BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socially, the republican party is superior.

Indeed, we established that there were some social issues in which the Libertarian Party and the GOP agreed on. I am talking about education and gun rights. Moreover, the reader should remember that Pro did agree that the GOP's views on the Drug War were wrong and drugs should be legalized, which is a Libertarian Party viewpoint. But Pro "disagreed" on immigration, same-sex marriage, and abortion. Yet, to be fair, he never addressed the abortion and same-sex marriage issues. Pro stated his opinion, which is that abortion should be illegal and only heterosexual marriage should be allowed. The Libertarian point of view is one of decentralization (state and local issues, not federal ones). The Libertarian Party is not a pro-choice or pro-life party, it simply wants to get the FEDERAL government out of the issues. But the GOP wants to nationalize these problems and Pro failed to state why this view is favorable. Now, when it comes to immigration. You said that i never addressed the fact that immigrants paid no taxes. First of all, this is't true. They pay sales taxes, gas taxes, excise taxes, and, of course, the most important one for the American system, the inflation tax. Also, I must say that the Libertarian party will always fight against giving welfare, or attracting immigrants with welfare. But it is true we support open borders. Of course, we want to secure the border. But how? Not by sending thousands of unconstitutional armed guards to the border. But rather by legalizing drugs (which is the main reason why borders are dangerous to begin with), and by privatizing the border lands, so that landowners will, more efficiently, control the flow of movement (landowners could make passers pay fees, restricting the amount of people coming in, or establishing strong security there.) But if an immigrant comes to the country without harming anyone's life or property, then the immigrant should be able to stay, work, and live in the United States forever, without having to file some bureaucratic papers and without having to pay thousands of dollars to become naturalized. You want America to be less ethnically blended. It's your right to want that. But it is not your right to prohibit people from moving across the globe. As human beings, we have always traveled, and never was this a bad thing. We believe in a world where people live in the area that represents their values the most, where anyone can live in the United States if they can afford to on their own. Again, if an immigrant buys a property in the country, IT IS NOT your right to confiscate the property. If a homeowner decides to rent his house or apartment to an immigrant, it is not your right to cancel the contract and expel the immigrant. In the same way, the federal government does not have the right to do so. Thank you
Socially, the republican party is superior.

The purpose behind this debate originally is whether the beliefs of the republican party are the best. It was not supposed to be about government intervention, instead it was supposed to be a battle between the social issues America was faced with. Guns, Gays, Abortion, Immigration, etc.. Gays: Marriage is between a man and a woman. I do not support gay relationships, but if, they want to be united for taxes or something, they could file it on their taxes or other paperwork. Not marriage, just a union. Immigration: The borders should be secured because illegals do not pay taxes. You never addressed this but it cannot really be addressed because it is true. All illegals should not be given any benefits which we agree with. We, mostly my logic, want to defend our borders to keep the population lower, and stop ethnic blending. I support not having ethnically diverse regions because these regions always create social rifts. I do not believe it is a melting pot; instead it is like Italian salad dressing. All the seasonings fall to the bottom while all the oil goes to the top. They are in the same bottle, but separate from each other. In this case, a social rift forms. Abortion: In my opinion, as well as many Republicans, a fetus is a baby as soon as the sperm and egg come together. A baby is a person. While an individual egg may not become a person, a fertilized egg will. Abortion should be illegal, use protection or do not have sex if you do not want children. But once the egg is fertilized, have the child and put them up for adoption or raise them yourself. Give them a chance. "If at any time we can save a child's life, we should do so," Barack Obama(ironically the most pro abortion president America has ever seen). Though my beliefs may not have the same reasoning as many republicans, I still believe what the republicans do, just have different reasoning. I have shown why the Republicans are superior by stating reasoning behind my views. I have met my BOP.
An atheist has no ability to objectively, rationally and non-arbitrarily find anything immoral

As expected, when forced into a corner; a religious person will do one of three things. (a) Spit the dummy and cry fowl play. (b) Ignore the debate completely on the grounds of religious sacrilege and indignation. (c) Talk in indecipherable religious garb that nobody can understand. Ultimately, its impossible to discuss anything in a rational manner with a religious person.
An atheist has no ability to objectively, rationally and non-arbitrarily find anything immoral

I am an atheist and have strong moral convictions. Therefore, your assertions are incorrect. The religious point of view is a view that is tainted with the lusts and desires of the ruling classes. All religions were originated from the ruling classes and are thus tainted with their desires and weaknesses. Monks cannot marry, not because of their devotion to god, but because the church needs to preserve private property and thus can't allow church land to be divided by any subsequent offspring that marriage may bring. Thus, we can plainly see that religion is tainted with earthly restrictions which has nothing to do with God.
An atheist has no ability to objectively, rationally and non-arbitrarily find anything immoral

Because there is nothing objectively, rationally or non-arbitrarily immoral with pond scum interacting in anyway with other pond scum, there can be nothing objectively, rationally or non-arbitrarily immoral with evolved pond scum interacting in anyway with other pond scum, right? After all, ethics are non-material and cannot be accounted for in a atheist worldview.
Muslims claim that the God of the Bible is also the God of Islam

I should begin with stating that I am in no way an expert on any religion or belief in any community; but I can share the belief of people in my community on this matter. People in my community believe that Torah also got manipulated through time. The rationale here is that Allah sends messengers (with or without a holy scripture) in order to warn humanity of their wrongdoings. The belief is that Jewish people manipulated Torah, and Christ and Bible were sent by Allah to reveal them his true orders, and fix their erroneous ways. After that, Bible was manipulated and Christians started going off the rails, and this is why Muhammad and Quran were sent by Allah. I don't know much about the Old Testament or the New Testament; but if they indeed include passages that state God has a son, it contradicts with passages from Quran, and it is obvious that both parties can't be right at the same time. At this point, I should remind that this is a matter of belief. If a person is a Christian and takes Bible as a fact; it means that person does not believe that Quran is God's message, and it is only natural that passages from Quran will yield no evidence to him/her. Similarly, if a person is a Muslim and takes Quran as a fact; the contradiction will mean that Quran is correct on that matter, and the only possibility left is that Bible has changed. It would be the same for the Old Testament; what anyone will take as the truth will depend on which religion they believe in. However, as it is indeed a speculation to claim that Bible has been changed without having the original version to compare to, from a Christian point of view; the claim that Bible did not go through any changes is as speculative to a Muslim point of view. The fact that they are older does not necessarily mean that the one we have now is genuine. The thing is, we do not have a copy of Bible which all parties can agree upon its genuineness, and therefore both claims will be at a tie for a neutral observer's judgement.
Muslims claim that the God of the Bible is also the God of Islam

I agree with you that the Quran is specific that Allah does not have children. It is therefore clear that the God of the Bible is not the Allah of the Quran (see John 3:16 as already mentioned). The questions here are: You mention that the Scriptures that were revealed to Christ are the real Scriptures and suggest that those Scriptures are what is known as the New Testament. Where is the real Bible you refer too? In order to say that the present Bible is not the real Bible, one needs the real one for comparison to verify whether it is the truth or not. Without a copy of the Real Bible this claim is nothing but speculation and cannot be regarding as factual. Therefore the NT must be accepted as correct and the Quran as in error. The Words that God spoke to Abraham etc. was recorded and preserved by the Jews. These Scriptures also says in Psalm 2:7 that God has a Son. How would you explain this? Seeing this is the Scriptures the Jews have been using long before Islam claimed Allah has no son. Needless to say, that because the Jewish OT was around before the Quran, the OT should be accepted as correct.
Muslims claim that the God of the Bible is also the God of Islam

I would like to begin my argument by stating that there are many different translations of Quran, and I will be using translations of Hamid Aziz (chosen randomly).To begin with, verse 2/116 states that Allah has no son: "They say, "Allah takes unto Himself a son." All Glory is to Him! Nay, His is whatever is in the heavens and the earth, and all things worship (obey, glorify, praise) Him."Another verse, 9/30 states: "The Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say that Christ is the son of Allah; that is what they say with their mouths, imitating the sayings of those who disbelieved before. Allah (Himself) fights against them! How perverse are they!"The two verses presented above should clearly show that in Islamic faith Allah has no children.I believe the confusion about Muslims claiming that God of the Bible is also God of Islam arises from the confusion in terminology. From Islamic point of view, if we refer to the book which was revealed to Christ as the Real Bible, and the one we have now as the Changed Bible; what Muslims claim is that God of Islam and God of Real Bible are the same.Verse 3/3 of Quran states: "It is He who has sent down to you the Scripture with truth, confirming what was revealed before it, and has revealed the Torah and the Gospel before this for the guidance of mankind, and has revealed the Discrimination (Criterion). "Verse 3/84 of Quran states: "Say: 'We believe in God, and that which has been sent down on us, and sent down on Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and in that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.'" (this translation is from Arthur John Arberry due to a mix-up of Hamid Aziz's translation in the web page translations are taken from)As the verses above show, in Islam, it is believed that Christ was a genuine prophet of Allah, and whatever was revealed to him were genuine verses from Allah. Since Quran confirms that Allah, God of Islam, revealed Real Bible, there should be no contradictions about God having children. The only option remaining from an Islamic point of view is that the Bible we have today has been changed in history.
Muslims claim that the God of the Bible is also the God of Islam

I often hear Muslims claim that the God of the Bible is also the God of Islam. This is clearly contradicting scriptures like John 3:16 that states God has a Son whereas Muslims claim that Allah does not beget. When pointing out these differences a Muslim will claim that the Bible was changed. I do not believe the Bible was changed and would like to debate a Muslim who can give evidence that the Bible was indeed changed regarding specific scriptures that clearly show that Allah is not the same God as found in the Bible.
Marijauna Should Be Legal

I'm arguing for marijuana legalization. Marijuana should be legalized on the fundamental principle of personal freedom. This is inherent to the founding of the U.S.A. Marijuana doesn't do enough harm to keep it legalized and keeping it legalized does more bad then good. I'm all for the decreased use of marijuana, but I believe by keeping it illegal it isn't lowering supply or availability, and there should be an attempt at limiting demand through education, rehab clinics, and counseling. Plain and simple, teens today can get marijuana extremely easily. Nearly every high school in America has a dealer, so almost any teen can get it. People need to believe for themselves that marijuana is bad to not use it, and here is where limiting demand can come into play. The current enforcement on marijuana is an attempt to limit supply, and this clearly doesn't work so why make our police go after harmless people? Marijuana users are pretty harmless. When I or anyone I know is high, they are very peaceful and nice people. Also, driving A LITTLE stoned isn't terrible, myself and most of my friends do it every day and I have great driving (my parents would back this up as I have driven them while stoned many times). I have never gotten in a car crash or even a traffic ticket. I'm not saying that anyone can drive around completely stoned because if you feel impaired at all you really shouldn't be driving, but I'm a firm believer that an experienced stoner is a great driver after a bowl. People see marijuana as leading to laziness and no life. While this can be true if over abused, why can't we be lazy an hour or two a day? For example, I smoke everyday but I also go to a hard engineering school and maintain a job. I don't believe people should be stoned when they need to get stuff done, but if I'm just going to watch a movie, why is being stoned bad? My point is that marijuana may make you lazy, but who is completely productive for 16 hours a day? Even before I smoked I spent a lot of time doing nothing watching TV or playing video games. I view the time of being stoned as a time to relax, which I would take time to do even if I didn't smoke. I'll go back to my personal freedom point to wrap up my argument. Basically, if smoking a joint at the end of every day makes me happy, who is anyone else to stop me from doing it? What harm is smoking that joint doing? Is it bad enough for someone else to tell me that I absolutely cannot do it and need to be locked up behind bars if I smoke because I'm bad for society? Well, I plan to be a successful computer scientist and to help society, do you really want to lock me up? That just seems ridiculous. Legalize it.
Secular Morality is Superior to Religious Morality.

The burden of proof is shared, so I would ask in addition to refuting my case, that my opponent provides a case as well.My Case“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg[1]Contention 1: Empathy is the foundation of morality. Whether or not an action is right or wrong is dependent on human conscience, reason, and more imporantly; empathy. Empathy is a person’s ability to recognize, perceive, and feel the emotions or experiences of another person.We are born with a natural capacity for empathy, but empathy is also something that can be learned through experiences. Empathy is important because without it we would exhibit no altruism towards our fellow human beings. We would be utterly and completely selfish and only serve our own interests. This is similar to the state of nature that proponents of the Social Contract Theory refer to. It is because of the existence of human empathy that we have no need for a god, or any religious morality for that matter. Humans are very capable of coexisting with each other without a religious ethical system. Contention 2: Accountability. A strength of Secular morality lies in accountability. Secular morality is based on reality and the natural world as opposed to the metaphysical. When a secular person acts morally, they do so based on a sense of accountability. They understand that their actions have consequences and will effect other people around them. This understanding enables them to refrain from acting immorally. Religious morality on the other hand, works beyond the physical world. A religion can mandate an action with little regard to how moral that action actually is, or the consequences that action would have. For example, at one point in time, under Christianity it was considered morally permissible to own and trade slaves. "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46)Obviously, slavery is very highly immoral. One might say that this passage I cited is outdated and irrelevant, but this is no ordinary book I quoted this from. This is the Holy Bible, the supposed word of god. If this was really the word of a god then surely the moral teachings would be universal and practical. I was going to write more, but I have a debate tournament coming up so I'm kind of busy. Sorry if it's disorganized. I look forward to seeing my opponents case.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1)http://law2.umkc.edu...
Secular Morality is Superior to Religious Morality.

ResolutionSecular Morality is Superior to Religious Morality. Definitions:Religious - of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Secular - not connected with religious or spiritual matters (http://oxforddictionaries.com...)Superior - of higher grade or quality (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Morality - conformity to ideals of right human conduct (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Structure/RulesFirst round is for acceptance only. No new arguments may be brought up in round five. The Burden of Proof is shared 50-50. As Pro, I will argue that secular morality is superior to religious morality.The Con will argue that religious morality is superior to secular morality.No semantics with the resolution. It is quite obvious what is being argued here.By accepting this challenge, you agree to:1) Follow the structure I have provided2) Abide by the definitions I have provided3) Not forfeit any roundsFailure to follow these rules should result in an automatic loss. Questions/Concerns prior to the beginning of the debate may be voiced in the comments.Good luck, and may the best debater win.
We shall abolish Social Security and replace it with R.E.I.A.G

I will be arguing that we can successfully abolish and replace Social Security with R.E.I.A.G while Con will be arguing that my plan is load of rubbish. I have skipped the acceptance round so that Con gets a good idea of what he is arguing against. My plan IS changeable; meaning it can alter it to become workable again after being shown a flaw by con. The only things that are not changeable isI)Everybody must be able to retire by 60II)It must abolish Social Security and not become another form of it. III) Everybody that is 18 must be able to enroll in it starting in 20__.Introductory ParagraphThe U.S. spends nearly 725,000 dollars a year on social security, or around 20% of the federal budget. It is humungous pressure for the U.S. to continue this program and burns a huge hole in our deficit. Even so, nobody really wants to take this money away from the elderly, but nobody wants us to pay this huge sum of money. So genius me thought up of a plan that meets both of the above criteria and does much more. I have named the plan humbly after myself and call it R.E. Is A Genius (R.E.I.A.G). It works like this.1.) Each individual who turns eighteen starting in 20__ will receive Government investment accounts with 12,000 dollars.Since there are approximately 540,000 people who will turn eighteen in 20__, then nearly 54 Billion dollars will be needed to fund all these accounts. Either the 12,000 will come from the Government or from taxes.2.) The 54 billion dollars would all be invested in the U.S. stock markets and would be divided equally among stocks. The money would be controlled by massive hedge funds regulated by the Government.3.) Every person that reaches the age of 60 will have a total of 711,000(inflation adjusted) dollars in their Government investment account. They will be paid 54,000 annually from then on until their death. Upon the person’s death, 711,000 dollars worth of stocks will be sold from the massive hedge funds and the money made will be given to the family or whoever the person dead designates to. My math explainedI got 540,000 eighteen year olds from taking the total number of 18-24 year olds In the U.S. and dividing it by six. 27000000/6=4500000, 4500000*12000= 54 Billion dollarsAverage stock growth per year is 10% (1)Average dividend yield is 3% (2)Average Inflation is 3.2% (3)10%+3%-3.2%=9.76%. Every year, each Government investment account will grow by 9.76%. Over the course of 42 years, this will be equal to 711,000. The calculations can be made on the website in link (4), just put in 12,000 for the initial amount with a 9.76% interest rate for 42 years.ConclusionThis will successfully abolish Social Security, strengthen the U.S. stock market, and essentially lower the wealth gap between the social classes. Side notePlease do not take this debate if this you’re not willing to research or take time to do this debate. I’m looking to do a good debate, not to get trolled. So does anybody dare challenge me? (1)http://www.usatoday.com...(2) http://pages.stern.nyu.edu...(3) http://inflationdata.com...(4) http://www.daveramsey.com...