BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Heaven would mostly be filled with Atheists.

How would we draw scientific or logical conclusions or even speculations, If supernatural realities or beings were real? Even if in this case God and heaven/hell were real, How would we test, Observe, Or measure them? It would sound like in this case that God is being portrayed as anthropomorphic. If they exist, Supernatural beings/places are out of our understanding as we know it. Thus this would lead us to faith or axioms, The basis of your argument is placing your bets onto something that may not even be true. Regardless if supernatural places or beings exist, Because there would be no objective knowledge.
Heaven would mostly be filled with Atheists.

For the sake of argument. I will be accepting two presuppositions during this debate only. 1) God exists. 2) Heaven Exists. My first argument will be that No moral god would create hell as portrayed by the bible. My second argument is that god would not be happy with the bible or most religious texts. My third argument is that even if hell did exist. A moral God would not make it eternal and the punishments would come in the form of lessons to build their characters. These lessons would give them a chance to either make it to heaven or some lower form of heaven for runner ups. My fourth argument is that if this hell existed, The majority of people in that hell would be religious people. My fifth argument is that heaven would mostly be filled with former atheists because a moral god would know that we could never know him and would not even care. He would be happy that we didn't dogmatically follow what people said and will commend us for being open minded free thinkers. The kind of free thinkers that can imagine a hypothetically good god while also not believing in it. Your floor.
We need bigger government

Pro has put forth these points from round 1 #1. . Our educational system does not serve the whole population #2. . . Our health care system does not serve the whole population #3. . . We need higher taxes, #4. . . We need More socialistic policies within a market system #5. . . Therefore we need a bigger government. Con challenged Pro to prove each point. Pro merely offered "discontentment" as his only proof. CON disproved points #1 and #2 in round 2 ON item #3 where Pro states that "we need higher taxes" CON offers the Laffer Curve. "The Laffer Curve is a theory developed by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to show the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is used to illustrate Laffer"s main premise that the more an activity " such as production " is taxed, The less of it is generated. Likewise, The less an activity is taxed, The more of it is generated. " https://www. Investopedia. Com/terms/l/laffercurve. Asp On items #4 and #5 Pro offers no data. CON pointed out in round 2 that " inasmuch as Pro originated the debate, The burden of proof is mainly on Pro. Pro has failed to prove any of his 5 points. " Therefore due to lack of proof on the part of Pro and much data provided by CON, The vote in this debate should favor CON
We Are All Just People (All The Americans Are Dead)

The idea that we are all just people is beautiful, but I think that the majority of us people have greatly slandered the idea of a label. To say that we are Americans is to say that we are part of that nation and there is no harm in being proud of your nationality. Patriotism and Nationalism of course have nothing to do with the color of ones blood because the color of ones blood is a metaphor for ones ethnicity and culture. Nationalism is not a form of discrimination it is a form of pride. If you reject the idea of Nationalism, you must also reject the idea of religion/culture/individuality. To say that we are "all just people" is to say that we are all just the same. The beauty of humanity comes from its many different cultures and ability to grow and develop within those cultures. We are all just people, but we are all different people and our differences while sometimes may clash are what make us unique, and I for one am not willing to give up my individuality for conformity.
We Are All Just People (All The Americans Are Dead)

we're not americans, we are all just people 4 reasons why 1. we don't bleed red, white, and blue. that is a rumor that was spread to promote stupid patriotism. your main blood color is red. the more you breath the brighter the color. 2. patriotism and nationalism has nothing to do with the color of your blood. just because of the colors of a flag, doesn't mean that you bleed it. (It's an Idiom) 3. Nationalism is used to discriminate others who are different, if you can't stand people who are different than you, than get over it. Since WWII people use nationalism to discriminate and control the masses. 4. we have been people since the dawn of civilization, we've made great inventions, studied alot of things,and now we discovered how human we are. Although you call us names, we are all just people, everyday people. walking in the streets, singing in the churches, eating, living, doing everything that we normally do. we are all just people.
I challenge you to finish filling out your pros/cons.

Hey Rebma!! There are certain issues that I either do not know enough about or have recently discovered new information on. For instace, I would have never supported a national healthcare system until I watched Michael Moore's Sicko the other night. I am not usually one to be persuaded by Michael Moore, but it seems like it might actually be a good idea. Of course, I'm not going to agree with anything he says until I've investigated on my own. :)
Gun Rights

Again I'm sorry for the unprofessionalism of my side of the argument but I'm limited by the technology I have available. " the amount of damage one can do with a knife is orders of magnitude lower than the destruction that is possible with a gun" If I was to be murdered and I had the choice between death by gunshot or death by knife, I would choose the gun, for the same reason hunters use guns, it makes a clean, quick, painless death if your shot in certain places, however, a knife really only has one application where it is pain free, being stabbed in the heart. While yet, it still has the same killing capacity minus the range. " The probability of a normal citizen become Han Solo when a mass shooting occurs is close to zero. Highly trained police officers have been known to miss. People have shot family members by accident, children have come across their parents guns and shot themselves by accident" Again, a mandatory gun safety course and training law when purchasing a firearm would help solve this problem. people who want a feeling of self defense may purchase a gun and learn to use it, however if you prefer not, then don't. This along with a gun safety course would help parents who own guns realize the importance of keeping them locked away. "allowing criminals easy access to guns is not the solution to this" Like any smart debater, I am willing to compromise with a foe. I do believe firearms should be restricted more carefully. For example, I live just down the road from Cabela's. I could leave for an hour and come back with a pistol, fully loaded and ready to go. that's completely unacceptable. We need laws to A) restrict ALL automatic and semi-automatic weapons B) set up a system similar to pharmaceutical companies, tracking who buys how much ammo and how often, and set limits. and C) create a mandatory gun safety/training course prerequisite to buying firearms. however guns are a necessity in todays time, for defense, hunting purposes and even to cleanly kill animals for meat products. One point I would like to make clear is, I am not a supporter of gun rights because it is fun to shoot and fun to have them. I don't have my living room wall plastered with rifles, and I have never had a firearm at my side in public. My pistol is kept under my mattress with the loaded magazine on top of my dresser, and it has a trigger lock on it, with the key being in my wallet. my hunting rifles are all in a combination locked safe at my private hunting grounds. I am teaching my children how to be safe with firearms and to always make sure the safety is on, and that a gun is always pointed at the ground, not at a person or the sky. I simply love hunting. I never needed a semi/fully automatic weapon, and I always go for a clean, pain free kill. I make sure that if I miss the bullet drives into the ground, not on to the great blue yonder. I make sure that i am a role model for other gun owners. Thank you, and once again i apologize for any grammar/spelling mistakes due to my inefficacy using an ipod.
Gun Rights

Rebuttals:"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"That may be the case, but allowing criminals easy access to guns is not the solution to this. Here's an example: (I am only showing the first few countries so the argument isn't too long, but you can find the full list at [1] ) Country Guns per 100 Total Firearm-related Deaths per 100,000 United States 88.8 10.2 Switzerland 45.7 3.84 Finland 45.3 3.64 Sweden 31.6 1.47 The United States has the most guns by far, and that directly correlates to the amount of gun deaths. The graph below confirms this analysis WITHIN the US, Massachusetts has the least amount of guns and gun deaths, while Wyoming has a lot of guns and a lot of deaths. Source [2] for the graph."If guns are taken away from the public then the public will resort to the next best thing, likely knives"Possibly, but the amount of damage one can do with a knife is orders of magnitude lower than the destruction that is possible with a gun. "Get gun violence out of peoples heads" In a perfect world, that would work, but unfortunately human psychology is more complicated. Although this is not a gun example, it demonstrates human instincts. The Boston Marathon bomber was a completely normal person, not even his roommates knew that he was a psychotic wild person on the inside. People are unpredictable by nature, and guns aren't things that you can change your mind on. Suicide, for example, when you shoot yourself in the head, 99 times out of 100, you can't be saved. Arguments:Why would we need guns anyways?Protection?No. The probability of a normal citizen become Han Solo when a mass shooting occurs is close to zero. Highly trained police officers have been known to miss. People have shot family members by accident, children have come across their parents guns and shot themselves by accident, people settling into depression see the gun and contemplate suicide, all of these deaths could be prevented by a gun ban. Collections?Having a gun collection for the sake of collectibles is ehhhh, but having loaded guns in a collection is a BIG no-no. There are millions of gruesome gun accidents involving kids, family members mistaken as intruders, and other sad stories.In conclusion, because I have not found any good reasons to own a gun, owning a gun is useless. Sources:[1] http://abcnews.go.com...;[2] http://www.motherjones.com...;
Gun Rights

Before i begin i would like to apologize for spelling errors and typos, i am operating onmy ipod. As the popular tee-shirt most of us have seen says, guns dont kill people, people kill people. If guns are taken away from the public then the public will resort to the next best thing, likely knives. Plus, a new black market For firearms will open in america, increasing the need for police forces. If gun violence has grown so bad that we want to resort to taking away guns and spending millions traking down all current gunholders, then we should spend that money introducing a gun saftey program in high school, and cracking down on the "gangsters" who usually use guns for te wrong porpose. In short my thesis is get gun violence out of peoples heads, not get guns away from them. Secondly, The Armed Forces of America would suddenly become an enemy of the nation it defends because previous gunholders would be jelous. Thank you.
Alternative medicine should be ban.

Pro didn't actually provide an argument here, though that should seem obvious to all readers. He simply pointed to speculation that Steve Jobs could have used alternative medicines an then points out that people might not realize some alternative medicines are scams. But now on to my own arguments. As stated above, I will be presenting two arguments.(1) There's no reason to think that someone "wasting" their money gives another the right to coerce them into making the "right" decision. Pro hasn't attempted to give us any reason to think so either. He simply presupposes that it is the business of others what non-aggressive activities some people spend their money on. The possible counter that these choices could hurt the person making them is moot here in that we don't extend it to its logical limits. For instance, there's ample evidence that eating McDonald's in large quantities or for extended periods of time has adverse health affects. But that doesn't give anyone the right to coerce someone else into not eating at McDonald's whenever they want, even if that person is ignorant of the health effects of their choices. The choice is supremely theirs to make.(2) Pro has also committed the special pleading fallacy in his case. Why does he think that an institution like the State is automatically immune to common societal norms which bind everyone else? If I flat out said you weren't allowed to do things I didn't approve of beforehand on threat of force of fine, you'd justifiably resist. So how is the State doing it any different? Pro is unable to give an answer.Counter-Proposal.Pro has brought up a legitimate problem in society. While not in itself justifying the use of coercion, that doesn't mean that there's nothing that we can do to stop it. No one knowingly employs the use of alternative medicinal services that they know are ineffective or potentially harmful. One must *think* that they will be helpful. Therefore, simply sharing information about phony alternative medicines can do a great deal of good in (non-aggressively) preventing people from potentially harming themselves. Energy and resources should go into informing people of the dangers of certain alternative medicines, not into practices that purport to forcefully control their individual choices.
Welfare plays a positive role in America

I hope you like my newly organized format-- just for you. I'm more of a fluid writer than a technical debater. I try to keep things simple and concise. I think I covered all of these points with comments in my previous arguments, but my apologies if I did not. I hope I don't bore the reader by countering your innacuarcies in list form... 1.Your words: "welfare is wrong because it is ... redistribution of wealth.... I can't believe you just said that." No. I did not say JUST that. Those three dots you substituted for my words were pretty important. I said (and let me cut and paste): "welfare is wrong because it is involuntary confiscation AND redistribution of wealth." But you did not refute the fact that it is morally wrong, and only argued that it is "necessary" (feel free to insert a whine when saying "necessary"). 2. You say many socialist countries are doing fine. That may make socialism positive in your eyes, but I see it as a negative in comparison to the alternative. Capitalism is positive because it is right. It just happens to produce a result that is more positive in the long run than socialism. Socialism is wrong in principle, regardless of wheter it creates some good in the short-term. I will not argue that theft does not produce some temporary good for the recipeints of its spoils. But its long-term effect is counterintuitive and creates a state of dependency on the government. That brings me to the last point you failed to handle properly-- dependency. 3. Your words: "I love how conservative assume people like to be on welfare." I deal with many people on welfare on a daily basis. Not a single one that I know is disabled, physically or mentally. Most are able-bodied and very intellegent. But I've had frank conversations with them, and not a single one of them wants to lose their "benefits." I'm sure they would all love to be rich and off welfare, if that's what you mean. But not many will even risk getting a job that might disqualify them from the government dole. So they are barred from even getting started with an entry-level pursuit of the American dream. Your suspect claim that people don't want to be dependent on the government is no argument against the fact that they already are, and that they are becoming increasingly dependent with each handout. Thank you for the debate.
Welfare plays a positive role in America

1. "welfare is wrong because it is ... redistribution of wealth" I cannot believe you just said that. I've spent two rounds producing reasons and arguments for the importance and necessity of the redistribution of wealth. And your response is welfare is wrong because it is redistribution of wealth. You failed to explain why you believe redistribution of wealth is bad and failed to address any of my arguments about the necessity of redistribution of wealth. 2. You stated there are lots of socialist countries out there and does the "world really need another one" Have you ever wondered why there are so many socialist states out there? Want an example? Try Sweden. Or the other Scandinavian Countries. These states have high levels of taxation and many social services such as Welfare. The consequence of all this horrible socialism? The highest standards of living world wide, GDP per capita, and general overall prosperity. 3. Creating a society of dependency I love how conservatives assume people like being on welfare. Might I remind you, welfare provides a tolerable standard of living, which is a far cry from a desirable standard of living. No one in America grows up wishing to be on Welfare. We have a culture that emphasis consumption, greed, and making money. There is tremendous stigma attached to the notion of welfare. And most importantly, those who depend on welfare have no access to the luxuries that make life delightful. Your statements about the dependence on welfare is unsubstantiated except by your remarks on look how big welfare has grown. Now back to my arguments, well, once again my arguments go unchallenged. Nothing about the benefits of wealth redistribution, nothing on the duty of government to secure happiness for all citizens, and nothing on the efficacy of welfare on societal preservation.
Welfare plays a positive role in America

You're trying to sound way more intellectual than you need to. All I'm saying is that welfare is wrong because it is involuntary confiscation and redistribution of wealth. There's no doubt in my mind that, in the short term, theft can play a positive role in America. But it is nonetheless wrong, and bad for America in the long run. It eventually creates a society of dependents and breeds even more dependency with each generation. All you have to do is look at how goverment and the welfare state has grown over the last two centuries to see that. There are lots of socialist countries out there. Does the world really need another one?
Welfare plays a positive role in America

Mmm, you were much more interesting/forceful the last time you stood against welfare. This time your arguments are at best anemic ... and at worst non existent. Let me begin by rebutting your only point: "Government's only duty (beyond infrastructure, national defense, and protection of property) is to make sure able-bodied people have the equal opportunity to succeed in this country." This fails to rebut my arguments for three very good reasons. First of all, in accordance to the third ground of my argument, welfare is part of national defense. Thus welfare falls under the duty of government. Secondly, if we accept your opinion on the duty of government, then we should still have welfare because then the redistribution of wealth becomes even more critical. In order to give all able-bodied people an equal opportunity, we need to give all able-bodied people enough money to buy an expensive private university education, enough money to sustain themselves while attending said university. Or do you think an able-bodied female from a low income family has the equal opportunity of an able-bodied male born children to prominent and wealthy politicians? And lastly, of course your view of government is narrow minded and probably incorrect. Our state, as you can tell from our charter (The Declaration of Independence), exists "on principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness". While it may not be a binding document, if you wish to divine the purpose of our government, there is no greater document. Your second point about our current welfare system being a joke is irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and undeveloped. I did not say our current system is perfect, I just argued in favor of mandatory welfare as an abstract concept. And even if relevant, which it is not, you did not explain why it is a joke and what did you mean by joke. Now back to my points. 1. My first point goes almost completely unchallenged. The Government exists to secure the happiness of all citizens. Your comment of the Government does not is not an argument. It's your opinion. Having a minimal standard of living makes people happier than living below the minimal standard of living. 2. My second point does go unchallenged about the positive aspects of redistribution of wealth. 3. My third point goes unchallenged, and in fact goes supported by my opposition. (As mentioned in the beginning)
Welfare plays a positive role in America

Government's only duty (beyond infustructure, national defense, and protection of property) is to make sure able-bodied people have the equal opportunity to succeed in this country. That's it. Should we make allowances and help those to CANNOT help themselve? Absolutely. But these people are a very small percentage of the poeple welfare enslaves. I'm all for welfare done properly, via private charity. I might even advocate government contributions to private charities as needed. But the public welfare system is a joke, and needs to dismantled.