BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama is Unqualifed to Be President

Ok we are talking about the qualifications for President of United States the most powerful position in the world, right? With that said let's discuss my opponents top reasons that qualifies Barack Obama to become President. QUOTE: "The thing that qualifies Sen. Obama the MOST, however, is his life experiences. 1. Barack has been raised as a minority in the US. He knows their needs and desires. 2. Barack was raised by a single mother. He knows the needs and concerns of single parents across america. 3. Barack was raised in a low income family. He knows what its like to not be able to afford the things you need" With that formula, my opponent put together it would appear that anyone who is a minority, raised by a single mother, and is low income should be considered qualified to run our nation and be our chief executive. Hey I'm a minority and graduating law school this year. Hmm maybe in a few years I'll run for President. Although, Obama's story is compelling and has common interests with myself, and others doesn't necessarily give him credentials to become President of the United States. Creditentials are simply put "Results" or accomplishments that show credibility and ability to efficiently carry out a duty. Obama has never been an executive of any kind, never authored a law, or headed a commission of any relevance. Although, he speaks well, he fails to talk to the American people in the most important way, which is 'Talking by Action, and Example." Tell me one specific way that Obama has lead or accomplished anything on a national scale that he has directly supervised or been in charge of? DON'T AVOID THIS QUESTION. The truth is I would respect Obama's candicacy more if he had waited another term in the Senate so he could show examples of his accomplishments and decision making abilities. As to the good he did as a "Community Organizer", although I appreciate his giving back to his community, I also must point out there are others who give back in other ways. I help indigent people who can't afford legal services on my spare time, yet this doesn't make me qualified to become any one of importance, much less the President of United States. My friend started a rally to raise money for relieving the financial toll to Cancer patients, and trust me he is not ready to be President. Sure Obama has a good story and has helped his fellow man but there are many great Americans with those same characteristics but that doesn't give them creditentials to become President. Qualifications must be a proven record of what they have accomplished that we can trust them to make sound decisions. Many people have rags to riches stories, and that's great, but we are choosing a President, not the next Hallmark Movie.
Barack Obama is Unqualifed to Be President

What qualifies Barack Obama to be president? Well we can start with his admittedly short list of credentials. A degree in international relations from Columbia University A degree in law from Harvard Law School President of the Harvard Law Review Community Organizer Two terms in the Illinois State Senate 1 Term in the US Senate Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcomittee of European Affairs These things of course, help his qualifications, despite their meager apearance as compared to Sen. McCain. The thing that qualifies Sen. Obama the most, however, is his life experiences. 1. Barack has been raised as a minority in the US. He knows their needs and desires. 2. Barack was raised by a single mother. He knows the needs and concerns of single parents across america. 3. Barack was raised in a low income family. He knows what its like to not be able to afford the things you need. He knows what its like to live the hard life in America. He knows the people needs and their hopes. Furthermore, Sen. Obama has dedicated his life to improving the lives of hurting americans. When Sen. Obama earned his law degree, the whole world was at his feet. He could have gone into the city and made his fortune as a great attorney, but he didnt. He packed up his beater of a car and drove to the south side of Chicago to help those who has lost their jobs from a closing steel plant. He gave up his chance at wealth to improve the lives of these workers. He organized them an retrained them. He tried to help them find new jobs so they could provide for their families. He taught constitutional law in schools and then took his change to a bigger stage. He continues in his efforts to change conditions for working class americans in the IL state senate, and in the US Senate. His whole life, it seems, has been dedicated to improving american lives. That and his passion; his desire to serve an improve this country are what qualifies him to be president. Sen. Obama has one qualification that John McCain does not. Obama gets it. He gets what its like to be the average american citizen. John McCain does not and that is a huge minus to me. How can a man like McCain tell me that he will improve american lives, when he doesnt even truly understand whats wrong with them?
Barack Obama is Unqualifed to Be President

OK so Barack Obama has been head of the Harvard Law Review, helped his community as a "Community organizer", served in the state senate, and has now served in the Senate for 4 years, although he has not authored or headed any Bill or agenda. I'm being kind, because that list on it's own is laughable. Barack Obama is an intelligent man with alot of Charisma, however, you could say that about alot of people out there. I just want some substance, true raw substance that qualifies Obama as President, except for the fact he speaks really well, and he is super cool man. What is it about Barack Obama that qualifies him to be your President? It's one thing to say what you want to do, but there's another to have the expierence and base of knowledge to actually lead. Here's an example, I'm going to be a new attorney and I feel I have a lot of good ideas and pumped up about the law, but you would have to agree that I wouldn't be ready to be a Supreme Court Justice the highest court in the land after just a couple years of practice, would you? So Whay Qualifies Barack to be President? I really want to know.
Debate.org should freeze the polls a week after the last round.

" My opponent begins his round by citing one of his past debates where voters have supposedly voted against him unfairly. First, I'd like to point out that my opponent doesn't have the proper evidence to be making the accusations that he is. There is no apparent evidence to suggest that the voters on that page voted against him out of spite or because they merely didn't read the debate. " The difficulty with that is, because the results changed long after the debate, they did not comment on the results that (at that time) were against them. It is thus highly unlikely that they had legitimate reasons. People who legitimately believe the results of something were bad tend to comment. " My opponent does not KNOW the reasons as to why the voters voted the way they did. Not to mention that not everyone has the same understanding of debate. Although some voters believe that forfeiting a round should automatically constitute victory for the other debater, other voters believe that it is the job of the debater to persuade them to agreeing with his/her arguments. On the debate which my opponent cited, the latter being in effect could very well be the case." This isn't a matter of forfeiting "a" round. It is a matter of forfeiting every round. And I find it difficult to believe anyone found my opponent's arguments convincing. " My opponent concludes that debate.org should freeze the polls one week after the last round in order to decrease the chances of the debaters being the victim of bad voting in the future. This sounds great in theory, but I believe my opponent is overlooking the alternatives. What if these "bad voters" are the only ones who vote on the debate during that limited first week? " That is highly unlikely. presumably bad voters do not want people to know of the problem. Thus they are far more likely to do their work later. Good voters don't usually have the time to go back and vote on debates that have long since been over. They don't usually find them except in people's profiles... which is precisely the domain that makes spite more likely. And when it does happen, as in your example, it becomes open, and obvious. Not so with the cases where it is not true. A known bad is better than an unknown bad. Nothing about "custom polls," by the way, constitutes evidence that the instigator can determine the length voting stays open. Custom polls can easily be constructions detached from the debates (a separate feature), and thus not in fact make my recommendations moot.
Debate.org should freeze the polls a week after the last round.

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for extending this challenge to all debaters on this website. As is the case with most of my debates, none of what I am about to say truly reflects my opinion on this matter (considering that I'm actually rather apathetic). I advise that you vote based on who presented the better arguments. Also, I would advise that you not vote if you don't intend to read this debate as many of us debaters come here to test our debate skills, so accurate voting is essential. With all of that said, let us proceed: My opponent begins his round by citing one of his past debates where voters have supposedly voted against him unfairly. First, I'd like to point out that my opponent doesn't have the proper evidence to be making the accusations that he is. There is no apparent evidence to suggest that the voters on that page voted against him out of spite or because they merely didn't read the debate. My opponent does not KNOW the reasons as to why the voters voted the way they did. Not to mention that not everyone has the same understanding of debate. Although some voters believe that forfeiting a round should automatically constitute victory for the other debater, other voters believe that it is the job of the debater to persuade them to agreeing with his/her arguments. On the debate which my opponent cited, the latter being in effect could very well be the case. My opponent concludes that debate.org should freeze the polls one week after the last round in order to decrease the chances of the debaters being the victim of bad voting in the future. This sounds great in theory, but I believe my opponent is overlooking the alternatives. What if these "bad voters" are the only ones who vote on the debate during that limited first week? In my experience here, there have been at least two debates where the voters who I had assumed to be "bad" were the ones to vote first. http://www.debate.org... -In this debate, my opponent had merely copy/pasted irrelevant IMDB and wikipedia articles and was in no time declared the winner http://www.debate.org... -In this debate, my opponent had forfeited his last round and allowed me to extend many of my points beforehand. The second incident is most relevant as I was trailing behind in the votes for more than a week. It is certain that I would have been recognized as the loser, if my opponent's plan were upheld. My opponent's plan also drastically decreases the freedom that the users will have on this website as the debate.org administration has promised to enable a feature that will allow the instigators to determine how long polls stay open. http://www.debate.org... : As you can see on the bottom right of this page, custom polls will be one of the many new features. Not all users would want to have the limits my opponent brings up. It is clear that such a feature moots whatever reason there is to initiate my opponent's plan. With that said, I now await my opponent's first rebuttal.
Debate.org should freeze the polls a week after the last round.

This is all about putting an end to annoying revisionism as a means of changing win totals after the fact. (usually of someone you dislike). Take this one for example: http://www.debate.org... Back when I took that debate, I won about 7 to none. Because my opponent forfeited several rounds and posted no real arguments. But now when you look at it, due to votes not being counted after accounts close, and people going back and voting against me (and probably others too) without actually reading the debates, out of spite, it says I lost. There's a few others like this that are less blatant or not yet complete (but probably will be complete shortly). This results essentially in a depreciation of win totals for older members. A freeze after a week allows plenty of time for those who actually pay attention to the debate to make up their minds.
Science is the study of God.

It would seem to me that you are arguing against God being than science being the study of God. I am sorry if the premise of my argument is hard to deal with or even my distinction created for the use of Logic and debate. Maybe you are arguing against religion, I am not sure. Given the premise God is and my argument Science is the study of God, perhapses your next round should be spent arguing against the topic rather than capitalization or a belief in God.
Science is the study of God.

My opponent has conveniently ignored my contention that he has not defined God. By stating that "God is" he has merely purported the existence of something we call "God." This is exactly the same as stating that the coffee table "is." Once again, you CANNOT define a noun as a verb - that simply doesn't work. >>"God means many things to many people. Perhaps the God you depose is a misuse. But this I clarified in the primis of my argument." Correction - "god" means many things to many people. "God" is a deity. You have not clarified WHAT "God" is - just THAT it is. >> "when naming our galaxy do we not say "The Milky Way" rather than a milky way." >> "And we don't say "Hitler" so that what we are referring to is revered and praised either" Of course - that's because it's a proper noun. Like Paris. My opponent seems to be grammatically confused. >> "see http://en.wikipedia.org...; Good heavens - the Kabbalists are more like Deists anyway - who wouldn't call a "Creator" a deity? >>"No but logic can." CORRECTION - this is false - in order to evaluate "All S are P" you MUST have characterized S and P. >>"I do not know what you are quoting because no one said; "The totality of everything that science considers is God"" I submit that the above quote is the only reasonable interpretation of the nonsense "God is." >>"And in order to study everything I believe you would begin some place as science has." This is your only statement I agree with. And since there is no definition of WHAT "God" is, that would make a good starting point. ************************* My opponent's argument hinges on the reader's misunderstanding of "God "is"" - he has defined a noun as a verb, which is clearly not possible. Science can only study testable hypothesis. In order for any hypothesis to be testable, it must have defined parts. For example, the hypothesis "There are some Sneedles in Iowa" is not testable until we define what a Sneedle is. Likewise, any hypothesis including my opponent's erroneous definition of "God" is untestable because his definition does not specify what "God" IS. Even if science studies that which is, and if "God" exists (is), then we still have no testable hypothesis The mere fact that something exists does not indicate that it is study-able. "God" may exist with attributes that are not touchable by science, much in the same way that unicorns exist in the mind or perfect geometric shapes exist in the abstract. Thus, while science may intend to study "God" even as my opponent attempts to define it, science can go no further without a definition of what "God" IS and not merely what "God" DOES. Also, the use of the capitalized "God" does indicate some sort of special import to this entity, and I submit that the criteria that change "god" to "God" are criteria of moral or existential import that render the entity untouchable by science, for better or for worse. Science CANNOT study "God."
Science is the study of God.

You Sir are arguing some other debate than this. Prepare to be debunked. Statement: "Egregiously deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of the word "God"" Response: God means many things to many people. Perhaps the God you depose is a misuse. But this I clarified in the primis of my argument. Statement: I can provide an argument to show that Science does NOT study God. Response: Okay please provide it. e Statement: since my opponent has used "God" and not "god," he indicates that there is some other reason that this combination of everything needs another name. Response: when naming our galaxy do we not say "The Milky Way" rather than a milky way. Statement: In all definitions, the capitalized God is a deity of some sorts. Response: No this is not in all definitions. see http://en.wikipedia.org... Or perhaps Islamic distinction of God. Although that as well is another word entirely but is one and the same. Also know that I capitalize all people, places or things. Statement: We don't call nature "Nature" as though it was to be revered and praised. Response: And we don't say "Hitler" so that what we are referring to is revered and praised either. Besides my opening argument addressed that the intention of this statement is not to impose my belief, to acknowledge anyone else's belief or to discredit any ones belief. Statement: Furthermore, my opponent's definition is lacking in any sort of characteristics of what qualifies as "God." Response: Except God "is". Statement: Science cannot classify anything is studies without a definition of the characteristics of it. Response: No but logic can. And as of yet scientist can not pinpoint all happenings, cause and reaction style, back to the big bang. Statement: Lastly, in order for science to study something, there must be a testable hypothesis. Response: This was not your last statement. Do you have a testable hypothesis for everything? Statement: As the definitions stand, "The totality of everything that science considers is God" is not a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science CANNOT study god. Response: I do not know what you are quoting because no one said; "The totality of everything that science considers is God", And in order to study everything I believe you would begin some place as science has. Given the premise "God is". Science most certainly is the study of that, directly or indirectly, and from whatever view point available. Thank you.
Science is the study of God.

Despite my opponent's egregiously deliberate misrepresentation and misuse of the word "God," I can provide an argument to show that Science does NOT study God. My opponent defines "God" as "is" or "exist." This definition does not make sense. It is logically incoherent. My opponent has defined a noun as a verb. It is as though I defined a coffee table as "stay." The definition he seems to be trying to introduce is that God is everything that exists. While this is a very bizarre notion of "God," I suppose we can work with it for now. However, since my opponent has used "God" and not "god," he indicates that there is some other reason that this combination of everything needs another name. In all definitions, the capitalized God is a deity of some sorts. We don't call nature "Nature" as though it was to be revered and praised. Furthermore, my opponent's definition is lacking in any sort of characteristics of what qualifies as "God." Science cannot classify anything is studies without a definition of the characteristics of it. Lastly, in order for science to study something, there must be a testable hypothesis. As the definitions stand, "The totality of everything that science considers is God" is not a testable hypothesis. Therefore, science CANNOT study god.
Science is the study of God.

Science is the study of God. For this argument God is not God (character) of any given religion's sacred texts. Simply God "is" and "exist" for this Debate. (God does not have to be magical nor do physics) Science: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Or you could even say; The study of what is. "is" is the singular third-person form of the infinitive "to be," which can roughly be restated as "to exist." Or the expression of being. I am not arguing that God created anything or that it is a person or even something to be worshiped. I am not referring to anyones particular refference they may or may not have to God. If you believe in God or not, that is not what I am even going near. From our view point, if God "is" than science must be the study of God. Given that God "is" for this argument, Science is the study of God.
Rey Mysterio is the best WWE wrestler

Yes, but he has not beaten many other wrestlers around the same height and weight as Big Show. There are many legends too which outcast Rey Mysterio in fame, ability, and wins (e.g. Andre the Giant). To say he has beaten one man who is bigger than most wrestlers does not make him the best. The Big Show is slow and somewhat clumsy (even though he could pound anyone into a pulp). Rey Mysterio, although weak compared to Big Show) is small, speedy, and can perform acrobatic moves. Many people have beaten the Big Show and Rey Mysterio, and being his WWE career has not been that long, he has yet to gain many's trust. Therefore, he is not the best wrestler, but in the future, could have the potential to be one of the best. But as your claim states, he IS the best wrestler, so technically saying he could be the best does not help you at all in this argument.
Rey Mysterio is the best WWE wrestler

No he is not, he is a short mexican dude who loves nachos, Taco Bell, and watching Spanish romantic comedies. Well, I don't know about any of that, but I can see him in that taco Bell, late night fourthmeal commercial. Undertaker, Kane, Eddie Guerrero, and/or The Rock would be a better candidate. Undertaker not only has the Tombstone, but he has a multiple other deaths moves. Kane, because of his rich/dramatic history in the WWE. Eddie Guerrero for most likely his conflicts with JBL, and his death. And The Rock for not only being quite a good wrestler but being in a crap load of movies. Who is Rey Mysterio anyway (I'm being sarcastic).
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

Comeon Russian cant't you understand one simple thing . Just say in what ways are women better than men . That's the topic. And you have'nt proven it till now . So , as you were attacking and you haven't said something in which the women are better than men . So , I am left with nothing to counter back . So , ultimately I won this debate . And at last but not least , I am not against women , its the sense in the topic which made me against , so if any women agrees with me , PLEASE VOTE for me .........!!!!!!!!!!!! And good luck Russian for your future debates ........ :)
Men V/S Women (who is better?)

Im participating because you are obviously sexist, if you weren't, you wouldn't have made this debate, saying men v/s women sounds like something a preschooler would argue about, we as men couldn't survive without women, making a debate on which is better is SEXIST, a sexist is someone who discriminates or devides another person for their gender, so when you say men are better than women, that is sexist and rude.