BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Obama is not a Socialist

Obama was not only endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America. He attended their meetings and even spoke at their events. Obama was deeply connected to this organization and continues to associate with others who are as well. I can not find a video of Obama saying the quote I used in the previous round. The fact that it was so widely reported and never denied by the administration shows it to be likely accurate.A full record of Obama's connections can be found at http://keywiki.org...
President Obama is not a Socialist

I would first like to apologize for neglecting to cite my source for the definitions of socialism I posted in round one. I got those definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com.... I beg indulgence for this oversight, as it was caused by long work hours, and sleep deprivation."Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself." - Barack ObamaThe above quote was repeatedly spoken by Obama during the 2008 Campaign. I will do as he suggests.1. Barack Obama Sr. - Wrote a paper titled Problems Facing Our Socialism in 1965 advocating confiscatory policies including a 100% tax on the rich.[1]2. Frank Marshall Davis - In Obama's book, Dreams from My Father, Obama describes his relationship with Davis as akin to a father and son. Davis was a known member of the Communist Party USA.[2]These are two examples, there are many more, I will list them if my opponent believes there are not.What do socialist say? They say Yea!Obama was endorsed by the Communist Party USA for president in 2008 and 2012.[3] During his run for State office, he was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, and had extensive links to this organization.[4]Going "Bulworth"Obama has privately told staffers that he really wants to go "Bulworth", a reference to a 90's movie in which the main character is a Clintonian Democrat who has a mental breakdown, becomes suicidal, and then begins simply telling people what he really believes, including a strong support for socialist policies.[5]Sources1. http://www.politico.com...2. http://whatreallyhappened.com...3. http://keywiki.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://nypost.com...
President Obama is not a Socialist

Socialism - noun. 1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting ofthe ownership and control of the means of production and distribution,of capital, land, etc. , in the community as a whole. 2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of asociety to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementationof collectivist principles. Socialism is also defined as: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
President Obama is not a Socialist

Resolve: President Obama is not a socialist Clarification: This debate is not about support for or criticism of the President, just as the resolve states this debate is about whether or not President Obama fits the definition of a Socialist. pro will argue that President Obama is not a Socialist Con will argue that President Obama is a Socialist. Definition of terms: I will provide some definitions. Con is free to provide definitions within their arguments; the purpose of these definitions is to be clear as to what is meant by Socialism Socialism: "A way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"(1) Socialist: "A person who believes in socialism"(2) Format Round 1: Acceptance and definitions Round 2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals Round 3: Rebuttals and new arguments Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements, No new arguments. (1)http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
It is reasonable to believe Alexander Oparin's basic theory of abiogenesis (aka "Primordial Soup")

First of all, I must say that this does have the merit of being a quick debate. You did not answered not issued any of the point I rose in last round, you just gave an evasive answer with "proto-life", while this is at best a mere theory, with no actual indication on what the proto-life is. For the purpose of the debate, let's now state clearly a few definitions: ""In natural science, abiogenesis or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes."" --http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wikipedia's definition on Abiogenesis). If you change the sense of those words to your liking, well I must say that you're a very poor debater. They have only ONE meaning, which has been fully exploited up above. Hence the whole argument you gave last round failed to demonstrate anything. But, just for the sake of debating, let's pursue it. "Proto-life" is not yet a term recognized by the majority of the scientific community, it's at best an incomplete theory. If, however, you do refer to "proto-life" as in "Materials that could, under ideal condition, give birth to life", well this once again fails, as proto-life cannot replicate itself without mistakes and would quite easily be dispersed within a relatively short span of time. The so-called "experiment" you stated was made with a 482 base molecule (Compared to the 2,000,000 we need for a stable organism) . It did not reproduce, it duplicated without the slightest mistake, thus making evolution within proto-life impossible, even at term. May I also point out that the experiment was conducted with an already living base? And as conclusion, I must say that my opponent's agreed with my previous arguments (("Of course it is so astronomically unlikely that life would form from simple amino acids that we wouldn't even consider it")). If we then consider that his definitions were wrong from the beggining, that sould make me an automatic winner, unless, of course, he got solid material to demonstrate his most illogical claims. P.S: You have not cited any sources. Should I assumed that you once again created your arguments and so-called experiments to give you an edge? Also, my last point is referring to your "Read on the subject". May I point out, once again, that you're merely a 16 years old boy with "Some college" education? I am not saying I'm any better, but before declaring one's incapacity in a field, please obtain some REAL education.
It is reasonable to believe Alexander Oparin's basic theory of abiogenesis (aka "Primordial Soup")

I gather that English may not be your first language. Anyways, the answer would be no, I'm not changing the resolution. My opponent makes a key mistake in defining what abiogenesis is, and I think that this misunderstanding explains why his argument fails to properly address the topic. " Abiogenesis refers to the same process, with the difference that it is done through inorganic matter. " This isn't exactly true, if you read my first post, you'll see that organic matter (amino acids in the first stage, but later advancing to polymers, to single strands of RNA, to RNA surrounded by proteinoid microspheres, to early metabolisms etc. ) What we consider to be actually "alive" appears fairly late, there is never a jump from inorganic matter to life, it happens slowly and progressively (over a period from tens of millions, to a billion years). Thus, my opponent's single argument is a strawman. Of course it is so astronomically unlikely that life would form from simple amino acids that we wouldn't even consider it. However, this is not what primordial soup theory postulates. If my opponent would please take the time to become educated on the subject, (the wikipedia articles in round 2 would be a great place to start) I think he will see that the modern theory avoids the problem that he poses. E. Coli, when thinking about the origins of life is extremely complex. There would have been millions of intergenerational proto-life before we even get the first strand of DNA. Since we've already synthesized self replicating polymers (early RNA), it's not hard to see that these self replicating molecules would slowly transform across generations (pick up a book on evolution if you don't believe me), proteinoid spheres (also empirically tested), give the basis for cellular integrity. My opponent's probability calculation assumes that I'm postulating that the amino acids up and create some ecoli spontaneously, which just isn't true. I strongly recommend that my opponent learn a bit about the topic before coming in and throwing unrelated statistical analysis at me. The only other blippy argument that my opponent makes is that we've never been able to make life in a laboratory. Of course we haven't, it would take million of generations for a population of self replicating molecules to eventually evolve into actual life. Remember that primordial soup theory postulates that it took tens of millions to a billion years for the monomers that were found in the Miller-Urey experiment to reach actual prokaryotic cells. Not to mention the natural "laboratory" was the entirety of the earth's oceans. Needless to say, of course we haven't made life in a lab.
It is reasonable to believe Alexander Oparin's basic theory of abiogenesis (aka "Primordial Soup")

For readers unfamiliar with abiogenesis, I suggest that you peruse the following wikipedia articles. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Some opening arguments. Per the rules section, I need only to defend that it is reasonable to believe in Primordial soup theory, not that it is undeniably true, my opponent needs to show that it is fatally flawed or there is a better theory to describe the origins of life. It is up to my opponent to show that there is something severely wrong with it. Note also that I will be defending Oparin's position as a general principle (see round 1). This means that I don't necessarily need to defend a "metabolism first" model, since in modern times, the dominant theory is "self replication first". 1. Primordial soup theory is accepted by the scientific consensus (Though there is disagreement on certain specifics, the validity of the theory is withstanding peer review). 2. Primordial soup theory accurately predicts when life formed (the time frame suggested by primordial soup corresponds with the early fossil record and indirect evidence of early photosynthesis). Additionally, there are "relics" of the proto life (an example of this is thermosynthesis still occurring in cell division, seed germination and the like). 3. Contrary to popular belief, scientists have recreated many of the steps necessary for life to begin (either with experiments or theoretical models). These include but are not limited to: a. Creation of amino acids from early earth atmospheres (Miller-Urey experiment) b. Spontaneous creation of proteinoid membranes or "microspheres" (Sidney Fox's experiments) c. Creation of self sustaining and self replicating RNA (Lincoln & Joyce). d. Models explaining pre-life metabolisms (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... also, pretty much everything by Dr. Muller has to do with early metabolisms). e. Models explaining assorted phenomena such as homochirality. My opponent alludes to primordial soup accomplished through "randomization". This is only partially true. While we can think of certain mutations and transformations of proto-life as "random", this doesn't tell the whole story. Experiments such as the Miller-Urey experiment (and subsequent ones), show that the formation of monomers, and in the case of Sidney Fox's experiments, protenoid spheres form predictably, these experiments have been repeated. It is no more random than chemical reactions.
god doesnt exist

My objections to Pro's R2 arguments are as follows:1) My opponent has the burden of proof and yet her primary criticism of my R1 contributions was that I did not advance an affirmative argument. The problem with this argument is that I am not advancing a positive claim, she is. The contention at hand, "god doesn't exist," extends beyond a rejection of claims that have not sufficiently met their burden of proof, and is itself an affirmative claim. She is asserting that god does not exist, not that there is no reason to believe in god.2) My opponent's entire R2 argument revolves around the assumption that the Abrahamic god is the topic of discussion. I reject this notion on its face. The term "god" does not exclusively apply to Yahweh. If one looks at the varying definitions of "god" (especially those written in lower case) one finds this abundantly true (http://dictionary.reference.com...). Various conceptions of god exist.My challenge then to my opponent is to prove that an immaterial, non-interventionist god (like that which deists proclaim to believe in) does not exist. It simply cannot be done, as the claim is unfalsifiable.3) Pre-emptively, I would like to address any challenge that my opponent may launch against my definition of "god." Nowhere in the initial challenge did my opponent explicitly state that this was a debate concerning the Christian god. In fact, in the title of this debate and in her round one arguments, she uses the word "god" instead of the name "God," suggesting she was not referring to the Abrahamic god exclusively (otherwise one would use a proper noun).Thanks.
god doesnt exist

I would like to start by saying that my opponent has yet to give his opinion on the matter. He has not yet given evidence that god does exist. like i just mentioned there is the matter of evidence. What evidence do you have to back up the theory of god, apart from the bible, which anyone could have written, what evidence is there to suggest there ever was a god, or a man named Christ? nothing. However there is numerous amounts of evidence to suggest evolution and that the big bang happened. "God" is nothing but a figment of a group known as a religion. religious people are people who want hope. hope that there is someone looking after them. Hope that here is an after life because they are too afraid of dying. The story of God doesn't add up either. For example, if god is all powerful and all loving why does the bible refer many times to homosexuality being this horrible sin? and why is he letting people die. surly if he loved everyone and is this powerful figure, then why cant he stop these terrible thing happening to innocent people? End of my second debate!
WWI should be better remembered than it is now.

"In British schools, for K53 everyone is taught about WW1, and not WW2." That may be true, but how does that compare to students in other countries? What about the USA, Germany, Japan, Italy, Austria, and all the others? They are lacking a direct education on WW1, yet their countries were large factors in the war. "Also, I would like to rectify your point about "billions" dying in WW1." I know, my mistake. A simple typo. I meant to say "millions"."The reason WW2 is talked about so much is that it's meant to be in modern times, and people thought that something like WW2 couldn't happen." What do you mean "meant to be in modern times"? And people never thought something like WW1 could happen either. You know, they were both world wars, costing lives from every main country on the earth...and they also called WW1 "The Great War", back before WW2 happened."The reason WW1 is not so well known (it is still well known compared to other wars) is simply because it was a hundred years ago." So what? A hundred years is barely a distance. And the revolutionary war started about 238 years ago. That is more than double a hundred, and yet the revolutionary war is HIGHLY remembered. Same with the civil war. The civil war started around 150 years ago, and that is still one of the highest remembered wars in history. So, with these, how come WW1 isn't as well remembered?"How many have heard of the Boer war, or the Crimean war. those wars aren't even taught in school." The people that have heard of those wars are the people who are interested in the participating countries' history. The reason those wars aren't taught in school is because they aren't complete, turning points of history. WW1 was, yet is not taught in many schools."The main wars everyone learns about in school are WW1, world war two and the cold war." That depends solely on what school you go to. Different schools have different curriculums. And, to counter your argument, the main wars that schools focus on are the revolutionary war, the civil war, and maybe WW2.
WWI should be better remembered than it is now.

In British schools, for KS3 everyone is taught about WW1, and not WW2. Also, I would like to rectify your point about "billions" dying in WW1. In fact, 16 million died in WW1, whereas over 60 million died in WW2. The reason WW2 is talked about so much is that it's meant to be in modern times, and people thought that something like WW2 couldn't happen. The reason WW1 is not so well known (it still is well known compared to other wars) is simply because it was a hundred years ago. How many people have heard of the Boer war, or the Crimean war. those wars aren't even taught in school. The main wars everyone learns about in school are WW1, world war two and the cold war. The second two are arguably the most important in the twentieth century, as they shaped the modern world. If the outcome of those wars had been different, so would the world around us. WW1 wasn't a clash of ideologies, it was a war between imperialist countries, and those who wanted empires, although it was still important.
WWI should be better remembered than it is now.

WW1 needs to be way more remembered than it is now. Every kid these days knows about WW2 because of Call of Duty or whatever. The only reason these youngsters know there was a world war one is that they know there was a world war two, thus there had to have been a first one. 1. World War II has a For Dummies book but World War I doesn't. 2. World War II has all these excellent films (Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, etc.) But we are yet to see such a film epic about World War One. 3. World War I costed billions of lives and changed many countries forever. 4. World War I is the sixth deadliest war in world history. There are many more reasons but as this is only the frst part of the debate I leave the next argument to you.
WWI should be better remembered than it is now.

WW1 is remembered, every year there is a remembrance parade, mainly for WW1, the main symbol for remembrance day is a poppy, which originates from WW1 and the fields of Belgium and the Netherlands. Also, every school in England teaches WW1. I don't think WW1 is forgotten as such, it's just remebered as a pointless war, since WW2 happened 20 years later.
Battlefield 1 Vs. Infinite Warfare

I am for Battlefield 1 being better than Infinite Warfare although they are both good. I have played both games as I own both. Battlefield has more immersive game play unlike Infinite Warfare. Battlefield 1 also is based on real events and battles (WW1 and other battles) whereas infinite Warfare is just another futuristic. People have been looking forward to a WW1 game and Activision could have blown us all away.
The War in Afghanistan is a bad thing.

I will debating this in (somewhat) a policy debate format. Advantage 1, Afghan stability: If we maintain military presence in Afghanistan, anti-americanism will only increase and there will likely be more Taliban recruits. Having troops in Afghanistan is showing the Afghan people what the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has said about America to be true.[1] This may be fine if it were isolated to just Afghanistan but that is not the case. If an Islamic extremist takeover of Afghanistan were to happen, Pakistan would ultimately destabilize and be taken over itself. Again that has no inherent danger if we blind ourselves to the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. But we cannot blind ourselves to that fact and must realize that if Pakistan is taken over by Islamic extremists, nuclear war will inevitably ensue,[2] and we all have heard the horror theories about what would happen if a nuclear war broke out. The terminal impact would be extinction. Advantage 2, Hegemony: With the US being in Afghanistan, two very real possibilities for hegemonic collapse arise. Firstly, stopping the war/reducing presence in Afghanistan is the only way to stabalize our declining influence.[3] Secondly, the fact that the US has two doctrines in place, the counterterrorist and counterinsurgency, stretches our military thin as well as lowering US legitimacy. So what would happen if we did not stop the war in Afghanistan? If we stay in Afghanistan we will ultimately get entangled in future conflicts, undermine our power as well as cause the War on Terror to fail.[4] The terminal impact of the loss of hegemony is that smaller wars will erupt until even large powers get involved which ultimately risks extinction.[5] So far we have two possibilities for extinction! Depending on how the round goes I may add more advantages on but in the meantime I await my opponent's response. [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org... [3] http://www.hks.harvard.edu... [4] http://www3.interscience.wiley.com... [5] http://papers.ssrn.com...;
The War in Afghanistan is a bad thing.

I will first provide definitions and then my position. The first round will be acceptance and definitions. War in Afghanistan: "The War in Afghanistan is an ongoing coalition conflict which began on October 7, 2001, as the US military's Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) that was launched, along with the British military, in response to both the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US. "[1] Bad: "having undesirable or negative qualities. "[2] During the course of this debate I will be arguing that the War in Afghanistan is overall a bad thing. I look forward to an enjoyable and educational debate. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present) [2] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
In America, Abortion is not murder.

Pro = Abortion is not murder in the US. Con = Abortion is murder in the US. If you accept this debate, We agree to use this definition for person and for murder. Person: A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, Morality, Consciousness or self-consciousness, And being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, Ownership of property, Or legal responsibility. [1][2][3][4] The defining features of personhood and consequently what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts. Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. This is acceptance round only, Debate starts next.