BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Today's Extreme Partisan Politics is Bad For American Democracy

As far as this debate is concerned, I think it should be noted that my opponent accepts the pro position in the first sentence of his previous argument. You mention the fact that negative campaigns are as old as politics itself. But as I said, never before has it been used as often as in the modern era. Candidates used to run on platforms and promises. Recently, we have seen John Kerry get "swiftboated" and John McCain get swindled out of a nomination by political "mastermind" Karl Rove. Negateive campaigning has also gotten more personal than in the past. Rudy Giuliani's mistress is now as much of a topic of conversation as his public record. The fact that Barack Obama's last name rhymes with Osama and he used to live in Indonesia has made him a target of lunatics like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. This leads me to my next point. Not only has negativity made its way into campaigning, it is part of our daily political routines. Every day, millions of viewers turn on Fox News and hear Sean Hannity declaring that liberals are "pansies", Bill O'Reilly telling us that the left is anti-Christmas, and Ann Coulter using every derogatory word she can think of for Democrats. Meanwhile the left is not much better. Keith Olbermann constantly belittles President Bush, sometimes referring to him as a terrorist, and talk show hosts such as Al Franken have convinced people that the Republican Party is full of nut jobs and corporate thieves. We have lost our way and our civility, and no one seems to be interested in finding either any more. But this year does seem to be shaping up somewhat differently. With the Rove machine out of politics, this campaign has been much more positive and issue-oriented. As you put it: "For the better part of a year, the presidential candidates have largely steered clear of negativity and attempted to present their positions on a number of various issues." America seems to be tuning in to the fact that we may finally be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. Record numbers of voters have turned out for both primaries thus far, proving that people are not turned off by politics in general, just politics as usual.
Today's Extreme Partisan Politics is Bad For American Democracy

I agree that the percentage of Americans involved it the electoral process is declining. However, I don't see partisan politics as the reason for the lack of participation. In fact, I sense most Americans see the 2 primary political parties as ineffective imitations of each other. The parties do claim to have different platforms neatly arranged around divisive issues, but time has proved the issues are mostly a smokescreen designed to capture a vote. In fact, both parties have consistently failed to address and satisfy the real needs of the American people. I contend both parties answer to a different master, and that they may or may not represent the needs of the people depending on the convergence of these separate interests. A recent case in point is the 2006 elections where the Dems inferred an end to the war, but have failed to deliver once they won control over the congress. There is a lot of rhetoric, but no substantial action. In fact, our engagement in the war has increased since that election. The people voted, but it did not matter! The reference to the Republicrat party is decades old, but it speaks volumes of the people's perception of the 2 parties. Political infighting is a sham. The partisan dog and pony show is the ultimate spin designed to confuse the electorate with the appearance of difference. Unfortunately, the American people are not stupid and know both parties have a history of abandoning the people for the deeper, more reliable pockets of lobbyists and corporate America. Hence, they control their frustration by not condoning the farce with their votes. Further evidence of this lack of confidence is the rapid growth in the number of deserters from both parties who salvage their dignity by choosing to register as Independents. None the less the 2 parties persist in their efforts to win votes. Both are presently obsessed with being recognized as the party of change, but if you listen in on the debates of the presidential contenders, the only change that is apparent is the position they take when addressing different audiences. The real problem with voter apathy is the stigma that says my vote does not matter, and until the problem of genuine representation is solved, voter participation will continue to decline.
Theistic Evolution is not biblical

Genesis is indeed written in the form of a history, a creation myth, to be exact. But it seems as if the Instigator misunderstands the higher criticism and continues to insists upon a literal interpretation, despite the unpopularity of such an interpretation among historical critics and textual philologists. As previously mentioned, the Instigator's arguments uses biblical literalism as its primary assumption. Unfortunately, most adherents to theistic evolution do not subscribe to literalism. Given that there are more rational ways of reading an ancient text, literalism is unnecessary and theistic evolution can be biblical. And just to respond to the last point, it is false to say that an allegorical interpretation would destroy the foundations of Christianity. If the founders of Christianity were themselves open to an allegorical interpretation, how could an allegorical interpretation be destructive? (It seems that the Instigator has confused "allegorical" with "metaphorical" and assumes a vulgar meaning of "myth.") The Biblical references to the Genesis story are already allegorical. Whenever the New Testament writers reference the story, they assign theological significance to the events and attempt to find a higher meaning. Allegory cannot be detrimental if it's asserted by the writers themselves. Everyone should vote and leave comments!
Theistic Evolution is not biblical

Thank you Con for your arguments Con claims that the bible should be read in the historical-critical method, and this is valid in some cases depending on its context, authorship ect. The bible has many literary devices they include history, poetry, parables, and the such. Genisis is clearly written in the historical form. My opponent also claims that Genisis should be taken allegory, however this is not the case either because: Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory, the need for a Savior is an allegory, and Adam is an allegory"but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine"it destroys the foundation of the gospel. - ken Ham Again I thank you for joining me in my first debate.
Theistic Evolution is not biblical

The Instigator's points are valid and so do not need to be rebutted. However, the Instigator has implicitly assumed that the Bible, at least the relevant sections, are meant to be understood at face value and only at face value. This brand of Biblical interpretation is known as literalism and is popular amongst partisan atheists and religious fundamentalists. However, many learned scholars, both secular and religious, reject Biblical literalism in favor of the historical-critical method. (As a digression, this historiography is used for all ancient texts, not just the Hebrew Bible.) Under this method, the text is read "between the lines," so to speak, and the interpreter attempts to find the original meaning of the author, rather than the superficial meaning of the text. The Instigator has either unknowingly or purposely omitted alternative understandings of the text in favor of a literalistic reading. One alternative. Some scholars have concluded that the Genesis Myth was created in order to demonstrate that the Hebrew God is superior to other Mesoamerican deities. The Ancient Jews needed a story to demonstrate why God deserves worship and so they advanced a story showing how God created the universe instead of subduing it, in contrast to other Mesoamerican deities. Another possibility is that the story is meant to be allegorical. In contradiction to criticism that metaphorical and allegorical interpretations became popular in direct response to the rise of science, Christians, since the 3rd century, have found allegorical interpretations of the story. Furthermore, the Apostle Paul himself thought some Genesis stories to have been allegorical, as demonstrated by Galatians 4:21-31. The Instigator's claim is that theistic evolution is not Biblical. However, his assertion rests upon the assumption that literalism is the only way to read the text. This is demonstrably false, as shown. Theistic evolution is Biblical as it is nothing more than an alternative interpretation of the Bible, one which harmonizes spirituality and naturalism. References: http://user.xmission.com... http://www.newadvent.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.biblegateway.com...
Theistic Evolution is not biblical

Here are my following reasons for why I believe theistic evolution is unbiblical Reason 1: the context of the word yom in Genesis 1 it has a morning and evening Reason 2. God said in Genesis 1:26, "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." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse, and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles. Reason 3 1) If a day is an era, why are an evening and a morning even mentioned? Actual days must be intended, otherwise, men who lived hundreds of years, e.g., Seth and Noah, would really have lived millions of years. If a day is an era, then a year must be tremendously long, perhaps encompassing hundreds of millions of years; Reason 4 Genesis 1:16 ("And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night") states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each. reason 5 Genesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, "And the evening and the morning were the first day," is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours. There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods. Reason 6 If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word "yom" is employed: "And the flood was forty days upon the earth" (Genesis 7: 1 7), "And he [Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights" (Exodus 34:28), and "Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights..." (Deuteronomy 9:25). If "yom" means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was "there with the Lord" for a long time. 7: Jesus spoke of Noah's flood "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. " Matthew 24:37, Luke 17:27 8 There is no evidence of a longer period. Anywhere in the bible Sources http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://carm.org...
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

Thank you for the debate and as you asked me Ill provide my arguments in round two. I wouldn't say I'm the best debater but Ill do my best not to make it easy. I expect that my opponent will provide his definitions in round two so to be fair Ill do the same. Juveniles that are guilty of felonies should be treated as juveniles and not adults, that is my stance.
Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

Into: Round 1 will be to introduce yourself and say what position you are Round 2 is where you state your cases solely. Round 3 is all refuting and supporting your case, finally Round 4 you're going to prove why you won Hello everybody I'm All-around debater and today I affirm the resolution,Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult.
Education is Important

Thank you for the timing in response with the concept of school. I wish to say that you are very intelligent and make good points. Also with this I must say that you leave out certain points in your debate that are key. I would like to say as an end, some people don't need help to grow faster and then there is people who learn faster through going through with others. For most gamers the program only does something once, and in free world games like "Terraria", "Minecraft", there typically are no instructions. So I must say good argument and debates later.
Education is Important

Thank you for your responses, I just want to pinpoint something here, I never mentioned that the topic was only regarding school itself but the education of learning something regardless of what it is. A person who is learning can, yes, learn to do things by experience, but with better guidance there will be instructions on how to properly perform the task. Sure you might think, I don't need guidance on how to play video games, but from what I have noticed you have to follow exactly what the games shows you or you will not understand or succeed in the game. It takes the inititive to follow the manul of instructions within the game itself to perform the tasks of a video gamer. So without proper guidance can only lead a person to failure or being upset because it was not completed correctly. Am I saying it is impossible to do things the "right" way without guidane, no, I am simply suggesting that if you want to have the modesty of help then you will gain it and become better and quicker at it. Rather than taking short cuts to learning the issue by observing only. Many times observations seem easy until you actually perform the task, and therefore you need the education to be instructed on knowing how to perform the task. So this why I say that education is important because without it, we cannot properly function and we cannot always perform our tasks rightly. With educated instructions on what to do we are given success, benefits and strength. Again, thank you to my opponent for choosing to debate me on this simple topic. Have a great one! And best wishes!
Education is Important

OK, you seem to misunderstand the point in my topic. When I say education is unimportant it is from the point of school. I belive that everyone would do better learning with own experience and not just stop and listen the better of finding is that with natural learning not told. I enjoy the fact you used a reference to gamers because I am one if you could not tell. Now with the extreme fact that most games don't really remind you of what to do but you learn along the way from doing actions or running into simple problems. The best way to actually learn is by on the spot or own choice learning.
Education is Important

From analysis, it would appear to me that your main goal is to suggest that education/classes are insigificant altogther and therefore, has no purpose. I appreciate your honesty. Education from what I have learned is that it has many benefits inside and out. For example, 1. scholarship awards2. degrees for profession3. successful careers With the 3 of these things I am sure you can and will enjoy your education because you would realize it is no longer a must do but an option. This I strongly believe is why my opponent does not find education significant. With the mentality of obligation comes with no interest and no care. But if you transform your mentality to the benfits and success of education then will you accept it. It takes people who play video games or learning to play an instrument or creating a massive art project to learn this by education themselves or being taught by something or someone, so in essence you cannot say education is not important even if the process of it is something such as gaming because without the knowledge or experience of the system you are learning you cannot properly play it. Same thing with instruments or massive art projects; you cannot just expect to just do those things without any form of knowledge or ability to learn about it. In other case of examples is as far as education goes, you wouldn't trust a pilot with no pilot license to fly a plane would you? Or a doctor to perform surgery on a sick relative/friend with no degree or knowledge license would you? Or even a person driving a vehicle, it takes proper education to learn what you need to learn in order to get to your destination. So education in all sorts is urgently important, but it is just a matter of having the care, respect and performance to want to learn through the sources of education. Education comes with great success! Thank you and I look forward to reading my opponents responses.
Education is Important

What does it mean for "Education to be Important"? What is the significance of Education? And How can Education be benefitial for us? With each of these questions comes a solution of understanding education for what it is , what it can do and what successes it brings to people. Anyone who does not get the education they need or chooses to remain incomplete within education is not showing much of any interest of a future; while I may add there may be chances of being accepted in a job, does not automatically insinuate that it will be the best either. My focus on this topic will be based on the importance, significance and benefits of education altogether. In return from my opponent I only accept your arguments and refutes to my position. I ask that we keep this debate as civil as possible and if needed use any resources to prove each side to our positions. Thank you to my opponent for choosing to debate this topic with me, whoever that might be. For further exemptions, if there be by any chance to forfeit in this debate please let one another know in advance so that the other may be considerate and suggest more options of this topic while waiting patiently for the others position. Best wishes to my opponent!
A world with only agnostics would be better than the current world with its multitude of religions.

Round 1: Pro defines the motion with its parameters and presents his arguments Round 1: Con comments on the motion's parameters if he wishes to do so, and presents his arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion Defining the motion: Defining agnosticism: The cognitive characteristic of willingness to change one's perception of how the universe functions. A non-agnostic person is someone who disregards any claim as false were it to contradict a belief of the non-agnostic person. Defining the adjective 'better' in the context: The topic assumes that a world that is 'better' is such a world that would be preferred by a larger percentage of humans (in the present time) than the percentage that would prefer for the world to stay as it is. --- Opening arguments: The characteristic of being an agnostic is the best alternative on the level of an individual. In strive for truth the individual is willing to adapt his view of the world in light of new evidence of the truthfulness of thesis, being more able to assess what kind of actions would bring humans closer to the basic imperatives of satisfaction, increase in happiness and decrease in sadness. The characteristic of holding any beliefs as absolute truths despite the evidence given gravely limits one's ability to understand the world, hence deterring the person of furthering human imperatives and hence reducing the number of people in the world who are able to understand the world in an attempt to improve it.
Abortion Should Be Made Illegal In the United States

Welcome one and all to my 100th debate on this site. Definitions for this debate shall be as followsAbortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.Illegal - To place a Ban on or to completely remove the practice ofPro is not arguing for the removal of abortion in certain situations but rather a complete ban on the practice all togetherRoundsMe(1) Rules(2) Opening Arguments/ Contentions(3) Closing Arguments, Crystallizing points, Closing Remarks. Adversary(1) Opening Arguments/Contentions(2) Closing Arguments, Crystallizing Points, Closing Remarks(3) Shall Type "No round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon will result in a full 7 point FF due to my adversary having an extra round(2) FFs or Multiple FFs will result in the loss of a conduct point and possibly a full drop at the discretion of the judges(3) 10k Words(4) Votes shall contain a valid and proper RFD.
hindi shall be made the official language of india.

hindi shall be made the official language of india because 80% of the citizens of india are from agricultural background and mostly resides in villages where hindi is spoken and understood. by making any other language or english as the official language of india, we ourselves are making the language hindi inferior to another language. the main reason why hindi is to be chosen as to be the official language is not because it is commonly spoken but because it has a connection with indian history
hindi shall be made the official language of india.

okay 1) you make no sense and are inconsistent with your argument 2) i never said languages should be introduced or something of that sort you have serious comprehension issues. Bottom line is. Yes i agree India has no national language. And i support it thoroughly. india cannot have a national or official language due to its diversity. All other countries have uniformity of language and hence their system of one official language works and even then they take into account of immigrants and their languages. We in India have more than 300 languages and about 10 major languages one of which is hindi and though i agree hindi is the majority language still it doesnt mean it is likely to be declared the official language. just because majority play cricket, has cricket been declared national sport? NO. just because the majority of animals in india are dogs and cows are they the national animal of India? NO. just because we see crows the most are they the national bird of india? NO. Hence just because Hindi is the language spoken the most does not mean it can be the NATIONAL LANGUAGE. A tamilian has ever right to use tamil as his first language as we have to use hindi. so we cannot impose hindi on people who dont speak hindi or who dont have hindi as their mother tongue. what would be the difference between britishers and us. When GBR ruled us they imposed their wishes on us and here again today you are talking of declaring hindi as the official language of india and thereby imposing it on people who havent even said one hindi word in their entire life. You cant teach hindi to every single non hindi speaking person its impractical. and people have no reason to learn. The motion stands void.