BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
war in Iraq

here is my thing First. i think the whole reason why we went to war was because of 9/11 which is totally wrong. #1 steel which was in the towers can not be melted by fire. #2 there is no proof that it is exactly terrorists that did it Second. we attacked them Third. a republican is in the white house. Fourth. it is none of our business just because A as in 1 guy was not being so nice in Iraq does not mean that we should go to war against people who #1 did not say, "come and kill us" and we are dying for something that we started so it is all our(as in Bush)'s fault we are at war Fifth. Beat this
war in Iraq

FIRST of all, you cannot tell me to keep my mind on the debate, considering you've done nothing but attempt to refute me, and done nothing but detract from the real issues. The fact that a couple of people aren't getting help when they return, DOESN'T MEAN THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WAR. It means that our government was negligent on some part to provide subsidies to the soldiers. I know what I am talking about. And if we bring back our troops, TERROISM IS NOT GOING TO LEAVE. We are over there not only fighting terroism but fighting for the people of Iraq, who are being consistently and unfairly terroized. If we bring our troops back home, terroism will not leave and will only increase. Have you noticed that since we've been in Iraq, we haven't had any terroist attacks in America? And if we bring them home, we will more likely have more funerals as a result of more terroist attacks. That only goes to show, as I have stated several times in my arguments, that the War in Iraq is a good thing. Thank you.
war in Iraq

yes i have seen an army contract which is none of your business keep your mind on the debate but here is my thing no matter what you say this is my last time to speak so i will like it is People sign up knowing that they might die and that if they WILL get help when they come back But the fact that not all people are getting the help that they were assigned to means that there is too many people still fighting so we should just send our troops home the ones that are still alive home, so we can make memories to come good ones not bad ones from funerals, if you know what i mean
war in Iraq

And once again, I must stress that which is more important: 1 person, or 100 people? If the government had the choice and I'm sure that if you had the choice, you'd choose to save the 100 people because it's obviously more people. Sure, you're gonna feel bad for that one person, but if you chose the other way, what about the 100 people?? And I personally DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT THAT THEY SHOULD BE DENIED HELP. It's what our country needs to change. That shouldn't be the reason why we need to not fight a war in Iraq. And just as a question, have you ever seen a military contract? Because I really don't think that you have. And FYI they didn't sign up for the army so that they'd get help when they returned.
war in Iraq

by the way A SMALL PERCENTAGE is still people which is not what this Nation is about people signed up knowing that they would get help when they came back so small percentage or not it is not fair for people to not get what they signed up for. Also no where is the contract does it say "sorry if u do not get your help when you come back" and they should not worry about what we will not be able to help because the government know who is in the war so they take more care of them.
war in Iraq

And the fact that I am a republican should not determine my views on things; I still believe a few things that democrats believe. Not every person who is a part of a party necessarily has to believe everything that their party professes to believe or that others stereotype them to be. To certain republicans, such as some idiots who are in office that shouldn't be there (and I am not talking about our president), it may be war, war, war. But what else do you suggest in response to war? A WAR MAKES PEOPLE LISTEN. Not fighting back in any instance is not going to solve anything. Do you really expect America to take a back burner and not respond to the terroist attacks and threats? And yes, I have heard of a draft. Thankfully, we have not had to use one during this war, because we have enough soldiers willing to fight now. And patriotism alone does not determine a soldier. And yes, I have in fact heard of soldiers who came back and got no help. THAT IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE. And guess what?? I believe that that's not right and I think that the small percentage should change. SO WHAT. Once we finally get some better lawmakers, maybe that will change. But for the fact that a couple of soldiers got no help doesn't determine the justification of the War in Iraq. And yes, some do fight their hearts out and I'm proud of them. But that's just another fact: they chose to join the military and along with that pledged to defend their country. For however long it takes. And this war is TOTALLY what America is about. It's about upholding our standards and morality of freedom and of justice rather than just taking the easy road more traveled by like the democrats want. Once again, I ask that you stop distracting from the real issue and try to refute my arguments.
No More Abstinence-only programs in high schools.

Our society needs school systems to teach minors of all ages about abstinence. Teen pregnencys are what is helping the crash of the United States because if we are bringing more people into this world, we have to make more jobs and to make more jobs we need money which we don't have. Families are being kicked on the streets because they don't have enough money to support the baby that their daughter had because the father left and is supposed to be supporting the baby and the mother of it.
No More Abstinence-only programs in high schools.

As of right now, teen pregnancies are the " death" of our teen girls. The numbers and statistics speak for themselves. * The U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate. * 80% of the teen girls end up on govt aid and welfare. * U.S. Spends 7 billion dollars a year due to teen preg. * By age 30 1.5% have a college degree......... * 820,000 teens become pregnant. I say "death" because these girls don't have chance at living a successful life and if they do it does not come easy!!! A recent article in the New York Times reported 13 schools in NY, not only promote contraception, but they offer contraception's as well. The state of NY has successfully dropped it's pregnancy and std rate. So lets look at a state whose primary sex education is an Abstinence-Only program. Mississippi's teen pregnancy rate is the highest in the US. Miss teaches Abstinence-only programs or they teach sex education and speak about pregnancy awareness. In fact, the states in the US that teach Abstinence-only programs have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the US. Since the beginning of time young girls have been having sex its NO secret. The problem is that parents, as well as some educators seem be in denial, or just plain crazy to assume teenagers aren't engaging in some sort of sexual activity. The biggest influence in a teenage girl's life are: her peers, and media. Media does a fine job in promoting sexual activity, good looks, sexy clothes, pregnancy shows on MTV, and lets not forget the biggest influence in the media which is Face book. I went to a high school to get a teens' perspective and just as I thought the phones, ipods, computers, electronic devices are allowed in class, and they are generally online during class rather than listening to the teacher. The kids were not only sexually active and begun at an early age, but one of the girls was not any kind of birth control, nor was she aware of plan parenthood. I asked this girl if her mother knew about her activity? Sadly, like many mothers; yes she knew, and now she just forbid it (as if it weren't forbidden BEFORE her mom found out). Did the girl stop having sex just because her mom forbid it? .... NO. I asked her about the heath dept and seeing plan parenthood for some birth control? She looked at me and said "what's that?" ....... We need to open our eyes and realize these girls and guys are having sex and they deserve the knowledge and power to protect themselves.
No More Abstinence-only programs in high schools.

Well.... as I stated earlier TEENS ARE HAVING SEX not practicing abstinence, and those who are abstinent have high religion and family values, which is rare among today's teens. 95% of Americans have sex before they are married. I mean C'mon the numbers speak for themselves only 5% of Americans practice abstinence, so for the better of America's future its best we help not hurt the future.
No More Abstinence-only programs in high schools.

Abstinence from sex is the only form of pregnancy prevention that is 100% effective. Every method of contraception has a risk of failure however small, but a teen who practices abstinence will never become pregnant. Teens who abstain from sexual activity also avoid the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Teens who practice abstinence are much less likely to experience a physically or emotionally abusive relationship, drop out of high school, engage in substance abuse, or feel pressured into having sex -- all risk factors for teens who explore and become sexually active at an early age.
No More Abstinence-only programs in high schools.

NO our society needs school systems to open their eyes. It is the parents responsibility to teach their child about abstinence and if that step gets skipped, schools are next in line to teach and protect our youth. After all. today's youth is the future of America. The state that has the highest teen pregnancy rate also happens to be the state that primarily teaches sex education under the "Abstinence-only" program. Parents that do not want their children attending classes to better educate them on unwanted pregnancies, stds, and contraceptives, should have to choice to "opt-out" meaning they do not want their child attending this class. However in states like NY, that allow birth control, saw an amazing downfall in teen pregnancies and stds. Also the reason single teen-moms struggle is simply the fact they are too young to be having a family. The mother and father are young, uneducated, irresponsible, and immature. The teen mother and father often get pregnant by accident. So, why some girls and not the others? Because for whatever reasons, be it : money, parental issues, fear, lack of insurance, or just plain ignorance these girls weren't on birth control and having unprotected sex which is unacceptable considering the facts. Teens are having sex!!!!!
NVIDIA vs AMD (ATI)

I am going to be arguing that the NVIDIA cards aren"t worth the extra money and you should go with AMD cards. I"m not going to deny that AMD cards are more power-hungry than NVIDIA cards, but this higher power consumption has it"s pros. You see this allows the AMD cards to be very overclockable and that will boost the performance of the AMD cards over the performance of NVIDIA cards. NVIDIA cards, unlike AMD cards, have locked voltage control, and because of that their ability to overclock is minimal. True this overclocking will raise the temperature of the card and it"s no lie that lower temperature results in longer lifespan of the card, but that"s actually irrelevant, because all the high-end cards need replacement after 4 years, simply because the minimal requirements for games aren"t met and if you don"t require that high performance that overclocking offers the cards will last for the same time. So as far as high-performance goes the AMD card have an edge with their overclocking abilities. As my opponent said AMD cards are better at running multiple screen setups, the reason for that is that AMD cards have more video ram. Multiscreen setups are used by gamers and most people who work in IT because the need of running multiple programs at the same time on screen is needed. It"s common to have 3 monitors in when you work in IT so the extra RAM of the AMD card really pays of in those cases. The AMD cards are also known for their higher memory bandwidth which allows drawing images faster and with higher quality a big plus when you are working with photo or video editing. This is true that AMD doesn"t support PhysX, but as far as using PhysX in gaming there are some issues with it when using PhysX while playing Borderlands 2 with the GTX 68 0the fame rate dropped down by 19%. Similar problems raise when using other software described by my opponent. And similar software is available for AMD. Even FXAA the NVIDIA anti-aliasing software is available for AMD. So as far as developers and people who use multiple screen AMD is the way to go. For the drivers of AMD and NVIDIA, like my opponent I am speaking from experience. I have used many cards by both manufacturers; I have never had any problems with any of them. Only problems I have had are while using PhysX with my NVIDIA card. I really enjoyed this, looking forward to your reply
NVIDIA vs AMD (ATI)

Thank you for accepting JanariPa. This is my first debate on the site and am looking forward to it. DISCLAIMER: I am not gonna hate on anyone or any company I am going to be arguing that NVIDIA is better when it comes to an overall PC GPU, now I will not deny the fact that NVIDIA is more expensive that AMD (the latest top single GPUs from both companies are the R9 290X avg "420 and the competing NVIDIA GPU is the GTX 780 Ti avg "560) the highest end NVIDIA GPU is actually the Titan avg "720 but the Titan is geared more towards the video maker/extreme PC enthusiast than the common user/gamer. The R9 290X is the competitor to the GTX 780 Ti. If anyone wants to research these cards here are the official links 780 Ti: http://www.geforce.com... R9 290X: http://www.amd.com... I am going to be arguing that I think it is worth the extra money to get a NVIDIA card over an AMD card. NVIDIA cards have a lower TDP (they use less power than AMD) The AMD R9 290X has a TDP of 300W the NVIDIA GTX 780 Ti has a TDP of 250W (the same trend follows for pretty much all AMD and NVIDIA GPUs) While 50W might seem like a small amount, but it can have a huge impact of GPU performance and life expectancy of a GPU. The 50W difference will mean that the GTX 780 Ti will run cooler, quieter and it will have a longer life expectancy than a R9 290X because the chip is running cooler. I will sum-up for those who are not tech-savvy, a GPU that has a lower TDP will run cooler thus increasing the life of that GPU. If you took two of the same GPUs and ran one at 50c and he other at 60c I guarantee the one that ran cooler would last longer than the one that ran hotter. NVIDIA GPUs while having a lower TDP still perform just as good (if not better) than the AMD counterparts, in benchmarks we typically see that the NVIDIA's GPUs scoring higher marks and achieving a higher fps in games than AMD's GPUs. NVIDIA cards also have nice features like 3D Vision (AMD GPU's do have 3D but NVIDIA's 3D technology is far more mature), PhysX, TXAA and CUDA. All these features are very useful for gaming, video-editing and productive work. I will admit however that if you want to do a multi-monitor setup then AMD is the way to go as Eyefinity is far ahead of NVIDIA Surround. However most users do not want or need a multi-monitor setup, thus a NVIDIA GPU would be more suited. This next topic is more opinion/experience based. NVIDIA GPU's have more stable drivers, I have had a AMD in the past and the drivers were always a pain to get working and there were often crashed or errors (I still hear of this today, just Google NVIDIA better drivers) This is why I believe that NVIDIA is the overall better GPU brand to buy when getting a GPU for your PC. I wish JanariPa good luck and am eager to see his debate!
A perfect god does not exist!

Correction: "A theist who denies that god is perfect fails to heed to the scriptures that god gave him." There is no conflict with the word "perfect". Below I have given a definition from a Hebrew Lexicon and the other from a standard dictionary found online. If needed I can substitute complete for perfect, although it will not make any difference. The argument still stands. Kalal to complete, perfect, make complete, make perfect (Qal) to perfect SOURCE: Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon Perfect a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless b : satisfying all requirements : accurate c : corresponding to an ideal standard or abstract concept d : faithfully reproducing the original; specifically : letter-perfect e : legally valid 2 : expert, proficient 3 a : pure, total b : lacking in no essential detail : complete c obsolete : sane d : absolute, unequivocal e : of an extreme kind : unmitigated SOURCE: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Back to the argument: If God is complete (perfect) then he has always been complete (perfect). If something is perfect (complete), nothing imperfect (incomplete) can come from it. God must be imperfect (incomplete) to have created mankind imperfect (incomplete). A perfect (complete) God who creates imperfect (incomplete) humans is not possible. Theists that believe in an imperfect god are a minority. Certainly one cannot keep up with the multiple factions within theistic religions based on their separatist views of dogma. A majority of theists believe in a perfect god, so I will not argue whether some do or don't. Con has stated this: "It is possible for God to be unchanging- and the world he created according to Abrahamic religious doctrine to be in an almost constant flux because God and the world/universe are SEPARATE things even though God exists throughout the world/universe." How can god be separate from the world/universe and still exists throughout it? The logic behind this statement is faulty. If he created it, he is part of it. If he is changing things then it is not perfect (complete). God made an imperfect (incomplete) world, which makes him imperfect (incomplete) as well. My argument still stands: A perfect god cannot and does not exist. The argument from evil is another debate so lets stay on topic.
A perfect god does not exist!

The PRO states: "A theist who denies that god is not perfect fails to heed to the scriptures that god gave him." Or does the PRO mean "accepts" instead of "denies." This is a double negative and contradicts his main point. "Theists have to believe god is perfect." Here we encounter an attempt to frame the argument with absolutes. I for a fact know some theists who don't strictly subscribe to this point of view. The root of the issue, as I have recently discovered upon some research, lies in the nature of biblical translation. If the PRO wishes to try to point out contradictory biblical passages- it is important to point out that the Bible was not originally written in English but Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Translating the bible into English has the effect of muddling and confusing the original words- giving rise to the possible inconsistencies that the PRO is attempting to point to as concrete contradictions. It is because of this that Theologians study the bible by learning the original languages to gain a fuller understanding. Lets look at some of the differences. Websters describes "perfect" as: A) being entirely without fault, b) accurate, c) expert, proficient, d) pure, total, and e) mature. The Hebrew word "Tamin" which is commonly translated to mean "perfect" on the contrary means: "complete or mature or healthy" SOURCE: http://www.crivoice.org... We can be mature but still have faults and the PRO is incorrect in improperly applying an English definition to what was originally a Hebrew word. The aforementioned source is in and of itself enough to soundly invalidate the PRO's logical construction which must be flawless in order to be successful and affirmed. It is interesting that the PRO insists on only using passages from the New and Old Testament and completely ignores the Qur'an. If the PRO wants to attempt to disprove the Abrahamic conception of God he should widen his sources. Since I am not a scholar of anything besides rudimentary arabic- I won't expand in that direction for the sake of brevity. The pro incorrectly anthropomorphizes God here, "God created imperfect humans and then seems disappointed" in a statement that is clearly designed as a supposition rather than a statement of fact. I will have to ask the atheist to please stick to the facts when stating his case. It is possible for God to be unchanging- and the world he created according to Abrahamic religious doctrine to be in an almost constant flux because God and the world/universe are SEPARATE things even though God exists throughout the world/universe. The argument that the PRO suggests is very similar to the "Problem of Evil" analysis that Peter Kreeft explores in his lecture series "The Modern Scholar, Faith and Reason." I would advise anyone curious in this subject to look into the audiobook: http://www.amazon.com...
A perfect god does not exist!

My position in this particular debate is as stated: A perfect god cannot and does not exist, my position in this debate does not focus on whether god exists or not, rather it focuses on his supposed perfection. A theist who denies that god is not perfect fails to heed to the scriptures that god gave him.Theists have to believe god is perfect if they believe his supposed writings. So I assume (posit) nothing. The scriptures teach that god's work is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4). Malachi 3:6 states that he changes not. Matt. 5:48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. You point out my supposed logical inconsistencies by talking about the problem of perfect and realizing what perfect is. Would you say that god is having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be? Your statement "Who among us can actually say that we KNOW what "perfection" is or what it looks like?" is invalid in regards to the standard of perfection taught in the book supposedly given to us by god. Man can never be perfect in reflection to god. The status quo is dictated by god, not us. The characteristics of perfection are given to mankind throughout the scriptures. Perfection needs no change, the scriptures teach that god does not change and that god is perfect. Obviously there was something wrong with what god created because he wipes out mankind with the exception of a few people. Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of. Contention one is solved by the standard of perfection given through scripture. Contention two: Something in need of change happens in Gen.6:7 God created imperfect humans and then seems disappointed in what he created. I do not imagine a perfect universe because it is not perfect in the sense that god is portrayed as being perfect in the scriptures. The CON said "Who among us can actually say that we KNOW what "perfection" is or what it looks like?" and then as he finishes up his statements says " I would contend that this world as it is is perfect and therefore it makes sense for God to have created it if he is perfect as well." Does the CON believe that god is perfect? Does the CON truly believe that the world is perfect as well? My syllogism and conclusion stand firm. If god is perfect he needs nothing and requires no change. A perfect god does not exist. If a perfect god did exist then he would have no need to create non perfect humans and then destroy them for for acting in accordance with there nature, to which god gave them in creation.