BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump will lose in 2020

I would like to bring attention to some factors that I believe were important in Donald Trump's victory, that will likely not be present in the 2020 elections. First, Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, was also very unpopular. For most of the campaign she too was below 50% popularity. This shows in some of the closest states in the 2016 election:Michigan--0.3%, New Hampshire--0.4%, Wisconsin--1%, Pennsylvania--1.2%, and so on. Two unpopular candidates led to very close margins. However, when we look at Trump’s approval rating, for the most part he has gotten less and less popular since winning the Presidency. There’s been a minor uptick in popularity, but he’s had similar short term fluctuations previously. Meanwhile it cannot be assumed that the Democratic challenger will be as unpopular as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. So what we are likely to see is that while Donald Trump enters the 2020 election with even lower popularity than in 2016, his opponent will likely enter with higher popularity than Hillary Clinton. With the razor thin margins Trump won by in several states, such a shift could easily give the state to the Democrats. Related is that Hillary Clinton was under a very public investigation throughout the election. That, along with the last minute revelation of the investigation restarting also hurt her chances in the general election. In effect in the 2016 election, Donald Trump was running on easy mode against a candidate that even a majority her own party didn’t like or trust, yet still just barely beat out his opponent in multiple states. Against a more popular and trusted candidate, Donald Trump is highly unlikely to win in 2020. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com... http://abcnews.go.com... http://abcnews.go.com...
Donald Trump will lose in 2020

As 2020 draws near, there seems to be the idea that Trump is going to lose the election in 2020 because he is deemed unpopular with the electorate, doesn't accomplish anything, and is mentally incompetent to run a country. Also, his scandals. I would like to say that he would lose against the next opponent in 2020. However, if you followed the election even a little bit, you would remember that he was destined to lose by the media for being unfit, offensive, not having ideas, etc. He was seen losing the election by 3, 5 and even 10 points. Clinton was going to win in a landslide. Well, we all know what happened. We all know she won the popular vote and should've won. I would like this debate to not focus on the Electoral College and why it should be eliminated. Rather, I want to go over the idea that Trump will lose in 2020. I would like to see this happen but if history is a memory and analyzing Trump is a strategy in my assessment, he will win again in 2020. He has good marketing skills. He has Twitter at his disposal. I would even say this: the media making him seem like an evil individual may have helped him because they attacked him constantly, never praising him at all and folks saw that as partisan and biased. Some people looked at the comments he said, and thought it wasn't a big deal. They thought the media was pursuing an agenda and saw Trump winning as a win against the people at the top. Again, I would like to see Trump lose the election since it is clear he can't govern even as good as Bush(never mind his policies, just the fact he can keep a house together). Even if his approval rating is low as it is now, does it matter? He already had it low before the election and still won. Your thoughts. Thanks!
It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

Con states that my argument is wrong but does not give any clear indication of what is supposed to be wrong with it. On the other hand, I have provided two clear criticisms of Dr_lillo's argument: Criticism one: The argument is vague and hard to understand and does not seem to be logically valid. Criticism two: The argument seems to be circular. I believe I have adequately justified and defended my claim that it can be reasonable to believe a proposition is true without logical support. The essential claim of my argument is that knowing is logically independent of method. As far as I can tell, Con has not offered a single direct criticism of my argument nor has he defended my criticisms of his argument.
It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

The aim of this argument is to seek the truth of a proposition .you offered wrong analysis in your argument in my point of view as you mentioned below :in round 1"a. we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it either because something other than logic identifies them as true or because logic identifies them as true. b. But it can't be that logic identifies logic as true, because that would be circular. "also in round 3 "If you must have logical support to reasonably believe a proposition, then you must have logical reasons for believing that logic is a reliable source of truth. But that is nonsense."Instead, I offered the principles how to seek the truth in round 1 and round 2. get my conclusion according to these principles.if you don't believe in them so let the voters decide .you want to prove your proposition with no logical support . simply I find that you apply the subject we debate about .
It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

Voters should note that Dr_lillo at this point has apparently not offered any analysis of my argument. It is still unclear to me precisely what he is attempting to demonstrate. I am aware that fact and logic are different, but I fail to see how this observation is importantly relevant to our discussion. Con has not addressed my objection that his argument seems to be circular. He claims that truth depends on facts and reality and defines reality as "the result of theories that can be argued." But how would you argue for it besides using facts and logic? So what he is really saying, as far as I can tell, is that truth depends on fact and logic and then concludes that you have to have logic to reasonably believe the truth of a proposition, which is the very thing he is supposed to be proving. Moreover, what we are discussing is not truth itself but reasonable belief in the truth of some proposition. If our knowledge of the truth of a proposition depends on facts and logic, how do we know that fact and logic are true? Clearly, we don't know they are true because of more facts and logic. It must be that we somehow just know it. So we see that it is this "knowing" that we depend on for truth. Or in other words: What I am claiming is that if it isn't hypothetically reasonable to believe in the truth of a proposition without logical support, then it isn't reasonable to believe in logic, because none of us believe in logic because of logical support but rather because we just know that logic is correct. Now you might object that logic is not a proposition and so we do not need logical support for it. But what about the proposition, "It is the case that logic is a reliable source of truth." If you must have logical support to reasonably believe a proposition, then you must have logical reasons for believing that logic is a reliable source of truth. But that is nonsense.
It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

I appreciate Dr_lillo accepting my challenge. It is not terribly clear to me what my opponent's argument exactly is, but it seems to be something like this: If we want to know if a proposition is true, we have to try to find out what the facts are and explain them according to logical theories. God made the laws of logic. Therefore, logic is necessary for believing the truth of a proposition. The conclusion of this argument comes out of the blue and does not even begin to follow logically from the two premises. Thus, there is no reason to accept my opponent's conclusion. Furthermore, premise one, that we must seek facts and explain them according to "reality," which Con defines as "the result of theories that can be argued," apparently assumes the very point he is supposed to be proving: that it is unreasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support. For these reasons, I believe it remains reasonable to suppose that a proposition could be accepted without logical support and I look forward to Dr_lillo's analysis of my argument.
It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

Truth depends on facts and reality Facts is the events that exist or that have occurred non debatable cannot be denied or objected. Reality is the result of theories that can be argued but it explain most of things most of time. So if we ask about the truth of proposition we have to seek the facts about it and get close to nearest point to the reality according to our perception . But we have to know that logicalness is the law of God made for our world bec. He made the facts and we try explaining reality according to his laws. So logical support is a necessity to seek the truth of anything
It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support.

PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT CHALLENGE UNLESS YOU AGREE TO THESE RULES: Following is my opening argument. My challenger is requested to similarly present his opening argument or arguments. He should not respond directly to my argument in round 1. My challenger ought have no more than two distinct arguments supporting his position, but may have only one if he wishes. Each argument will be clearly presented as a unique argument; which is to say that it should be obvious where each argument begins and ends. In round 2, we will each state our objections to the arguments of our opponent. In round 3, we will each attempt to counter our opponent's objections and reaffirm our initial arguments. In round 4, we will present our final defense of our arguments, our final comments on our opponent's arguments, and will close. I shall attempt to prove the proposition, "It can be reasonable to believe the truth of a proposition without logical support." Argument: a. If we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it either because something other than logic identifies them as true or because logic identifies them as true. b. But it can't be that logic identifies logic as true, because that would be circular. c. Therefore, if we know that our logical thoughts are true, we know it because something other than logic identifies them as true. d. If something other than logic is what identifies our logic as true, then the source of our knowledge of truth is not logic, but that other thing, call it X. e. This same X or something very similar to this X, call it X', is what assures us that our perception of, say, our computer screen is not an illusion. f. If X and X' are what assure us that our ideas and perceptions, respectively, are true, then it's not unreasonable to suppose it's possible that X, X', or something very similar to them could assure us that a proposition is true independent of logical support.
Communism will beat Capitalism

You want hard facts?I'll give you hard facts."Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth." -Cited from the World Food Programme (https://www.wfp.org...).As for where these hungry people living in capitalist states are?Please refer to this handy map: Note that all the hungriest nations are capitalist ones. Capitalist nations, where food is not a guarantee; if you refuse to work in these nations, they let you starve (not counting the nations where victories of socialism have in fact guaranteed food for all.)(Also: original, Next Generation, Voyager, Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, Enterprise, or the movies?)
Communism will beat Capitalism

No, you are wrong. I am not suggesting that we forcibly seize the people's land, or that we "steal" the means of production from the bourgeoisie. I am suggesting that the people willingly, voluntarily join this cause. If you don't want to participate, that's just fine. You can keep right on eating the crap that stocks the shelves at capitalist grocery stores. No one's going to stop you. What I am suggesting is absolutely not what Chairman Mao and Pol Pot and Stalin did. They really were all about stealing land and using force. As for "stealing" land, resources, or anything else from the Big Food companies, I have two objections to that. One is that communism abolishes the concept of private property, but the other is that even if we accept that Big Food has some magical sovereignty over the land they control, we are not going to "steal" it. "...we have a word for when people take property that was never theirs to begin with; Stealing." -Opponent "seizing farmland and major production companies for no justifiable reason?" -Opponent In the suburban co-op, we would not try to control any land that any corporation already controls. We won't be taking any new land; we will be repurposing land we already own. Using the yards and lawns we already control. Monsanto and Con-Agra can keep "their" land. "What my opponent fails to realize is that not every house in the world has a front yard, not every person lives in a house, not every person knows how to farm..." -Opponent Really? Not every person knows how to farm? Their grass farms ("lawns") seem to be doing just fine to me.Not every house in the world has a lawn? True. But most houses in the United States do, which is where we are most immediately concerned. Though, my opponent raises a fair point. Indeed, some people don't have a lawn. A lot of people live in cities or apartments. But most people do live in suburbs. And as for those that don't, they can still contribute. Balconies. Rooftops. Potential farmland is hidden anywhere with sunlight exposure and occasional rain. "Gardening is extremely laborious to merely yield some food that you have to ration for the entire year. Given the fact that most people lack the skill and knowledge to farm in the first place, this is automatically a formula that will cause great disaster and mass food shortages---again." -Opponent Well, lawn maintenance is pretty laborious too, and it doesn't even yield food. "Extremely laborious"? Quite a few of people have repurposed their lawns to serve as food sources. Take a look at this website created by a person who did just that: http://thequarteracrefarm.com... Not knowing anything about gardening, not having any skill or experience, she decided to produce 75% of her food straight from her own backyard. And you can, too.Read her book, The Quarter Acre Farm, to learn how anyone can repurpose their backyard and join a suburban co-op. Together we can overthrow Big Food and the bourgeoisie!Hail the revolution!
Communism will beat Capitalism

History is NOT destiny. Although communist countries in the past have terribly failed in producing adequate food, this does not mean that they will continue to in the future. In communist or socialist countries in the future, food production will work differently. I propose the following method of communist food production: 1. People will grow crops, instead of grass, in their yards. 2. Neighborhoods will have their crops collectivized (a fancy word for "pooled together") and sold at a local farmer's market. 3. The proceeds will be split equally amongst the citizens that produced the food. This system is completely different from the forced collective farming practiced by Chairman Mao's China and the Soviet Union. Though it does indeed incorporate capitalist principles of buying and selling, it does not incorporate the biggest flaw at the heart of capitalism which will ultimately bring it down: the problem of corporate ownership. Instead of one person or a small group of people accumulating the profits from privately owned farms, the money is instead split equally amongst the workers who produce it. Yet, it also does not possess the fundamental flaw at the heart of Stalinism and Maoism: forced work and government regulation of food production, which leads to famine. I call this model the suburban co-op. This model of Communism would be much easier to implement across the USA and the World. It probably wouldn't even require a change in US law. Also, the resulting produce would be much cheaper than capitalistic produce sold at grocery stores, and it wouldn't be much more difficult than maintaining all the useless grass in everyone's yard. People would see the suburban co-op model, see that it makes more sense, and decide to participate. Before you know it, the workers would have seized the means of (food) production (non-violently), and Big Food corporations like Monsanto and Con-Agra would be out of business. Food security would be guaranteed for all, and fresh produce would actually be cheaper than fast food. THAT is how communism would replace capitalism. Not in a violent revolution, not in one monumental burst of effort, but slowly and silently. A peaceful revolution. Hail the revolution!
Belief in the word of the bible is incompatible with modern morality

I'm sorry about the accidental forfeit... In fairness to you will not make any new arguments. Instead, I will just repeat my previous ones. 1. Mosaic law: Most of the verses provided were mosaic law. Those laws were meant for people before Christ. To further clarify you can google it. 2. In my very first speech, I explained how the bible is compatible with modern morality. I proved that the Bible can in fact be compatible with todays beliefs. Here is that argument: "Let"s start with some basic definitions: (All from MerriamWebster.com) Modern: of or relating to the present time or the recent past : happening, existing, or developing at a time near the present time. Morality: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior. Incompatible: not able to be used together. So, combining the definitions, modern morality can be defined as "Beliefs about what is right and what is wrong of or relating to the present time". Now, I will re - write the resolution with correct definitions to make it clearer: "Belief in the word of the Bible is not able to be used with beliefs about what is right and what is wrong of or relating to the present time" Every argument has a resolution for the affirmative (pro) and a counter resolution for the negative (con). As negative (or con), I have to prove the resolution false and make a counter resolution for myself. Here"s my counter resolution to prove my opponent wrong: "Belief in the word of the Bible IS able to be used with beliefs about what is right and what is wrong of or relating to the present time" Here is my support to prove my counter resolution true: The Ten Commandments Even if someone"s an atheist, most of the Ten Commandments can apply to them. -Honor your father and mother -You shall not murder -You shall commit adultery -You shall not steal -You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor -You shall not covet All of the above are compatible with today"s modern morality. I have proven my counter resolution true and my opponents resolution false." In that point I have shown how I have proven the revolution true. My opponent did not directly respond to this. Thanks for a great debate!
Belief in the word of the bible is incompatible with modern morality

The bible condones many practices that are morally abhorrent in today's society, I'm going to list many of them here: The death penalty is prescribed for: Not obeying priest's [1], Being a witch/sorcerer [2] (which leads to literal witch hunts), Homosexuals [3], Fortune tellers [4] also adding that "they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.", Hitting parents [5], Cursing parents [6], Adultery [7] also noting that Jesus says that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" [8]. Sex before marriage (specifically for the daughter of a priest) [9], Unbelievers [10] [11] [12] [13], False prophets [14] also noting that "When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through", Having someone in your town who doesn't believe in Yahweh [15], Women who aren't virgins and marry [16], Blasphemy [17], The children of sinners [18] [19]. The bible also repeatedly allows slavery [20] [21] and demotes women to a status similar to chattel slavery [22] [23] [24]. Yahweh also constantly calls for and commits genocide [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. These are not the actions of a moral god or moral commandments. And before you try to dismiss most of these as the laws of the old testament, Jesus spesifically says (in regards to the law) "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." [33] [1] Deuteronomy 17:12 [2] Exodus 22:17 [3] Leviticus 20:13 [4] Leviticus 20:27 [5] Exodus 21:15 [6] Leviticus 20:9 [7] Leviticus 20:10 [8] Matthew 5:28 [9] Leviticus 21:9 [10] Exodus 22:19 [11] Deuteronomy 13:7-12 [12] 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 [13] Deuteronomy 17:2-5 [14] Zechariah 13:3 [15] Deuteronomy 13:13-19 [16] Deuteronomy 22:20-21 [17] Leviticus 24:10-16 [18] Isaiah 14:21 [19] Leviticus 26:21-22 [20] Exodus 21:2-6 [21] Leviticus 25:44-46 [22] Deuteronomy 22:20-21 [23] 1 Corinthians 14:34 [24] timothy 1 12 [25] Exodus 12:29-30 [26] Ezekiel 9:5-7 [27] Jeremiah 51:20-26 [28] Exodus 23:23 [29] Joshua 8:1-29 [30] Joshua 6:20-21 [31] Judges 20:48 [32] 1 Samuel 15:2-3 [33] Matthew 5:17
This work is a great piece of impressionistic description

Ugh.. You still don't get it, do you? You already lost this debate before, but called it a sham and restarted it. You are the Proposition. You must provide the reason why, not Opposition. You have submitted a piece you believe to impressionistic. I ask you to submit evidence and you repeat thew poem. I tell you that burden of proof is on you, you reply that I have said burden of proof is on you, but then assume that it is not. Why is this impressionistic? I don't have to say why not until you say why. I even submit evidence of another poem that is impressionistic and explain the difference and you ignore it. Either you are a troll or just a stubborn and poor debater. Make up your mind, and stop creating debates about erotic poetry, seriously.
This work is a great piece of impressionistic description

con says "so you still have not submitted evidence." wrong I have given a poem I regard as impressionistic con has not told us why that is not impressionistic con says "Here is some Impressionist Poetry," con has not told us why that is impressionistic thus con has given a poem he regards as impressionistic I have given a poem I regard as impressionistic again it comes down to subjectivity so it is up to the audience to judge now
This work is a great piece of impressionistic description

Impressionism and Impressionist poetry are not the same thing. Impressionist poetry is a subjective style of writing that displays the reaction of the poet to what they are describing, not just listing the colors and lights off. "here is my proof so tell us why it is not impressionistic-based upon your example of impressionist poetry" This is not an example of impressionist poetry, so using it as a standard to compare to itself does not validate it. Your argument is circular logic. I think this is X because X. There has to be a Y or a Z to prove it, and so you still have not submitted evidence. Here is some Impressionist Poetry, from a coincidental Irish Geraldine Shadian; Scenes of the Seasons Spring has arrived the trees are green Sprinkled with tiny blossoms of life anew The gossamer of dewy sheen The flora's offspring in colorful hue Summer brings heat and light The flowers on the saplings bloom The hot winds blow through day and night Floral fragrances fill the room Autumn appears with clouds and rain Trees are clothed in a fiery gown The days get shorter as daylight wanes Oak's golden tresses come tumbling down Lastly frigid Winter makes its presence felt The leaves are gone, the branches crack Snow covers all boughs in a pure white pelt Seasons follow seasons right on track Awaiting your response, Duncan.