BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If John Mcain wants to win the election his best choice for running mate is Mitt Romney.

My opponent stated "Mccain won florida by himself" I beg to differ. At the time he was endorsed by charlie crist. Which contributed to his win. With him bringing more votes for mccain in a key swing state, i find that charlie crist is a better choice than mitt romney. Once again i would like to say the people do not feel that mitt romney is a true conservative candidate. May i point out again is the flip flops made by mitt romney. He has no conservative base. My opponent also stated that "As I have heard nothing of mccain even talking about mike huckabee I assume he is not considering him for vp. Im sure if you do some more research you will also find that mccain has not been doing anything to show huckabee to be an option" I have done some reasearch and mike huckabee is near the top of John McCain's short list for vp! Mike huckabee is an option because of his big support from evangelicals. With huckabee on the ticket he contributes greatly. My opponent states that "tim pawlenty is not nearly as popular in their home states as Charlie crist or mitt Romney." Being a minnesotan myself, i would like to say that tim pawlenty is greatly popular within our state. Minnesota has voted democrat since 1976, and they have elected a republican governor. Tim pawlenty is young conservative. This youth is needed in the 2008, mainly because of Barack Obama. To appeal to voters McCain needs pawlenty, who is a long time supporter, and a sign of youth. I will also point something else out, it has been stated widely that John McCain and mitt romney truly dont get along. Their primary battle was brutal to say the least. While with huckabee his was civil. The choice is clear vote con. Thank you
If John Mcain wants to win the election his best choice for running mate is Mitt Romney.

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for debating. Charlie Crist "Mitt Romney flip flops on a lot of issues" Let me point out that gov. Charlie crist has not stayed strong on some of the critical issues either. -In 1998 Charlie Crist stated that he was pro choice during his failed attempt to run for senator. When he announced he wanted to be governor he magically became pro life. -Charlie Crist signed an pro gay marriage petition before suddenly becoming anti gay marriage -He claimed that he was against touts anti murder bill. This bill became the focus of his campaign for governor. "Charlie Crist will give votes from florida" Mccain won florida by himself losing most of his unwon delegates to mitt Romney and rudy guliani. (Rudy guliani is not on mccains "short list") With mitt at his side mccain will almost certainly win florida any way. Mike Huckabeee As I have heard nothing of mccain even talking about mike huckabee I assume he is not considering him for vp. Im sure if you do some more research you will also find that mccain has not been doing anything to show huckabee to be an option Tim Pawlenty Tim pawlenty is not nearly as popular in their home states as Charlie crist or mitt Romney.his only great accomplishments are his great debating and speech giving skills. Mitt Romney "Mitt Romey does not appeal to conservative voters" After people realized their two candidates for republican nominee were mccain and guliani they begged for a conservative candidate as well. These conservative candidates were Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney. The first to drop out was senator Thompson. After a large percentage of primaries it narrowed down to the following conservative candidates. Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. However Mitt Romney led over Huckabee by approximately a hundred delegates. Does this sound like a candidate without many conservative supporters. Assuming my opponent will point out Romney dropped out first I will point out now that not until the very end of the election did huckabee match romneys delegate count. This was after several primaries. Had Romney stayed in until the end like Huckabee I am confident that Huckabee would never have even tied his delegate count.( This is not counting the fact that several of huckabees delegates came from west Va. A state hucka bee only took from Romney because mccain gave his delegates to huckabee to ensure Romney did not win west Va. This also shows that mccain thought Romney to be a bigger threat than huckabee. I would like to thank my opponent for pointing out my misspelling of mccains name. I will try to be more careful in the future
Celebrities Should Not Be Judged Based On What The Media Tells Us

First off, the media tends to lie. The reason they lie is to create an interesting story to entertain others. Now, if the media lies just for a story, then why do we judge celebrities based on the stories that we hear from the media? We don't know that these stories are true, yet we choose to believe them and judge celebrities based on them. For example, if the media spots Justin Bieber with Selena Gomez after they broke up, they immediately put up a story like "Justin and Selena back together? " And eventually people think that they really are back together. The thing is: what if they really aren't back together? What if they were just hanging out as friends? We don't know. Yet, some people believe it and, say, judge Selena by saying "Wow, I cannot believe that someone like her would go back with him. She's an idiot. " This wouldn't be fair, considering they might have never really went back together. Secondly, these rumors and false judgments may hurt the celebrity. It wouldn't be fair to judge a celebrity without a real reason. For example, Harry Styles once said "Why do you hate me? What did I do to you? " This is very true. People judge celebrities like him based on lies from the media. Are we really going to believe something that was derived from a picture taken out of context? No, we shouldn't. Lastly, the paparazzi should not be trusted. When we believe the media, we believe what the paparazzi want us to believe, but the paparazzi are willing to ruin a celebrity's life just for a job. By judging celebrities based on what the media tells us, we help the paparazzi get what they want. In conclusion, I believe that we shouldn't judge celebrities based on what the media tells us due to the fact that the media lies, it hurts the celebrity, and we are just helping the paparazzi get what they want.
Celebrities Should Not Be Judged Based On What The Media Tells Us

"That is true, but I said that people shouldn't judge celebrities." True. However, I am trying to argue taking into account that people will judge. "so why do they judge them on lies?" Well, if one wants to argue that people shouldn't be judged on untrue information, I have no argument there. However, just because something is in the media does not make it a lie. "I know he hasn't, but people still judge him and hate him when they have no reason to." This would still be true even if he was judged on his singing rather than on media information. Anyways, that wasn't actually part of my point. "That we know is the truth. We saw her black eye and everything." But the discussion is not about judging based on untrue information, it is about judging based on information from the media. This is an important distinction. "But lets say someone starts a rumor (that has no evidence) that he spits on puppies." This isn't about general dishonesty, this is about whether celebrities should be judged based on what we read in the media. This doesn't necessarily mean that it would be our only source, but as a source. As for what you have to do with this: that didn't really have much relevance to the debate, but I was interested to hear your answer. Thank you for your time spent on this debate. It has been a pleasure for me as well.
Celebrities Should Not Be Judged Based On What The Media Tells Us

Thank you, Con, for your response. "You cannot stop people judging[...]"That is true, but I said that people shouldn't judge celebrities. Of course I can't stop people from judging celebrities, people have free will, but I can argue why they shouldn't. "but you can control what you judge them on."Of course, that is actually part of what I am trying to say. People can control what they judge celebrities on, so why do they judge them on lies? "You used the example of Harry Styles. He hasn't done anything too bad."I know he hasn't, but people still judge him and hate him when they have no reason to. Some judge him simply because they do not like him (for no reason, I might add). Some do this because their friends influence them, or because all they heard about him were lies. Either way, it's not right. "[...]but what if we were to use the example of someone who actually has done something, like Chris Brown for instance. Is it still wrong to judge?"Chris Brown is another story. It is the truth that he beat up Rihanna. That we know is the truth. We saw her black eye and everything. That we should judge him on, because it's the truth. But let's say someone starts a rumor (that has no evidence) that he spits on puppies. That would be a rumor, so people should not judge him on that. "Do you actually follow your own advice? Do you not judge those you don't know personally?"First of all, this isn't about random people around me, this is mainly about celebrities. But if you still want me to answer this question, then I will. If this question is about random people around me, then I try not to judge them. Sometimes I may slip and forget that I do not know them and accidentally judge them, but later on I remember that what I did was wrong (unless, of course, I see them do something that I can judge them on. Then it is acceptable because I know that what they did isn't a lie). So in a way, I both follow and forget to follow my own advice. But as for celebrities, I tend not to judge them. I do follow my own advice when it comes to celebrities. If I judge them, it is on truth (Ex. Chris Brown beat up Rihanna). I used to judge celebrities, but I have recently stopped about a month ago, because I realized that the media is full of lies. (I still don't understand what I have to do with this, but I wanted to answer your question.)As this is the last round, I would like to thank you, Con, for your time spent on this debate. It has been a pleasure.
Celebrities Should Not Be Judged Based On What The Media Tells Us

"If ALL [emphasis mine] you know about someone is lies, then why should you judge them?" I think "all you know about someone" is an extreme statement, but more importantly: it's human nature to judge. You cannot stop people judging, but you can control what you judge them on. "Do not judge them" I think this depends on the person. You used the example of Harry Styles. He hasn't done anything too bad (that I know of), but what if we were to use the example of someone who actually has done something, like Chris Brown for instance. Is it still wrong to judge? Not that it really matters, because people will do it anyway. Be honest (this doesn't effect the ideal world, but I'm making a point about human nature so it is relevant): Do you actually follow your own advice? Do you not judge those you don't know personally?
Celebrities Should Not Be Judged Based On What The Media Tells Us

That is simple: Do not judge them. If all you know about someone is lies, then why should you judge them? Same with celebrities. Unless you know the truth about them personally, then do not judge their lives. You may judge their talent, singing, dancing, acting, etc., because that's all you really know about them, but why judge them at all if all you have to go on is lies? It wouldn't do harm to not judge them, but it could harm their feelings to judge them based on lies.
Celebrities Should Not Be Judged Based On What The Media Tells Us

While you make a lot of very valid points, I must disagree for one simple reason. If we are not to judge celebrities based on the media, what can we judge them on? Since you said in the comments that you do not mean that celebrities shouldn't be judged on that basis, what sources should we use? Information has to come from somewhere. Now, one might suggest that it should come about through word-of-mouth from the celebrity or those close to them. This is harmless enough when done with someone who hasn't done anything too offensive, but then we may not get information about the negative aspects of the person, and thus our judgments are just as clouded by bias.
Men are the ones being oppressed by women.

Feminists have claimed that women are being oppressed by men, but when I do the research I find the complete opposite. -Women get custody unless the man can prove the living conditions are unsuitable. -Men gain longer prison sentences than women for the same crime. -Men are forced to sign up for the draft. -Men are as well told to not show emotion causing emotional build up most likely the cause for the high suicide rate among men.
history is useful outside this debate

rebuttal #1 so what you are trying to tell me is that i can become a world leader without studying history. Let me give you an example, Donald Trump says "we need to build a wall" and "ban all muslims". last time someone tried to do that, he wiped out 2 thirds of the jewish population and dragged the entire world into a global conflict. I will now conclude by saying make up your decision. If you still stand to your point, i pity your intelligence
history is useful outside this debate

Well, what would world leaders learn from history what they can't learn themselves? As it is said "experience is the best teacher" shouldn't a leader experience ruling his country rather than resorting to advice from history books? And not many countries want war these days. Territory borders are fixed, unlike the medieval times. Conquering one country without a reason will evoke wrath from the entire world. Times have changed, and history can no longer provide the right course of action. And anyways, if 1/10000000 people use history, I don't think history can be counted as useful. Good luck to Pro, probably won this debate.
history is useful outside this debate

I think you confuse countries with world leaders. What use do the masses have by learning history? It is not like I would have resources to fund war, and as a soldier I would have to follow orders in world war 3 (if there is one) and there is 1/10 chance I would be able to influence any war or any country in a very impactful way, much less apply my knowledge of history to win/prevent wars and crises.
Ronald Reagan Was A Bad President

I apologize for my late response as I have been really busy in real life. To really understand Reagan's decisions, you have to look at things through his perspective. The U. S. and Russia have been in this social trap for almost 40 years- essentially your entire lifetime. This is all psychology. Reagan had to end this thing once and for all, and the best way to do that was to beat the Soviets in areas where the US had already set-up a precedent of basis aka Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra Scandal, if anything, supports my side as the fact is no one tried to impeach Reagan despite him violating the Boland Amendments. This is b/c Americans recognized Reagan as being like, say, General Grant during the Civil War. Every time the Army of the Potomac lost a battle they would route and reengage next year, but when Grant took over he kept pushing. Apply this to Reagan- Bay of Pigs was a disaster, Korea had come to a stalemate, and Vietnam was a political and military loss. Americans were losing hope, especially with how Carter was handling things. So when Reagan shows up we see a boost in morale. Yes, the event was persay illegal, but the fact remains that this was all done with the intent of scoring a win for the United States and he was not convicted on it b/c everyone knew that he was right in supporting the contras. And in regards to your comment about human rights violations, I commented on this by asking a question in my previous post that I will repost here for your convenience: "If I pay a guy to kill someone else and they decide to torture that person to death, am I to be held responsible for the torture? I'd like to see my opponents response to this. " If you are saying that both Carter and Reagan were in the wrong, why are you solely attacking Reagan for this event? It was a bipartisan decision. Just because he was President doesn't mean we should make him a target. Remember, Congress appropriates the money.
Ronald Reagan Was A Bad President

Thank you for responding and you bring up some excellentquestions and points that I will be happy to address. Starting with the Nicaraguanconflict. First off, the main difference between Reagans interference withinthe Nicaraguan revolution between other the interference of other presidents,is that it was theoretically illegal for Reagan to intervene, not the case forthe presidents before him. Why just Reagan you might add? Well, if you rememberthe international court case that I mentioned (Nicaragua vs. US), the US wasbanned from funding and intervening in Nicaragua and even after this, Reagan continuedto fund the paramilitary contras, which turned into quite the big political scandal(http://en.wikipedia.org...). This international law was not enacted or around during thepast presidencies that you mention. Also not around were the human’s rightswatches reports of all of the tortures and summary executions by the Contras thatI mentioned in my past argument. As for the Afghanistan incident, you are correct;Carter funded and armed the same Mujahedeen that Reagan did. But I am nottrying to defend Carters nor support them over Reagans; they were both in the wrong. I look forward to your counter argument my friend.
You've excluded we, you smartypants.

Thank you for allowing me to debate with you. Now the resolution of this debate is :You've excluded we, you smartypants. Getting rid of the smarty pants, you can see that the resolution states: You've excluded we. Now, since the pro side failed to provide any definitions, I would like to provide definitions of my own. Definitions:You:used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. Have:possess, own, or hold. Excluded:deny (someone) access to or bar (someone) from a place, group, or privilege. We:used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. "Smartypants":a person who talks and behaves like someone who knows everything. Now based off of my definitions, the resolution now reads :" You, as in the person I am addressing, possesses access to bar someone from a place, group, or privilege, because I am a person who talks like I know everything. "Now, I negate this for the following reason.1. Statistically Speaking, not all of us can be "smartypants" There are those who cannot form coherent words and/or those who are too young to take in intelligence. "About 15 percent of the world's population -- some 785 million people -- has a significant physical or mental disability, including about 5 percent of children, according to a new report prepared jointly by the World Health Organization and the World Bank. "Saying that we are all mentally smart is incorrect.
being gay has to do with genes

"Nobody has ever found a "gay gene". The very idea that a single gene could control sexual orientation is ridiculous." scientific studies show that being gay has to do with genetics. But im not saying people cant choose it either. scientists believe the sexual orientation has to do with genetics, hormonal and social factors. Have you ever heard of the twin studies? Being gay has to do with genetics with out a doubt but its not the only factor. http://en.wikipedia.org...
being gay has to do with genes

"I don't disagree with you, but i think you missed my point. Im not saying that you cant choose to be gay i worded my argument wrong, i believe that you can be born naturally gay. But i also believe you are correct with your statement to." - You So we're not actually debating anything here. "I am just saying that i believe in human rights(even if they did choose it) i believe the have the right to get married, because it doesn't affect anybody." - You Good for you, but none of this is relevant. If you're not making an argument, can we please wrap this up?
The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don"t know the actual historical Jesus)

I'd like to open with some rebuttal. 1. You mentioned the fact that there is '0 proof that jesus existed' yet you carry on mentioning the bible. Thats about 7 manuscripts in one book. I don't count this as 0. You haven't taken down the reliability of the bible, so how can you say there is no evidence? You mentioned Mark being a non-eyewitness and written afterwards. First off, the manuscripts have been carbon-dated, this disproves this. Also, you say there are mistakes. Good! If it was perfect, i would think that someone meticulously sifted through information to make sure the 'cult' lived on, but no. 2. You asked for the meaning of jesus suffering. Ever heard of a sacrifice? If i had a gun and i could either shoot you or myself, and i shot myself, i took away the suffering from you and inflicted it on me. How then, do you not understand the concept of sacrifice? In modern society, that doesnt mean suffering is good, it means that our sins are forgiven. Our sins were put on jesus and he took the punishment for it unfortunately i have run out of time now so i will have to complete the argument next round
should we stop cyberbullying

Thanks. I see you are a new member, so I'll give you some pointers. Polls section: You go to the polls section if you want to see people's opinions about multiple thingsOpinion section: Go here if you want to see people's opinion about one subject (such as cyberbullying) in a more detailed mannerForums: Go to forums if you have a question or simpily want to have a conversationDebates: Go to debates if you want to debate about a topic you feel very strongly about.Anyway, cyberbullying should be stopped for multiple reasons. But since this isn't really a debate, I'll just take it easy and save my debating for more serious ones.Bullying victims are almost 900% more likely to commit suicide in some places [1]. I feel that point is the only one I ever need to make about cyberbullying. It kills people, and anything that kills people frequently should be banned.[1] http://www.dosomething.org...
should we stop cyberbullying

I choose con because I'm still unsure if we should stop cyberbullying. I feel like it is a big problem in America and it should be stopped but I have seen some articles that say that we don't need to, so I wanted to know if we should or should not stop cyberbullying? the meaning of cyberbullying that im referring to is: the use of Information Technology to harm or harass other people in a deliberate, repeated, and hostile manner. im sorry if i did not fully explain my stand point.
That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.

Gun control creates safer countries. Gun control is the most effective way to reduce crime if we done it correctly. Our federal gun control laws are so ineffective because there are too many loopholes. A criminal might not be able to obtain guns in one state. But in another state that is very lenient on gun ownership, he can get guns even without criminal background checks. We need to support stricter federal gun control laws because guns are just totally out of control. For those who are unfit to carry guns, we should disarm them, and work together to provide a safer society for ourselves. If we have stricter gun control laws, we would be able to live in a safe and harmonious society and we definitely have the rights to do so! I await your response.