BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Proving Jesus is the Messiah

You may use quotes from google docs, but not a whole doc. Let the debate begin. Jesus was regarded by the Jews as a man of God and a prophet. But they rejected him on the will of the Pharisees, who were afraid of an uprising of their power and Rome. But they never looked at the Messianic prophecies, which Jesus fulfilled. "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) This prophecy from Isaiah was fulfilled in the Gospel of Matthew, where an angel came to Joseph, who was the fianc"e of Mary, a virgin girl around the age 14 or so. "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." (Matthew 1:23) As well, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, where the prophet Micah wrote, "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel." When Jesus was born, the king of the province, Herod, ordered a massacre of all male infants because 3 magi came to pay homage to the baby king (Matthew 2), which fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah, "Thus says the Lord: 'A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.'"
Dis rap battle.

RULES: Spelling and grammar are not counted, neither are sources. Only "most convincing argument matters." which will be awarded to the better rap. Swearing must be kept within moderation, but is allowed. Round one you can either just accept or begin the rap battle. I don't mind either way. I would like a worthy opponent, as this will make me work harder to try to win, which will produce a better rap battle. This is just for fun, so take no offence. I will be dissin your mother.
Dis rap battle.

You're dumb enough to clash with me? I'll make you numb enough, you'll have whiplash, G. Your mother is overweight and known as the "giant" She will salivate for scraps cus her hunger is defiant Like a plant absorbs light, your mum absorbs bacon, Her belly is a blight and her a$$ is forsaken. I will break you, like your mum breaks her diet, She's got a fake d**k, I bets that"s made you quiet. When you're not choking on your mum what do you do? I bet you're poking up your bum, you dirty Jew. This is just the preliminary, My next round will be legendary, I'm a lyrical visionary, And verbally unsanitary
Rudy Giuliani is a fool and could never help this country.

Let me first start by saying a few things about the debate. I expect to lose even if I dominate the debate because of the overwhelming number of Paul supporters online. Also, I myself have bounced back and forth between Rudy and Ron, but have decided to caucus for Giuliani for reasons I will explain here, despite my affinity for much of Paul's preachings. I address your points first. 1) Tax cuts This is actually a common misconception about the entire Republican party as well as Rudy. Rudy cuts taxes across the board proportionally. For example, if we were to issue a 5% tax cut, a man making 100 would get 5 back whereas a man making 10 would only get 50 cents. This is where the misconception comes from. Rudy and republicans do give tax cuts to the rich, but not exclusively. There is a reason. History shows us bottom up economics don't work. When we burden corporations and the wealthy with heavy taxes, they are able to simply pass that burden down to the poor and middle class. Look at oil companies. If we provide them tax breaks, they pass that on to the consumer, and the opposite is equally true. As the price of crude goes through the roof, gas prices stay level because we aren't molesting the corporations. Providing tax cuts exclusively to the poor creates a stagnant economy. So, Rudy does not give tax cuts to the wealthy exclusively, and tax cuts across the board (including the rich) is a good thing. 2) Leadership Rudy does not take full and functional credit for 9/11. This is also a flaw of popular opinion. It is where he gets a lot of his notoriety, but he acknowledges that he does not deserve some kind of iconic treatment, but merely acted well when placed in a terrible position. Also, his leadership status is not contigent on 9/11. He held the third highest position in the Justice Dpt. and was mayor of New York, which is the 5th largest executive position in the country including all states and the nation itself. His leadership as mayor in the seven years BEFORE 9/11 even occured would be enough to warrant him office alone. I will shower you with statistics if you wish, but the turn around NYC saw under Rudy was phenomenal and I want him to do to our country what he did to that city. 3) Ron Paul I don't see how those last two points, even if they are true, reflect at all on Rudy's ability to be a great president. I realize you are an avid Paul supporter, but that bears no weight on Guiliani or his ability to be president. Also, the fact that Paul supporters drowned him out is the reason Paul is only carrying 2% of the nomination and, again, does not reflect Guiliani's ability to lead. I could get into a whole different debate on Paul, but he has no weight on Rudy's functionality as president. By the way, I am glad you have made this 4 rounds and I look forward to your response.
Rudy Giuliani is a fool and could never help this country.

I have made this debate 4 rounds so that me and wingnut2280 have a chance to say what we will be talking about over the next four rounds. My position- I think Rudy Giluliani has no experience with leadership. He merely put his face on 9/11, he didn't do a ton. He... -will give huge tax cuts to the rich(will cite my source in round 2) -acted like he did it all during 9/11(cite my source in round 2) -fears Ron Paul(cite my source in round 2) -got drowned out by Ron Paul supporters at a speech he made.
Rudy Giuliani is a fool and could never help this country.

Let me just say again, Rudy is an economic genius. Other candidates want to make claims about votes they have made or companies they have turned around, but Rudy is the candidate who has made the drastic change we need already. He hasn't just voted on bills or run a small state in a mediocre way. Rudy has held the fifth highest executive office in the country and made REAL changes that no one else has. What he did for NY, even before 9-11, is remarkable and I can't wait to have him do the same for our country.
Rudy Giuliani is a fool and could never help this country.

1) Tax Cuts Again, I don't know how Ron Paul makes Giuliani any less of a good candidate. Furthermore, Rudy's tax cuts credit is just as viable. He hasn't been in Congress like Paul because he was to busy gathering executive experience as Mayor of the biggest city in our country. He doesn't have the special interest risk because he isn't involved in Congressional gameplaying. Rudy has an outstanding grasp of how the economy works and will employ every stategy he used in NY to our country. He is a practical candidate who will employ great tools in order to both, better our country and protect our constitutional principles. 2) 9/11 So.....Rudy Giuliani is in bed with Radical Islamic terrorists? OK, well any reasonable person would see Rudy as humble. He did play a big part in the post-9/11 recovery, but he puts the credit on all of the volunteers etc. Popular opinion is not what matters. Rudy would only be a bad guy if he was actually doing these things. 3) Ron Paul Again, I don't see how this would matter. Rudy has several differences between each of the candidates. Rudy would make practical and reasonable changes to the government, while still accompishing all of the things we need to get done. Finally, the fact remains that Giuliani would make great changes to our nation just as he did to NYC during his tenure (including pre-9/11). The notion that Giuliani milks 9/11 is a popular misconception. It is, again, just another reason why he would be a GREAT president, regardless of Ron Paul. You have given me no reason to discredit Giuliani other than the fact that he may be an islamic terrorist who was an accomplice in 9/11. Obviously, this is absurd and I have no reason to doubt Guiliani's fantastic pre-9/11 record and the sucess he will being to the White House.
Rudy Giuliani is a fool and could never help this country.

1) Tax cuts Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase. As for voting for tax cuts, he is not into big business, and SPECIAL INTERESTS. He doesn't give huge tax cuts to big companies unless they deserve it. 2) Leadership Rudy does not take full and functional credit for 9/11- This is what you said. Google Rudy Giuliani in the images section, you'll get him making speeches about 9/11, posters saying how much he helped. So, according to popular opinion he does, but he really doesn't? Isn't it what the public beleives that really matters? When people come and complain to him that he stole the credit for 9/11, he tells them, THAT'S a RUMOR. So everyone would be happy, people who think he did it all on 9/11, and people who THINK he's an honest guy about 9/11. Did you by any chance hear the recording of him saying, "The towers are going to collapse?" DAYS BEFORE 9/11? Maybe he SHOULD get credit for it, for ACCOMPLICING IT!!! 3) Ron Paul Well. Ron Paul. I have mentioned him, as the alternate to Rudy Giuliani. To tell you the truth, besides the 9/11 thing, every candidate besides Ron Paul is basically the same. Rudy Giuliani hopped the bandwagon of 9/11 and is using it as his ticket to the White House. Have you seen the youtube video where they counted how many times he said or referenced to 9/11 in only ONE DEBATE? Every one of his arguments makes a reference to 9/11.
Rudy Giuliani is a fool and could never help this country.

To sum up, Rudy is the quintessential republican. He observes the conservative notions of increased security the typical candidates like Fred Thompson observe, while simultaneously championing Ron Paul's concepts of smaller government. The difference is, Rudy applies them in practical scenarios where they will actually work in the REAL WORLD. Being correct in principle is great, but we need a president who can apply these things and make them work. Giuliani's record BEFORE 9/11 is outstanding. The reason I want him to be president is so he can do to our country what he did to that city. His leadership during the tough times during and after 9/11 are just an additional reason I would vote him in.
Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country

Thanks for accepting. Given your response I'd wager you have something tricky up your sleeve. Nonetheless here are my contentions: Contention 1: Negotiations are being abused by Israel. The Israelis and Palestinians have been at each others throats since creation of Israel half a century ago. Much was thought to be achieved when the Oslo Accords were 1993. One of the terms of the Accords was that five years after the Accords were signed, that talks to create a permanent and recognized Palestinian state would occur, however, over a decade after those talks should have ended, Israel still has not allowed an internationally recognized state to form. Now onto to how these talks are actually being abused. Israel understands that these talks will inevitably create a Palestinian state, but is abusing them allow more settlers to take what was meant to become Palestine. In fact, there is over 500,000 Israeli settlers who have encroached upon Palestinian land. [1] According to the Los Angeles Times, at the current rate of expansion "practically nothing will remain" when a Palestinian state created. The US can help see that Palestine's rights are respected by officially recognizing Palestine as a country, thus making Israel's encroachments seen for what they truly are, a violation of international law. Contentions 2: War crimes have been committed against the Palestinians. Another major reason why Palestine should be recognized is because they are the victims of war crimes and international recognition will help them make their case for compensation to those affected. Israel committing war crimes is nothing unheard of, both Human Rights Watch [2] and Amnesty International [3] have found that Israel has committed War Crimes against Palestinian civilians by using the incendiary agent White Phosphorus, which is also clearly in violation of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons. This is why it was banned for use against civilians- "Phosphorus burns on the skin are deep and painful; a firm eschar is produced and is surrounded by vesiculation. The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen. Contact with these particles can cause local burns. These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." [4] The US has a duty to recognize Palestine so it can join organizations like the United Nations which can punish Israel with sanctions if necessary for using these weapons against civilians and violating basic human rights. [1] http://articles.latimes.com... [2] http://www.haaretz.com... [3] http://www.haaretz.com... [4] http://www.globalsecurity.org... I look forward to your arguments and rebuttals.
Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country

I stand in affirmation of the Resolved: The US should recognize Palestine as a country. Rules: 1. First Round acceptance only 2. No new arguments or contentions in the last round (Round 4) 3. No trolling or semantics Definitions: Should: "must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency)" Recognize:"to acknowledge formally as entitled to treatment as a political unit" By accepting you are negating the Resolved.
PETA is idiotic and should be banned.

As I mentioned last round, Pro's burden is to show two things. First, Pro has to show that PETA is "idiotic." Second, Pro has to show that PETA has to be banned. My burden is to negate any one of these things. Insofar as I do that, vote Con. A) Banning PETA Pro has two examples of PETA being bad: (1) euthanasia, and (2) feeding cats a vegan diet. Neither of these outweighs the positive effects of PETA on magnitude. As for euthanasia, a strict law restricting animal euthanasia at the federal level will be sufficient, rather than actually banning the entire organization. Next, cats can *survive* without meat ~ it's just better for them to have meat. Sure, it's bad that PETA is making cats vegan, but that pales in comparison to the positive effects. As I demonstrated last round, PETA saves *millions* of animals each year. [1] But PETA has only euthanized 30,000 animals in the past *eleven* years. [2] That's around 2,727 animals killed a year. [3] That means it's a *net* positive of around 4 million animals saved a year (number of animals killed subtracted from number of animals saved). That's a net positive impact. B) Is PETA idiotic? Pro offers no evidence whatsoever to suggest that PETA is "idiotic," which is a part of their burden. For those two reasons, vote Con. [1] http://www.all-creatures.org... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] Google "30000/11"
PETA is idiotic and should be banned.

I agree that PETA has done good things for animals and without it, a lot of animals would be dead or suffering. However, PETA has shown that it doesn't want to change. That bill was to restrict PETA from killing animals in THAT state. Shelters nowadays have a no-kill policy and thanks to major efforts, that is coming true very quickly. However, PETA has also kills 98% of its animals and admits to killing perfectly adoptable animals too. PETA has also said that having a pet is not kind to the animals, as they say that "having an animal and expecting love from it is shameful". PETA has also said that, and I quote, "Cats will thrive on a vegan diet". Cats are obligate carnivores, meaning they cannot survive without meat, and PETA continues to say this despite the facts slapping them in their face. This proves that PETA is too ignorant to ever change their cruel ways. PETA vegan cats: . http://www.peta.org... Can you see that they are bad?
PETA is idiotic and should be banned.

I agree that PETA's actions were questionable. But I disagree that PETA should be banned as a result. The bill Pro talks about has already been passed. [1] This bill isn't an "anti-PETA" bill. That's a complete misrepresentation. HB-1381 reduces the existence of high-kill shelters, and such, thus preventing PETA from taking such actions at all. Once PETA doesn't commit such actions, there's no harm in allowing PETA to continue existing. "Stealing a dog" is already illegal, and measures must be taken to prevent that. That doesn't mean banning the entire organization rather than banning a small subset of that organization. Pro concedes that welfare of animals is good, so I'll go on to a lot of good that PETA has done. PETA was critical in the passing of a bill in India that banned testing of cosmetics on animals. [2] Taiwan's first animal welfare law was passed due to action by PETA. [3] PETA convinced Polo Ralph Lauren to stop using fur. [4] The Ad Council signed a PETA pledge to stop using great apes ~ and later all wild animals ~ in advertisements. [5] PETA also ensured that 4.5 *million* animals were spared from animal testing by the European Chemical Agency. [6] Imagine the positive impact to animals PETA can continue to have. It's philosophy might be wrong, but laws can always be instituted to prevent extreme measures, while still ensuring a net positive impact to PETA's existence. Without PETA, millions -- or even billions -- of animals would be dead. Don't allow that. Vote Con. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.thehindu.com... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] http://designtaxi.com... [5] http://yubanet.com... [6] http://www.all-creatures.org...
PETA is idiotic and should be banned.

(Oh no, I never expected for a GOLD rank to come into my debate. Isn't that noob sniping? I will still try my best) However, PETA has done a large amount of unsavoury things. An example is when two of their members (keep in mind, PETA fully endorsed the two and wanted them to) broke into a backyard and stole a happy, healthy and friendly "pit-bull". They later admitted to putting it to death. This was just a small part of PETA's campaign to hunt down and euthanize "pit-bulls", along with trapping and killing stray AND owned outdoor cats without the owner's permission. PETA has done so many bad things, that there was a bill launched to strip them of the power to euthanize animals. PETA stealing a dog: http://www.nathanwinograd.com... Anti-PETA bill: http://www.nathanwinograd.com... As you can see, PETA already has enough evidence to put them in jail, let alone disband them.
PETA is idiotic and should be banned.

I accept; Pro's BOP is to show two things: (1) that PETA is "idiotic," and (2) that it should be banned. Pro has the full BOP to prove #1, but the BOP is even on the issue of #2, so I'll write a brief opening. PETA shouldn't be banned because there should be liberty to do anything that doesn't cause net harm. John Stuart Mill's "harm principle" captures this idea; it holds that the only purpose for which power can be exercised over an unwilling person is when it is done to prevent a net harm. [1, http://plato.stanford.edu...] There's no net harm in this case from PETA. Pro has to prove that such a harm exists, without which a Con vote is necessary. Note that this does *not* mean I agree with the philosophy of PETA. This merely means I disagree that PETA should be *banned* just because it has controversial views and campaigns for controversial things. Now, Pro might bring some examples of things PETA does which are net harmful, but that doesn't advance their burden, because a counterplan -- to prevent those specific things rather than banning the entire organization -- would allow a Con ballot anyway. I now turn the debate over to Pro.
The electoral college should be abolished

Ok I'm going to elaborate now. I admit I have fallen short on that. The purpose of establishing the electoral college was because the Founders were scared of a single man (or woman) influencing public opinion as a whole, being elected president, and becoming a dictator. They feared that a political agenda could easily overcome more than 50% of the population, so they created the electoral college to give everyone a fair and equal representation in the election Source: https://www.factcheck.org... I understand how Donald Trump. I understand the electoral college. But what I'm saying is the winner of the popular vote on the national level (Hillary Clinton) should have won the presidency. By the way, I said she won the "popular vote" in my previous argument. I think it's pretty obvious what that means. It means that she won the majority vote on the national level. Now I will explain in simpler terms why the electoral college should be abolished. Imagine that you and 9 of your friends (making 10 people) are debating over which restaurant to go to. The whole group agrees that everyone will vote and everyone will have to go to the restaurant with the most votes. Everyone votes, and out of the 10 people there, Taco Bell gets 7 votes. But you all go to McDonalds anyway, even though it only got 2 votes. The group, as a whole or as a majority, wanted to go to Taco Bell, but you ended up with McDonalds. Now let's expand this analogy by replacing 10 people with 30 million and replacing the choice of restaurant with the choice of our president in 2017. 48.2% of American voters chose Clinton. 46.1% of Americans chose Trump. Clinton won the popular vote on the national level. And no, there was not any voter fraud. Trump said over and over again that there was voter fraud but he did not present any kind of proof. Source: http://www.cnn.com... The contender has not presented any information that supports the idea of the electoral college being fair.
The electoral college should be abolished

First of all, yes you are right about the Wikipedia thing, but if you clicked on the link you would have found that I used it as a source for population totals in New Hampshire and California. Okay, you start by suggesting that the electoral college was more legitimate back in the 17, and 1800's based off of what? I don't mean to discredit your argument but you have no evidence to back up the claim that "It was more useful and helpful to preserve democracy and be fair." Second, Statistically, Donald Trump won the majority vote, by county. One thing you did not specify, was what exactly the majority was, which I assume is the general population. If you look at the 2016 electoral map by county you will see that the majority of Midwestern, Southwestern, and Southeastern state counties are red. This is because the Republican Party choose to target the less populated areas in those regions, while the Democratic Party choose to target the densely populated areas of the Westcoast and Eastcoast, with the occasional county out west. By that record, Donald Trump appealed to the rural population over the urban population. In order to gain the necessary electoral votes, Donald Trump would have to gain a huge following in less populated states. With that combined, he won the majority vote by county. County goes to the state level, and if the state voted 2/3 in favor of one party, it's total electoral votes would go to that party. Now answer me this. Why should the Electoral college be abolished? You've thrown around vague statements with little to no evidence or support from your own writing to back your claim up. Such as "How is this fair or logical at all?" and " much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair." How? you need to elaborate on your statements.