BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

Ok well ill accept the way you wish to do the round, but suggest that you post your "case/arguments" in round 2 after cx questions next time so we can start the rebuttals. so 1. The plan removes repoting requirements for medicaid so that illegal immigrants cant recieve it. The plan removes these barriers and allows these immigrants to obtain medicaid, this is vital b/c immigrants will need medicare regardless of there status but it is much more expensive/dangerous when the come in later and without coverage. 2. Best part of the plan. Its cost absoultly NOTHING and reeps extreme benfits. 3. The agent will be congress enacting the removal of the restrictions. 4. The fact is, there is no health care for these immigrants. That endangers every single one of them and allows for xenophobic violence and violates the "identity paradigm" 5. No cost, it has no trade off with any funding. 6. The plan affect all topical illegal immigrants. Seeing as medicaid can only affect people in poverty. 7. only in poverty because of medicaid. 8. i assume you mean "why". and of course the answer is to solve the harms. The current violence and neglection has destroyed the american dream, lead to riots and deaths, and has caused xenophobic violence. It is a human right to obtain health care and to strive for a better life. 9. Nope, this has no affect on the bill. 10. Also no, there was a bill passed earlier in the decade that requires you to report your status apon request of health care. 11. ? sorry. The plan is to give health care to illegal immigrants ( those under 5 years) and to protect them and allow us to remove the hatred between "them" and "us". That is the only way to gain solvency in the round. 12. legal immigrants CAN recieve healthcare, illegal ones CANT. Our plan allows illegal ones to aquire health care, along with legal ones who are in poverty and have been in the country less than 5 years. 13. Good question. This Plan will solve the "IDENTITY PARADIMN" that allows "Us" the host and "them" the guest to be two seperate groups. Our plan will allow us to instead view them as equal people who deserve the same rights as we do. This unconditional hospitatlity allows us to not view them as "different" or "outsiders" and can remove the violence and ungrateful thoughts we have torwards them, this impact of "genocidal" violence outwieghs everything in the round. 14. No, the plan allows us to intergrate them into our society and finally accept them, if the neg insists or encourages this violence then it falls even more into the ideology of the aff. I guess since my oppenent hasnt made any arguments my case extends over and i will ask my oppenent some questions after he has stated his. Goodluck!
The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

You stated that you were open for CX so I guess that means we are going to attempt to have one on this site. So I am suggesting we spend round 2 were I ask questions (being Neg so that I may offer my burden of Clash) and you answer them (to preserve your burden of proof). The rounds 3 and 4 will be rebuttals and round 5 will be following statements. Round 5 no new arguments or points may be brought up, only expanded upon. So now, without further ado, I will present my questions and then anxiously await your response. 1. Can you, in your own words, explain what exactly the plan is doing and how? 2. Where will you get your funding? 3. Who is your agent of action? 4. Why is the current healthcare system not good enough to accomplish your plan? 5. What will be the cost of this plan? 6. Who does this plan affect? 7. Does this plan only affect immigrants living in poverty, or all of them? 8. What incentives do the government have to implement this plan? 9. Will this cause problems with Obama's healthcare bill? 10. Will it be nescesary to change Obama's healthcare bill for this plan to be enacted? 11. What about illegal immigrants? 12. If legal immigrants recieve this care while the illegal ones don't, could this lead to internal conflict within the immigrants themselves? 13. How will enacting this change the way people feel about immigrants? 14. In regard to 13, wouldn't people be more hostile to immigrants because their tax-payer dollars are going toward these immigrants? I now conclude my questioning. Thank you and I look forward to your response.
This house believes that privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society

"The privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society." I think, there is no damage to our society from news media privatization. 1. Well said, I do agree on above mentioned point. 2. Nowadays, people like private news agencies broadcasting because they found it more understandable unlike traditional government"s news broadcasting and that is the reason of more viewers they have. For example, in India DD (Door Darshan) was the only news channel and it was giving news on certain time for 24x7. After revolution of mass media, private news channel came in the market and people accepted them because of 24x7 news and also they were not limited to government"s data presentation. Private channels are broadcasting news from every aspect of our life, they visit zoo, rural areas, cover most of the part we live which non-private media cannot cover. That why people chosen to watch them. 3. I think privacy of famous individual is in question but as far as this concern, most of them makes it publicly because they wanted to keep stand in news & media. News reporter is just a news reporter not a spy, they record to present what they found. This is the best part of media because they are independent and such liberty helps at least democracy nation to chunk out hidden story which should everyone knows. 4. I agree that gossips they made but this doesn"t mean that general public affected from it. Such gossips teach a lesson to affected person that not to repeat. 5. Yes, it happens but if such a serious matter then our leader should take them seriously. After all, they are representing a nation, entire country. How they can talk silly thing. Such incident happing everywhere and media makes gossips. 6.Private companies hires large number of employees and partners around the globe, they spend huge money to collect data and they may spending huge funds on broadcasting and license cost, I think that is the reason subscription charges. If someone doesn"t want to pay, free channels are also available so what is the problem here? War of Islam is a different question. I am not against any religion but mostly suspected person cops found Islamic thus people might have believe that Islam is not a peace making religion however, we know that some other religion might encouraging them to come on front to fight. Anyway, talk about Islam or war cannot give hue funding to news companies. 7.This is not a valid point! How you can say? Firstly, government allowed them with a cost to broadcast news. They have liberty on certain level to show data on channel. Private news agencies have wide network of people who report news from anywhere, so they are doing good. They cannot show wrong data. Secondly, broadcasting regulation board is there if we have any complain for any news or report we can file our request. They can take appropriate action on news agency. 8.Please give artifacts for this argument.
This house believes that privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society

This house believes that privatization of news broadcasts has harmed society. Privatization: The transfer of ownership, property or business from the government to the private sector. News Broadcasts- Mass media which aims to inform the public of important events, and provide relevant social commentary. Society- The greater mass of people. Debate format- 1st round, acceptance. 2nd round- Arguments/ opening statements 3rd round- Rebuttal, no new arguments 4th round- Closing statements, no new Rebuttal or Arguments. Comment if further clarification is needed, or if you are unsure of any rules. Cheers, and Happy Debating ~Cpu502 (AUS)
The Catholic Church is the original church of Christ.

The Catholic church is not the origanel church. By this I mean it does not follow the teachings of the origanel followers of Jesus Christ. The bible expilictly States in Hebrew that Jesus has replaced any high priest or other forms of intercession between you and God. The Catholic church does have a high priest, the pope, and does have forms of intercession. The first form is the belife that you must confess your sins to a priest to be forgiven. The second is that you must pray to the saints and they will send your request to the father. This outright violates the bible. Ephisans States Jesus is the head of the church. The Catholic church States the pope is the head of the church. The Bible talks about the selection of bishops ans deacons, but not of any pope. They say Peter was the first pope, but then why did he have a wife? He also didn't claim to have authority over the other apostles. The doctrine of transmutation also makes little sense. It says when taking communion, the wine and bread becames the actual blood and flesh of Jesus. This is not in the Bible. Jesus metaohoricaly calls the bread and wine his body and flesh, but it dosnt say it becomes his blood and flesh. Also the drinking of blood is a pagan practice forbiddin in the book of acts. Purgatory is also totally false. It isn't in the Bible and it is apperantly the halfway point between heaven and hell. You go there for unripentent sins or not doing penance for past sins. Of course you can get out of purgotory faster if you are granted a indulgence. But the Bible says you are saved by grace alone. Not by an indulgence. The other way to get out of purgotory is complete all sacraments of the church. In the Bible, most sacrements aren't menchened. How can a ritual not in the Bible get you to heaven? The priesthood is also not in line with the Bible. They cant marry but many apostles married. Confession to a priest will not forgive your sins. The Bible says only God forgives sins and does so by grace alone. http://www.gospelway.com...
The Catholic Church is the original church of Christ.

In the beginning of the church, "everyone had everything in common." (Acts 2:44) After Christianity was legalized under Constintine, the Catholic Church became the first organized church. There were also many heretical groups of Christians at that time like the Gnostics who believed in the gospels of Judas, Mary Magdeline, Thomas etc. The word catholic in itself means universal. This indicates that everyone believes the pretty much the same things. However, after the Protestant Reformation, hundreds of different faiths sprouted out of nowhere. Martin Luther himself never wanted to totally break away from the Catholic Church. He only wanted to reform the corrupt practices such as indulgences. Besides getting rid of all the Apocrypha, he also wanted to get rid of the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. The Catholic Church is one of the only churches which can trace its roots back to the beginning of the church.
RE: Noah's flood was an actual historic event

Remember we are using a literal reading of Genesis and I will attempt to show how a literal reading is impossible. Contention 1: The Flood is Scientifically Impossible C1.1) Tree ring dating Since we are getting a literal reading of the texts, we know for a fact that the fllood would have occured 2500-2300 BCE [1]. However, this produces a major problem. It is a fact that there are tree ring datings that go well beyond 10,000 years and have produced 0 evidence of a catastrophie of that time [2]. C1.2) The flood did not leave traces on the sea floor. According to Genesis, the flood lasted for about 1 year. This should be reconizable in the sea floor due to the following: 1. An uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detrius; 2. Different grain size distribution in the sediment; 3. Shif in oxygen isotope ratios; 4. Massive extinction; and 5. Many other characteristics. The problem, of course, is that none of those things that are predicted in a global flood have shown up [2]. C1.3) The polar caps are impossible if a global flood really did occur. Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to fload the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, Greenland would not regrow under modern climatic conditions [2]. Contention 2: A World-wide food is historically impossible. Since we are taking a literal reading of Genesis, we are also taking a literal reading of the genealogies. Therefore, if we can prove that cultures existed before and after 2500-2300 BCE uninterrupted, we can prove that Noah's flood is a myth. The Egyptian Pyramids were built about 2560 BCE [6], apparently, the Egyptians were not affected by this "global" flood. Neither was Assyria [4], China [5], or Sumer. Just a sidebar note, here is an interesting quote from Answers In Genesis: "The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years. " [8] Obviously all civilizations do not fit into the last 4,285 years; nor do scientific evidence. | CONCLUSION | My opponent has agreed that we are taking a literal reading. Therefore, the historical and scientific evidence is sufficent to prove that a "world-wide" flood never occurd. I could go into math details, but honestly do not feel like it. I await my opponent's opening arguments as to why Noah's flood is a world-wide is a historical event. ___________ Sources 1. . http://www.creationtips.com......... 2. . http://www.talkorigins.org......... 3. . http://ga.water.usgs.gov.........; 4. . http://tinyurl.com.........; 5. . http://tinyurl.com.........; 6. . http://www.authenticwonders.com.........;(Egyptian Pyramid Source) 7. . http://ancienthistory.about.com.........; 8. . http://tinyurl.com.........;
RE: Noah's flood was an actual historic event

Sorry, but it is not plagiarism when you write it! Plagiarism is defined as:the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one's own. The fraudulence is closely related to forgery and piracy-practices generally in violation of copyright laws. [1]Obviously since I had authorization to use it and wrote it myself, it should not be considered plagiarism. My opponent's cop-out fails. VOTE CON! References [1] "Plagiarism | Define Plagiarism at Dictionary.com." Dictionary.com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com. Web. 18 Sept. 2011. <http://dictionary.reference.com...;.
The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs

My opponent has created the topic as follows: "The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs". Additionally, in addressing his debate topic, he stated the following: "...I am willing to assume the position that the PC is the better experience." However, in the second round, he stated that: "While it's true that more options may NOT equal better options,it's equally true that more options may WELL equal better options- but the problem is that the minute one starts arguing that the Ritz offers a better experience than McD's,HE IS MAKING A SUBJECTIVE VALUE JUDGMENT,which we have already established is not acceptable." If subjective value judgments are not acceptable then unfortunately, the topic of debate, initiated by my esteemed opponent, is also then, unacceptable. Furthermore, at the end of his counter-argument in round 2 he states the following: "That's fine, but he fails to demonstrate why Macs are objectively better than PCs, and since that is the foundation of this debate, and not his preference, he must be viewed as having lost this round of the debate." The problem here is that I do not necessarily NEED to demonstrate why Macs are objectively better than PCs. I only need to demonstrate that your statement (and topic of debate herein) which is "The Mac/PC conversation: PCs are better than Macs" isn't absolute. To take his own words ... "he's attempting to make a value judgment into an absolute position." His judgment value being of course, that PCs ARE better than Macs. And just as he argued that one cannot say the Ritz has "better" food than McDonald's, one then, also cannot say that PCs are better than Macs. In either case, by pointing out that subjective value judgments are unacceptable, he has unfortunately, rendered his own initial claim that "PCs are better than Macs" unacceptable as well. It's not really playing by the same rules if the only subjective value judgments that are allowed are his own. If value judgments are not permissible, and one cannot definitively PROVE that a Mac is better than a PC or vice versa, then there is no opportunity for debate. With all due respect, my opponent either needs to accept value judgments (aka "opinions") or accept that his own initial argument that he initiated ("PCs are better than Macs") is unacceptable.
White Democrats are more racist in general than white Republicans

Con said the "N" word, so conduct to Pro. * White Conservatives oppose all of the b.s. benefits and perks given to minorities. Why? They see them as equals and not as special needs children. They assume minorities are as smart as anyone else and can buck up like anyone else. You can try to claim there is some invisible wall keeping minorities from success, but reality says this is a lie. Many minorities have become successful by working hard. A racism in America that will keep a minority from achieving the American dream cannot be shown or pointed to because it does not exist. I am proof of this. These minorities voted culture vs culture with their feet. They left. They come to America. They stay. Why? You know why. Ironically, minorities who come from countries overseas have had astonishing success. Skin color doesn't hold you down in America. It's a lie presented by the Democratic party to keep the minorities "in their place". They pat the minority on the head, make empty promises, wink and nod to one another, buy votes, and walk back to the plantation mansion content that the minority workers are still "in the fields" right where they belong. This isn't just racism. It's blatant racism. Hillary says we should "build bridges, not walls". http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... -The Dems built a 4 mile long, 8 foot high wall around the DNC to "keep out undesirables." http://www.theamericanmirror.com... -And building a wall is racist. http://www.zerohedge.com... -And then even put a wall around the stage. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com... So there you have it. The Democrat leader, Hillary Clinton, is not only a racist but a full blown hypocrite. Bronto exits thread. (Bronto theme music plays) http://youtu.be...
White Democrats are more racist in general than white Republicans

Con: "But. .. we're talking that white Republicans are equally as racist. .. " And I have given many points that show Democrat whites are more racist. Con has chosen to provide no rebuttal against my arguments. Con has chosen to simply parrot the concept: "they are equal". I can say Con has a furry tail and flippers, but that doesn't make it so. For starters, no 2 groups are 100% equal on anything in the reality of planet Earth. One is always more on some level. On this point, Con cannot actually even have the possibility of being right to say "they are equal". It's a mathematically b. s. statement. Excerpt from article on "The Identity of Indiscernables"- -"The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common. That is, entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa; to suppose two things indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. It states that no two distinct things (such as snowflakes) can be exactly alike, but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science. A related principle is the indiscernibility of identicals, discussed below. " "A form of the principle is attributed to the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It is one of his two great metaphysical principles, the other being the principle of sufficient reason. Both are famously used in his arguments with Newton and Clarke in the Leibniz–Clarke correspondence. Because of its association with Leibniz, the principle is sometimes known as Leibniz's law. (However, the term "Leibniz's Law" is also commonly used for the converse of the principle, the indiscernibility of identicals (described below), which is logically distinct and not to be confused with the identity of indiscernibles. )" . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Con did use the "N" word. It is a Spanish word being used in slang form to designate a group of peole, thus conduct to Pro.
Homework is not as good as schools think.

Still, if someone falls behind a little bit then its a lot of trouble for them. For instance, a kid in the School of No name gets some gets some maths homework. He then gets English homework and History homework. In the afternoon after school he struggles to complete all the homework. He doesn't finish in time and has to finish it along with other homework and so on. Eventually there is so much homework that he has no chance of getting it done. Of course their is lunchtime and detentions and stuff like that but that wont help when there is a lot of homework and assessment. Of course they also take up time.
Homework is not as good as schools think.

Well debatedebatedebate, I think that students should be allowed to have homework because its helps them review what they did in school and by doing homework the next time you come around to a question you did for homework you can remember it because you had homework on that subject. By the way I think students should have more homework, like you said students get so much homework in one day it is too much for them. Well, it might not be all be due the next day and they can separate the homework out more, plus students will learn much more and they will know it so well if they keep doing that till year 12 they will have a great future set for them. Like becoming a scientist, a doctor or a dentist. That is why homework is good Your turn DebateDebateDebate
There is no such thing as a soul mate

When do you get your soul if everyone has one? Is it packed in your sperm or ovaries? Does it magically come into being at conception, or birth? You mention science, but there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a soul. Saying something exists isn"t science, science is PROVING something exist that others can repeat, and observe. BOOM SCIENCE! Also, the debate is about a soul mate, not just having a soul. So not only do you need to prove the existence of a soul, but you also must prove that there are people out there who"s souls are perfectly (perfect seems like a pretty high bar) suited to one another. I"ve been married to a woman I love for 20+ years, but we had problems just like every other couple. We have overcome the challenges in our relationship (money, kids, religious, etc.) and we did it through hard work and open communication. I wouldn"t give her up for the world. The idea that a relationship isn"t about compromise and hard work, and that there is some magical person out there who will just "fit" with you, causes pain, and a trail of broken relationships because of unrealistic expectations. It doesn"t exist, and although romantic, it"s doing nothing but causing harm.
BCS Should be Abolished

My opponent has no sources to back up his fiscal claim, which is his only claim. Furthermore, there is also the college student issue. There is only one weekend that is suitable for college students to watch football within the time period, because colleges don't want big football games going on during midterms, for both the players and the spectators. Furthermore, the contract will not run out by the end of this debate, so it must be assumed to be in effect, making abolition illegal. Thank yo