding on everything that's green. People that are okay with animal abuse would also get to relief stress in a more effective way.
Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

I will keep my introductory statement as brief as possible. Though my opponent stated the criteria was "the bible" for this debate, he didn't say I had to accept every book of the current canon as the word of God. I will debate my side from the point of view of the Jews and Judaism- which Jesus was an avid follower, scholar, and Rabbi of- , the views of Jesus Christ himself, the views of past prophets, and the views of different revered scholars, both in and out of Christian denominations. Though I know I will not convince my opponent (as he will ultimately use the excuse of "faith" to justify his argument), but I at least hope to convince the audience that I have put forth the best arguments for my position. To prove that Jesus is God in the flesh, one must prove several factors. #1- is God divisible? #2- Does God share his Glory with different persons? #3- Does God "need" to do anything? #4- Was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the only way to satisfy God's own wrath... by killing himself??? #5- Does the Old Testament support any Jesus/God attributes? And many others. Let's stick to these for now. I will want to see scriptural proof within the New Testament that somehow correlates without mistake (or coincidental similarity with other persons in the Old Testament) to the Old Testament prophecies. I will want to see New Testament references to Jesus being God as God the Father (Elohim) and not as gods in the Old Testament (in several sources, including Job). The burden of proof is on you to fill in the gaps between Judaism and Christianity and adequately explain why other monotheistic religions do not view Orthodox Christianity as a monotheistic religion. I would like to see a biblical connection between the current practices of the Christian community with that of the New Testament Christians, including Jesus himself. I know I have set forth a high standard, but this is the debate you wanted. If you think you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what hundreds of Christian scholars, ministers and other clergy, historians, etc. have only been able to pass off as "faith"...
Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. He came down from heavens glory to be a sacrifice for the sin of all mankind. He is the God Man! I will argue this position using the word of God. Anyone wishing to debate me must accept the Holy Bible as a tool for proving or disproving this fact. It is quite clear to the open eyes of anyone wishing to see that God came down to earth in the flesh to perform the forgiveness of sin himself, since there is none worthy of this sacrifice in the whole earth. Only God himself is capable of fulfilling this requirement. Since God requires justice for the sin of mankind yet loves the whole world he himself took on the clothes of a man to provide for the eternal salvation for those who have been called to salvation. The fact that Jesus refers to himself as the father is not for his benefit, but for the benefit of those who were with him at the time so that they may more easily grasp God's relationship to us, his children. Many have confused the purpose of this example to try and argue that Jesus was not God but only an angel or some lesser being. I refer you to Genesis 1:26 where God (talking to himself) says: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
"Women" couldn't recognize EQUALITY if it slapped them in the face

I accept. I intend to prove that women -- and nonbinary people, For that matter -- are disadvantaged compared to men in society (on balance) and that much of the women's movement (and the feminist movement) should continue to exist. My opponent defines "equality" as the "equality of opportunity. " I agree with that definition. I argue that -- even purely on opportunities, Rather than outcomes -- patriarchal structures disadvantage women (and nonbinary folks). Therefore, There is a moral obligation to try and fight those injustices. Note that Pro hasn't made an argument yet, Apart from justifying their definition of equality. So I'll wait until Pro makes an argument and then respond to it. Before I go, Just keep in mind one thing: Pro has the sole burden of proof in this debate.
The United States government should sever all economic ties to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia

You have said in Round 1 that Saujis are waging a war against the U.S. However, I believe your opinion would not take place in the future. In my opinion Saujis might wage a war against Iraq. The reason is that an authoritarian Shia regime that is close to Iran poses a threat to Sauji Arabia. (by Zaki-Laidi, Bye-Bye, Middle East ? http://www.project...- syndicate.org) As you pointed out in Round 1, the government of Sauji Arabia has introduced a wide and strict measures to supress the freedom of expression and other anti-government activities among the general public for a long time. Morerover, their life is regulated strictly by Islamic law. It is true that people have been compelled to live in the society which anti-democracy and anti-freedom are highly evaluated. However, we must recognize that the spread of Internet and ``Spring of Arab``movement which began in 2011 in Tunisia have contributed to paving the way for the emergence of freedom of expression and the demanding for democracy among the people in Sauji Arabia. New information technology is playing an important role in changing the old and traditional style of governance in that country. In my opinion this means that Sauji Arabia is becoming a country which is not necessarily an enemy or threat to the United States. In the last ``what is happening in Sauji Arabia is especially important. The desert kingdom holds virtually all the world`s spare crude oil production capacity, enabling to raise or lower output to keep prices relatively high and stable.``( Supply surge jolts `peak oil`theory, by Michael Richardson, The Japan Times, December19,2012) From above arguments I believe that the U.S. should keep economic and diplomatic relations with Sauji Arabia for the benefits of the two countries for a long time.