BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no significant proof that GW Bush lied to get into Iraq.

The best way to explain my argument is through an example. Imagine you are sitting in courtroom on a jury. An accused suspect is currently on the stand. The prosecution is questioning him. This man is accused of burglary. This is not the first time he has been accused of burglary. In the past he has been convicted for this crime. He has also been known to lie in the past to avoid conviction. The prosecution asks him were he was the night of the burglary. He explains that he was at his house and nowhere near the site of the burglary. Then the prosecution asks him to tell the jury why he is not lying this time. The man pleads the Fifth Amendment. Would you assume that he is guilty? Imagine President Bush was the suspect, the burglary was fighting war in the name of economic gain and/or stability and pleading the Fifth Amendment was literally what the President did. Would you assume that he is guilty? You must assume one of two things the suspect (President Bush) is either incompetent of standing trial or he is covering something up and in turn misleading the jury. You must assume the second because the President is not mentally disturbed and can clearly think. If he is trying to cover something up, he is misleading the public and must be lying. "Failing to give information that might be SPECULATED UPON later" This argument falls apart when you say information that might be speculated upon later. When someone is previously suspected of going to war in the name of economic gain and/or stability this is not something that might be speculated upon later. There were many presidents prior to Bush that were guilty of this crime. Now you might say that just because previous presidents did this does not mean President Bush should be suspected of the same crime. This is also not true. If a new member of a gang tries to buy liquor and other members of this gang have purchased other liquor and sold it to minors would it not be fair to ask that this new gang member who has not yet been convicted of that crime, to what location that liquor was going. Just as the American public should know we are not going to war for economic gain and/or stability prior to the war. If this gang member does not respond to question you must assume that he is trying to cover something up and trying to mislead you. Therefore the President deceived the American Public when entering the war in Iraq.
There is no significant proof that GW Bush lied to get into Iraq.

Failing to mention what you might speculate is absolutely NOT proof of lying. Bush's only duty was to tell the truth as he saw it, not to rebute every possible argument. As defined earlier, a lie is A successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue. Failing to give information that might be SPECULATED UPON later would not fall into this definition of a lie, which remained unobjected by you.
There is no significant proof that GW Bush lied to get into Iraq.

I am not arguing that Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and then sent us to war. I agree with you that there is no significant proof of that fact. I am arguing that Bush had other motives for going into Iraq (at the beginning of the war) and by ignoring them he deceived the American public. My next point is that I should not have just said ignoring oil could be a possible cause of the war; I should have made a broader statement. Ignoring the possible economic gain and stability we could achieve from invading Iraq would be deceitful. "Bush can not possibly address every issue, and failing to address issues that might be criticized in the future is unrealistic." Now we arrive at the statement that you made. I am not asking Bush to address every issue that would be wild goose chase and quite ridiculous. However, many US wars have been criticized because they were fought in the name of economic growth and stability. To put this in context of your example it would be as if someone who was previously suspected of purchasing alcohol for minors went to the liquor store and purchased liquor. I would except that man to defend his actions and explain exactly were that alcohol was going and provide proof after that party that the alcohol arrived at its intended destination. Therefore I believe my previous statement holds true. By ignoring the possible economic gain and stability we could achieve from invading Iraq the president is misleading the American public.
There is no significant proof that GW Bush lied to get into Iraq.

Well, I feel as if I need to define 'Lie' more broadly. PhD Aldert Vrij, prominent professor on Lies and lie detection defines a lie as "A successful or unsuccessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief which the communicator considers to be untrue" Therefore, Bush would have to KNOW the information he gave was inaccurate, and be intentionally trying to deceive the American people in order to get into Iraq. While the evidence may have showed to be less than credible post hoc, that does not mean it did not appear to be credible at the time. Many congresspersons, including Hillary Clinton found the evidence very credible before turning around and calling Bush a liar- while seeing the same evidence and using the same rhetoric. While you might believe that Oil is a cause for the war, there is no evidence that 1. Oil was in fact the cause for war. 2. Bush's intentions were for 'oil' in going for war. Bush can not possibly address every issue, and failing to address issues that might be criticized in the future is unrealistic. If I were to buy a bottle of Liquor (assuming I were over the age of 21) for a party I was having, and somebody asked me what the reason was for buying that bottle- I could honestly say that I bought it for a party. I would still be honest, even if I omitted "Although, perhaps, you might wrongfully believe that I will use this alcohol to take advantage of a woman I met last night, or that I might try to give this alcohol to a minor for profit, or [list any other conclusion you might possibly draw from this]. I can still be honest without 'addressing' every possible cause you might think it may be.
Trinity is a scriptural doctrine

The doctrine of the Holy Trinity arises from man"s deepest experiences with God. It comes from the genuine living knowledge of those who have come to know God in faith.Thus, as the Father is "ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same" (Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom), so the Son and the Spirit are exactly the same. Every attribute of divinity which belongs to God the Father"life, love, wisdom, truth, blessedness, holiness, power, purity, joy"belongs equally as well to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The being, nature, essence, existence and life of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are absolutely and identically one and the same. Since the being of the Holy Trinity is one, whatever the Father wills, the Son and the Holy Spirit will also. What the Father does, the Son and the Holy Spirit do also. There is no will and no action of God the Father which is not at the same time the will and action of the Son and the Holy Spirit. If taken in distinction, each person of the Trinity knows and loves the others with such absolute perfection, knowledge, and love that there is nothing unknown and nothing unloved of each in the others, and all in all. Thus, if the creaturely knowledge of men can unite minds in full unanimity, and if the creaturely love of men can bring the divided together into one heart and one soul and even one flesh, how incomparably more perfect and absolutely uniting must be the oneness when the Knowers and Lovers are eternal and divine. https://oca.org...
Trinity is a scriptural doctrine

As this booklet shows, the testimony of numerous scriptures makes it clear that the Holy Spirit is not a person but is, rather, the power of God through which the Father and Son, who are individual personal Beings within the one God family, both act. Both the Father and Christ are intimately involved in the process of human salvation"and They use Their Spirit in this process. So, quite apart from any acceptance of the Trinity, we should expect that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit would be mentioned together in various contexts."Let US make man in OUR image": Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that the Father was talking to Jesus. Isaiah saw the glory of Yahweh, but John says that Isaiah really saw the glory of Christ. This proves Jesus is Yahweh. Combine this with the fact the Yahweh said, "Who will go for US" is a plural pronoun indicating more than one person in the Godhead.
Trinity is a scriptural doctrine

Once again, if the three are one person, why do they feel the need to consult each other in words? Also, the words being plural means that there are multiple individuals, not one person. These multiple individuals are both Yahweh and Jesus. If Yahweh is Jesus, who spoke from heaven at Jesus' baptism? (Matthew 3:17) If Yahweh is Jesus, why did Jesus say at his death "my God my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) If Yahweh is Jesus, why do the Scriptures say that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son? (John 3:16) If Yahweh is Jesus, how could Jesus die? (Mark 15:44-47) If Yahweh is Jesus, who resurrected Jesus? (Mark 16:6) If Yahweh is Jesus, did humans not see God? (John 1:18) In order for something to be proven, one must not only look at a few Scriptures and read our own thoughts into the text. Rather, we must investigate all Scriptures relating to the topic at hand, and put them together without bias. Sweet or bitter, the truth of a matter comes from objective research, not biased interpretations. Do not think: "I think this means this to me..." but always strive for clarity which is found in Scripture interpreting Scripture. It is written: "For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation."For prophecy was at no time brought by man"s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by Holy Spirit." (1 Peter 1:20-21)
Trinity is a scriptural doctrine

"Let US make man in OUR image": Three plural pronouns, (We, Us, Our) used 6 different times in four different passages: Gen 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8. The unanimous opinion of the apostolic Fathers was that the Father was talking to Jesus. saiah saw the glory of Yahweh, but John says that Isaiah really saw the glory of Christ. This proves Jesus is Yahweh. Combine this with the fact the Yahweh said, "Who will go for US" is a plural pronoun indicating more than one person in the Godhead. The definition of the Trinity would be: There is only one God who is eternally manifesting Himself in three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. he Scriptures used in this presentation follow. If you read them uninterrupted, you will see how clear the holy Trinity is. These Scriptures give absolute proof of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity was not invented by man, but it is revealed in the Bible. 1 John 1:1 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life (2) (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) (3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 1 John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (23) Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. (24) Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father."
Trinity is a scriptural doctrine

To determine the truth about whether the trinity is scriptural or not, Scripture must be both cited and explained without deviating from the original message of the scripture. Having said this, none of my opponent's arguments in his most recent post for this debate meets either criteria. Thus, my opponent has conceded this round of the debate. I will, for this round, also concede in order to allow my opponent every opportunity to prove his thoughts on the matter. Meanwhile, I will take this time to study in order that I may prove my knowledge of the matter so as not to concede the debate. I am not doing this to insult my opponent as what I really want is to become friends.
Can you be pro life but for the death penalty

Advances in DNA technology in the last decade have made false capital convictions "impossible" in the words of experts. My opponent completely ignores this. My opponent mentions 10 people that have been wrongfully executed in the history of this country. All of these cases occured before the mid 2000s, when scientists began to make advances in DNA analysis for crime scenes. [1] Once again, ignored by my opponent.I have established through real statistics and expert testimony that Capital Punishment has literally saved hundreds of innocent lives. I have established that it both deters murders, and saves inmates from being killed in prison. This has essentially not been refuted.Extend all of my other points.Thanks for reading.[1]http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...;
Can you be pro life but for the death penalty

My opponent states Capital Punishment saves a significant number of lives each year - far more than the number of lives lost through any purported "false convictions......................These clearly weren't purported . As mentioned in my prior argument , the FACT is that the 144 on the list WERE false convictions that we know of. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...... My opponent states And even if some innocent people are executed, which clearly does not happen, the death penalty is still the pro-life position. This is because, in the long run, wrongful convictions are rare and offset by innocent lives that are saved. This brings me to the final point. This is a laughable position......it is essentially saying that the innocent that are executed are collateral damage and I guess as long as it isn't my opponent or a member of his family it is AOK To state... even if some innocent people are executed, which clearly does not happen..is to exist in an alternate reality. This is a list of 10 people that WE KNOW OF who were wrongfully executed http://listverse.com... To say that executing people , and if some are innocent , so be it, is a pro life position makes zero sense. Lastly , big words do not make you correct...there is a plethora of studies on both sides.....I am saying that even if my opponent is correct that the death penalty is a deterrent it does not justify the possible execution of innocent people...period. I respect but reject my opponents argument
Can you be pro life but for the death penalty

I think it was interesting to quote Alan Keyes..... Mr Keyes hasn't been relevant in years and was to extreme for even the GOP In any case here is what we know. 1) MANY innocent people were on death row . Below is a list of 144 unjustly convicted sentenced to death who were later acquitted , pardoned or had charges dismissed http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 2) There are studies both showing the death being a deterrent and just as many showing the opposite (see below) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Regardless whether it is or is not , taking the life of the unjustly convicted cannot be treated as "collateral" damage Now NO ONE is saying that someone convicted of murder should be released , however given the large amount of cases ( with more coming) doesn't it make sense , isn't the right thing to do to err on the side of life. Life in prison I believe is a pretty severe punishment . Going that route , in the event of an incorrect verdict will allow the innocent to go free. To minimize the value of the lives of those unjustly accused would be a travesty.. We should always value life , we should always value it. I conclude that if you value the life of the unborn , we should equally value the life of the born
Kvng_8 is a scumbag and should not be allowed to be on this site anymore.

Because I'm not wasting my time and I have nothing to prove. Kvng_8 accepted knowing that what I said in Round 1 was to defend his innocence with evidence. Kvng_8 has not. He instead denies the claims without evidence and provide a fake letter of authority. No one votes on this "debate" it's not a debate he just wants to argue. I made this debate and people who did want to vote on it should.
Kvng_8 is a scumbag and should not be allowed to be on this site anymore.

I have no further comments. Again: Cease & Desist Letter | February 11th, 2019. Dear omar2345, Your continuous behavior and conduct towards me has caused me to suffer humiliation, Embarrassment, Emotional distress and discomfort. Please take not that any future harassment towards me will not, Repeat WILL NOT be tolerated. I hereby demand that you cease and desist all future communication towards me. This means do not talk to me, Do not talk about me, Do not vote in my debates, Do not message me. Do not do ANYTHING that involves me, Because what you are doing right now and these accusations are completely unacceptable. This stops today. The both of us will no longer have anymore communication moving forward. Have a great day. Sincerely, Kvng
Kvng_8 is a scumbag and should not be allowed to be on this site anymore.

"Cease & Desist Letter | February 11th, 2019. Dear omar2345, Your continuous behavior and conduct towards me has caused me to suffer humiliation, Embarrassment, Emotional distress and discomfort. Please take not that any future harassment towards me will not, Repeat WILL NOT be tolerated. I hereby demand that you cease and desist all future communication towards me. This means do not talk to me, Do not talk about me, Do not vote in my debates, Do not message me. Do not do ANYTHING that involves me, Because what you are doing right now and these accusations are completely unacceptable. This stops today. The both of us will no longer have anymore communication moving forward. Have a great day. Sincerely, Kvng"Cannot be verified this will actually occur and Kvng_8 is not the moderator who is an authority figure on this site to do something. My arguments still stands. If Kvng_8 wants to prove he did not have any communications with me. He should take a screen shot of his messages page yet he does not because he did communicate with me and the evidence I gave would be identical to his.
Kvng_8 is a scumbag and should not be allowed to be on this site anymore.

Cease & Desist Letter | February 11th, 2019. Dear omar2345, Your continuous behavior and conduct towards me has caused me to suffer humiliation, Embarrassment, Emotional distress and discomfort. Please take not that any future harassment towards me will not, Repeat WILL NOT be tolerated. I hereby demand that you cease and desist all future communication towards me. This means do not talk to me, Do not talk about me, Do not vote in my debates, Do not message me. Do not do ANYTHING that involves me, Because what you are doing right now and these accusations are completely unacceptable. This stops today. The both of us will no longer have anymore communication moving forward. Have a great day. Sincerely, Kvng
Kvng_8 is a scumbag and should not be allowed to be on this site anymore.

Proof of him impersonating me: https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1t8BXr94tmqxBoTo-tAInn5d5hsEkY2F7d3A4hk9W8QI/editThe accounts in question: https://www. Debate. Org/omar234/https://www. Debate. Org/BossChick_23/The links should work if you delete the spaces. I will give you access to the Docs file when I can. If this is true Kvng_8 should not be able to be on this site for breaking the rules. What Kvng_8 needs to do is secure is innocence is prove that what I stated is wrong with his own evidence. If Kvng_8 cannot he should not be on this site anymore. Terms and conditions Kvng_8 broke: "Will not create more than one account. ""Will not impersonate any person or entity, Including without limitation Debate. Org officials, Staff, And/or Members. "Terms and conditions: https://www. Debate. Org/legal/terms/If Kvng_8 does not accept this debate. He concedes which means I am correct and he should be kicked off this site.
Legalizing Marijuana

Well the main point that I must include in this last speech is as follows, if we add up all the signs of being high there is good way to tell if someone is on weed. 1st: You could look for bloodshot eyes. Of course those can be masked and may not occur to everyone but if you are high you may not think to cover them. 2nd: Engage in a conversation. If they have slowed speech and trail of and/or don't focus that adds to the accusation. Of course there are other causes of those but if we add them together we get a high chance that they are high. 3rd: Test their reflexes and coordination. Again there are alternate causes to slow reflexes and diminished coordination but with all of these COMBINED it is fairly easy to tell if the person is under the influence. So to the readers, I strongly urge you to vote Pro in this round because you can test if someone is high using the 3 simple steps listed above. ~~Peter
Legalizing Marijuana

Just because red eyes and diminished reflexes are signs it does not mean that everyone walking the street with those symptoms has recently smoked weed. Also those signs are not always easily spotted and differ from person to person. So t is possible for someone to be under the influence and not have either of the above mentioned symptoms. Whereas something like BAC cannot be faked or hidden in any way. The same applies to slowed speech, some people may have that problem when under the influence while others do not, it may be accurate for on person but it does not mean it is accurate for everyone. Also the urine test cannot be given on the spot as a breathalyzer can, and marijuana stays in the system for 30 days, therefore someone who smoked a week ago would test positive but that test has nothing to do with the time they got pulled over. The smell can be masked by other things and the smell can also be old. If marijuana is to be legalized it must be possible to test on the spot.
Legalizing Marijuana

My opponent claims that they are not tell tale signs of someone smoking but in the first post of his he never stated that they had to be tell tale signs, just ways to get an idea. But regardless, both combined are a pretty good indicator and if you combine that with the distinct smell of marijuana it isn't that hard to tell. Another sign is slowed speech which is easy to hear. My opponent also negated the urination test and since that went uncontested we can flow that across. So as we can see, the basis for my opponent's assertion that weed should not be legalized makes no sense.
Legalizing Marijuana

My opponent states that bloodshot eyes are sign of someone being under the influence, but smoking weed is not the only thing that causes bloodshot eyes. The person being pulled over could have simply been crying recently which would cause the eyes to be red. Also a couple eye drops could easily take away the redness. Bloodshot eyes does not always mean that the person has recently smoked weed. Another option given was to perform a reflex test, but once again smoking weed is not the only thing that diminishes reflexes. When cops pull people over for drunk diving they may perform similar tests to see if they feel someone is under the influence but it always leads to a breathalyzer test to confirm. Bloodshot eye and diminished reflexes may be a sign of someone smoking, but it does not necessarily mean that they were.