BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Derek Jeter is overrated

Derek Jeter is one of the most, if not the most, overrated player in baseball. 1. HE HAS NO STATS. He never hits homeruns. His highest ever in his 13 seasons was 24, and constantly gets around 15 a year. The last two years he has gotten 14 and 12. He also never gets RBIs. Last year he got around 73, despite playing 156 games. RBIs really are the most important thing, because thats what makes a team score. He constantly gets around 114 Ks a year, with his highest being 125 in 1997. He is most overrated in the stolen bases department. He only had 15 in 156 games last year and averages 23, despite having his own commercial about stealing a base. The only thing he is decent at is average, with a .317. But, he only acheived .300 in 8 out of 13 years. Also, there are 56 people ahead of him on the all time list, with 6 people tied at .317. And, that doesn't even count walks. He is not even in the top 100 in on base percentage, despite everyone raving about how many times he can get on base. 2. A BETTER TEAM MAKES A BETTER PLAYER. Okay, okay. Say by the slimmest margin you give the con the stats argument. But, he's only that way because the Yankees buy their team. Think about it, if a team is so good that they win all their games, is a player going to be worse because he's so sad that they're winning? No. Also, in a game, Jeter can get more RBIs if someones on base, and since their so good, Jeter can eaisly get RBIs.
Atheism should continue to be considered a religion

Pro claims that atheism is currently considered a religion based on the fact that when you fill out information on certain applications, or census forms, atheism is listed under religions. However, this is not a valid argument. On many forms "no religion" is listed as an option. Moreover, "no religion" by definition entails atheism. If we accept Pro's argument, this essentially means that it is impossible *not* to have a religion, which is absurd. Pro defines religion as "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." She has not provided a source for this, moreover, this opens to door to potentially defining *anything* as a religion. For example, I believe, as a matter of ethics, that eating babies and torturing innoccent people for fun is wrong. Not only this, but I adhere to this belief devotedly. According to Pro, this belief is religious. Devotion to a political party could be considered a religion; Pro's definition is imprecise, innaccurate, and essentially useless. The Peguin Dictionary of Religion defines religion as "a general term used...to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns."[1] This definition is clearly preferable as it is more precise and more accurate: it includes naturalistic worldviews that we would intuitively call religions, like Taoism, Shintoism, pantheism, certain sects of Buddhism, etc. while excluding beliefs that are clearly not religious, such as Confucianism. The resolution is negated. --- References --- 1. http://www.religionfacts.com...
Atheism should continue to be considered a religion

At the moment, Atheism is considered to be a religion. When you fill out your information on applications, or you take your census Atheism is considered to be a religion. Religion being defined as: Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience. Many people believe that Atheism shouldn't be considered a religion because it follows no deity. I think that Atheism should continue to be considered a religion.
NAFTA was Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment and it needs to be further expanded.

Okay, I'll make it simple. 1. NAFTA is not free trade. My opponents arguments are in favor of free trade, not NAFTA, which he apparently doesn't understand. 2. The Balanced Budget -- achieved by Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress -- was a much greater achievement than NAFTA, which was and is a disaster. The thesis of this debate was "NAFTA was Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment and it needs to be further expanded." I'm confident that regardless your position on free trade, NAFTA, or Clinton, you will agree that the logic of my arguments is superior to that of my opponent's.
NAFTA was Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment and it needs to be further expanded.

You just completely undermined your own argument, and you didn't answer any of my points. One of the REASONS the balanced budget is gone is the disastrous, anti-free trade, pro-mercantilist, world government treaty known as NAFTA. Of course it outlived the balanced budget -- it helped kill it! As the manufacturing base has been eroded, tax reciepts today are much lower than they would have been in the absence of NAFTA. Furthermore, more is spent on the welfare state to subsidize workers who have been displaced or relegated to low-paying service-industry jobs, thanks to NAFTA. I say: NAFTA is NOT free trade. You say nothing in response. Your arguments are for free trade, not for NAFTA. NAFTA is NOT free trade. It is government-managed trade. I have demonstrated this to be true in my Round 1 argument, but I will briefly reiterate the case here. Free trade = trade without interference from government. NAFTA is the exact opposite; it creates a whole new level of government to administer trade. How preposterous to call it "free trade." NAFTA has led to the erosion of our manufacturing base. This is largely due to the fiat-money system and widespread (for now) acceptance of the dollar, for it is easier to print money than to produce goods for legitimate trade. But the day of reckoning is coming. The dollar is plummeting in value, and soon the Man Behind the Curtain will be revealed -- the Emperor wears no clothes. If NAFTA can in any way be considered a positive thing, it is only in the argument that it is hastening to demise of the U.S. dollar, which will (hopefully) lead to the rebirth of constitutional gold/silver-backed money and the truly free trade honest money makes possible.
NAFTA was Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment and it needs to be further expanded.

Okay so maybe that balance budget was definitely a great acomplishment. Now that Clinton's term has ended, however, the balanced budget is gone and and NAFTA remains. In fact, NAFTA is still expanding and will result in even great benefits in the years to come. So, long after Clinton's term has ended, his once balanced budget is gone but NAFTA still remains -- thus NAFTA is better not just for the trade expansion it provides but also for the length of time it will last.
NAFTA was Bill Clinton's greatest accomplishment and it needs to be further expanded.

NAFTA opened up many markets to our economy and has created far more jobs that it has taken. In addition to NAFTA, we need to expand free trade with many other countries, including China, in order to remain competitive in a globalized world. Those in favor of protectionism fail to grasp the concept of comparative advantage and all of the benefits that it provides. "Creative Destruction" is a great thing and should be embraced.
Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

Extend argument. I will not be able to offer rebuttals due to this being my closing round. I would like to thank Con for taking this debate. Con however has failed to show why it is illogical to believe in Christ. I have shown why some people see it as a logical explanation and use this to explain reality. To dispute this Con will have to counter every point I offered and build a Case of his own. Until then we can conclude that it is in fact a logical reason for some people to believe in God.
Christianity provides a logical explanation for reality

The bible is very forbidden itself, filled with metaphors and majorly paraphrased. The masses will never unlock the secrets contained in the bible. They always take the verses literal, now saying this. The normal person will not be spiritually illuminated to understand how the world works. Now not understanding the metaphysics from the bible, will lead to more bad then good. God is embedded into how we think, but 99% of us look at him as a personal god, rather then a universal creator. The human can never fully understand how the world works, and this is why the bible was created. To fill in our insecurities about life & death.
A Palestinian State

You Said: "Land doesnt not belong to whoever was there first. The land belongs to whoever holds the power. In Flordia's case, it belongs to the United States. In Palestine's case, it was the Palestinians. It doesnt matter how many Jews are there at the time. Frankly, it doesnt matter how many Palestinians were there. If they hold the power, they lay claim to the land. Saying "I was here first" doesnt get you your land back." Thus, the land belongs to the Israelis because they hold the power. Why do the Jews get the land? Because they have held the land for the past 60 years. If we were to take the land from the Jews, it would be just as much of a crime as taking the land from the Arabs back in 1947. Jews living there today were born there. Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order.
A Palestinian State

You seem to be missing my point. First, Im not saying the Jews dont need a homeland. In fact, I specifically said i thought they did. My point is this. Why do the Jews get a homeland and the palestinians dont? Israel is just as much home to the palestinians as it is to the Jews. The Jews have no more claim to the land then the Palestinians do. The Florida analogy. It is very much a good example. We dont have any historical claim over Florida just like the Kurds don't, so why are we more entitled to it? I mean, we didnt settle there first. As a matter of fact, the Spanish did. Except about the whole part about them taking lots of it from France...who, by the way...took it from the Native Americans. My point is that claim to land has NOTHING to do with "who was there first". If we base the legitimacy of the Israeli state on the Jews being there first then we better give the United States back to the Native Americans. Land doesnt not belong to whoever was there first. The land belongs to whoever holds the power. In Flordia's case, it belongs to the United States. In Palestine's case, it was the Palestinians. It doesnt matter how many Jews are there at the time. Frankly, it doesnt matter how many Palestinians were there. If they hold the power, they lay claim to the land. Saying "I was here first" doesnt get you your land back. Whats more, before the Jews even arrived, the Sumarians settled there. After 4,000 years of living there, the Babylonians invaded and took over. This is around when the Jews first showed up, and they themselves never ruled the land. The Babylonians ruled for nearly 1,000 years, until the Assyrians invaded. The Assyrians ruled there for 500 years until Persia showed up. All of these people lived in the Palestine. Jews, palestinians, persians, egyptians, and even Italians have some legitimate right to call it home. So why do the Jews get it? They dont have any more of a claim to that land than half the world. With all of the Chaos and death in Israel/Palestine, we need to resolve the issue and pouring money into Irael isnt gunna do it. The Palestinians need a homeland. If the Israelis are already willing to give up land then we need to declare part of the country as a Palestinian State. Let the Palestinians set up government, settle in, and get a foothold on some of their land and I bet they wont be nearly as hostile.
A Palestinian State

Let's take your comparison into account here first of all: In terms of taking Florida and giving it to the Kurds, that would not make any sense, because the Kurds have no historical claim to the land. On the other hand, the Jews have lived in Israel since the time of Abraham. And so if you want to claim that the land is "Palestinian" then you are wrong. It's not as if the Palestinians had been living in the territory since time immemorial. The Palestinians took the land from the Jews during the time of Muhammad just as the Jews took the land from the Arabs back in 1947. The main argument here rests with the legitimacy of the claims the respective parties have to the land. The Palestinian and Israeli claims are both based on historical occupation and religious directives. Thus, those claims cannot be taken seriously in an international context. The sole right of Israel to that land must be found somewhere else. The only thing we can take from the historical claim is that unlike your Kurd/Florida analogy, the claim on Israel by the Jews actually makes sense. Let's examine the history. The United States did not just draw a line in the sand and declare Israel to be a nation, only to have an exodus of Jews arrive in Israel where there were none before. In fact it was the British who allowed the movement of Jews to Palestine during their League of Nations Mandate over the territory from 1919-1947. And by the time Israel was created by the United Nations, 500,000 Jews lived in the territory created in 1947, as compared to 350,000 Arabs. Only later on did the floodgates open and Jewish refugees from the Holocaust enter Jerusalem. At that point there was a Palestinian state. But the Arabs destroyed their opportunity when they tried to wipe Israel and the Jews off the map. Through several major wars, Israel continued to expand to its' present size. If we want to be fair here, we cannot abide by historical claims to the land. Historical claims contradict each other - they overlap - and no impartial arbitrator can give certain historical claims legitimacy over others. In terms of deciding who gets the land we have to look at in a sense of fairness. Maybe the creation of Israel could have been done better. But what matters now is that the citizens of Israel now were actually born in Israel. They have as much right to the land the Palestineans claim to have. The difference is the Jews have suffered throughout all of history - yet they have thrived! And thus, they deserve a state of their own in which they can live peacefully. Every nation deserves a state of it's own, and the only place that the Jews can live is in Israel. The Palestinians on the other hand, have proven to be militant in their hatred towards Israel. The Israelis have taken a defensive approach, even GIVING BACK land it has gained. The Palestinians want it all. The most compromise that I can see is creating a dual-party state. But if I had to favor one group over the other, it would be the Jews. Creating two states would not solve the situation. A compromise like THAT leaves everyone unhappy.
A Palestinian State

You can argue that the Palestinians have done nothing but create chaos and havoc in the middle east, but they are not the only ones to blame. Why on earth would the US Government think it was OK to take land that was palestinian, and give to the Jews. What do you think would happen in the US if Iran tried to take Florida and give it to the Kurds??? Talk about rioting, death, and war when the Kurds showed up. Im am not in anyway trying to attack the Jews. I have a lot fo Jewish family and I am pro Jewish state as well, but their needs to be a palestinian state too. It is not only right, but it is the key to peace in Israel.
A Palestinian State

The answer is not obvious, because splitting the land between the two parties will not create happy people on both sides. Both sides want it all. Also, it is impossible to split the states among lines that will be acceptable to both parties. There is not a clear delineating line between "Jewish Areas" and "Palestinian Areas". Are you willing to force the sides to live apart? A solely Palestinian state will lead to reprisals against the Jewish communities. A solely Israeli state (perhaps with limited Palestinian administration) is the best option. This is why: Because the Israelis have shown that they are willing to live in a liberal democracy, not a terrorist theocracy (the Palestinians, when given the chance, voted Hamas into power in the legislature). The Palestinians are hostile to their neighbor Israel, while Israel just wants to live in peace.
A Palestinian State

The Israeli's may have control, but they are willing to compromise. In fact they have already tried. The Israeli government is not gunna straight up reject any propsotion that could result in peace. They will be more than willing to compromise. They dont really have another choice. You also said: "Now, giving the Palestineans an independent state would actually cause more problems in the Middle East than it would solve. It is the stated policy of several terrorist groups to use any land that the Israelis give to the PLO to launch further attacks on Israel. The Palestineans cannot manage themselves (as seen in the latest Hamas-Fatah civil war in which Hamas now holds the Gaza Strip and Fatah holds the West Bank). The Israelis, however, are able to keep their own house in order." Now lets talk through this. The Palestinians are mad. Why? Because we kicked them of of their land and gave it to the Jews. Gee, that explains all of the killing and hatred. Now how do we solve this problem. Well the way I see it, we have two options. 1. We can kill them all and essentially declare war on the entire islamic world. or 2. We can try to quech their anger by giving them comfort. Give them some of their land back. Give them some infrastructure; some healthcare, grocery stores, electric and water utilities. Give them less to complain about. Comfortable people dont shoot missles at their neighbors. Also, even if the Palestinians didn't quit attacking Israel, we can police the border. We can take military action. Its not like we dont do that already. Israel definatly will take military action. Palestine would hardly be a threat if they caused problems. Lastly, we HAVE to do something. Thousands have died from this comflict and more die every week. If we dont take action, this will continue. Its not just gunna work itself out. Now, I dont see any possible action that we can take except to give them a homeland. Whether or not it works is another debate entirely. The fact of the matter is, what we are doing (or rather not doing) right now isnt gunna solve the problem. At least if we try to quench their anger, we have a shot. Here is an equation to represent my point. Stolen Homeland = Unhappy people Unhappy people = War and Violence War and Violence = Death and more unhappy people Returned Homeland = Happy People Happy people = No war and violence. No War and Violence = Life and More Happy People Which equation do you choose. The answer seems completely obvious to me.
The christian god Yahweh is malevolent

Upon the forfeit of my opponent I have little else to say. The only argument I have failed to disprove is his case that god works "in mysterious ways." As you will shortlysee that argument fits about as much as it does for a serial killer.In the king james bible, which religion places as infallible, the lord yahweh is a mighty and jealous god. He issues commands that would be inexcusable today. The stoning of gays is hardly kosher today despite that fact it would be un kosher not to do so. The bible by the way, was always untill recently, a moral guide specifically for jews by jews. Love thy neighbor, if translated literrayl would read "Love thy fellow jew." Heathans were free to be killed and they were by the bucketload. It is a sacrilege for instance to marry a canaanite or several fancy names for arab and moses died, not of old age, but for not circumcizing his sons.Finally the god, Yahweh is malevolent for the main reason that he kills people. Lots of people. Plague, stillbirthing, lightning strikes, fires, floods, cities destroyed on the basis that everyone was a rapist (apparently including dogs, women, children and babies) and god waited 6 billion years to give anyone the slughtest chance of not burning in hell. Yahweh is evil, by far more evil than satan.
The christian god Yahweh is malevolent

Thank you for accepting joining me in this debate. I will first state that proactively causing chaos or suffering is not the exclusive definition of evil. However being the root cause for evil is. Before examining your deity's track record of murder in the infallible book known as the King James Bible I will look at the evidence around us. 1.) First of all, what is god responsible for? Assuming my opponent is not a deist, everything. The only problem is that almost everything positive; life, water, immunity to diseases, evolution and several others are explainable by science. One of the only things unexplained are the creation so I will hypothetically give you reasonable doubt that god is responsible for the big bang, or whatever is in place of it. The results include, *Extreme weather which could have conceivably created life as an overlooked by product yet according to my insurance company, any disaster is "An Act of God." So this slightly benevolent force is constantly taking the life it accidentally created. Sounds like infanticide to me. *Antimatter which quite literally destroys upon contact. Something even a nihilist will find abhorrent. *Explicit orders not to fulfill needs that are directly programmed into us. This causes guilt, countless unmade lives, suicides and suffering of those who live with their biology instead of within a presupposed norm. This, along with many allowances or even causes of evil in general. I brought a video to handily discuss these along with the never disproven incompatibility of god a benevolent god and evil. Here you go. http://www.youtube.com...
The christian god Yahweh is malevolent

The Christian bible states that God is all-benevolent. This suggests that the evil things He appears to do are only working toward a future goal of utopia, and that humans cannot comprehend why. Since humans cannot comprehend His actions, Pro cannot, unfortunately, provide evidence on why God is malevolent and the root of all evil. Furthermore, if He was, He could easily create a world filled with nothing but tyranny, greed, and horrors. We do not see this in real life, not even in the bible, thus disproving my opponent's point entirely.
The christian god Yahweh is malevolent

I am here to argue that the literary character in the Christian bible is the root of all evil and therefore is malevolent. I challenge a theist to prove said character is better than at the very best short tempered Odin or Zeus who killed on a whim also. This debate concludes that god is *Omnipotent *Omnipresent *Omnibenevolent *Omniscient and several other Omni-attributes alluding to the fact he is all powerful, good and knowing.