BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Mirriage

For the second time Pro doesn't seem to be understanding that I'm mentioning the problems caused by being gay, Is because being gay itself will cause mental and physical problems and by legalizing this type of marriage we will only increase these types of problems and that's why I'm talking about health risks. I have to admit that I completely forgot about the elections, But yet I must say it's not about "Obama" it's about the government, They don't want any disturbance in the country: revolutions and so on.... . I could clearly see that Pro doesn't read my articles as I read his, Because I can clearly see that I have posted links for what I said which supports my article in the bottom of the article, But I will post them again in the bottom of this article maybe we will see it this time (1) http://psychcentral.com... (2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (3) glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.showFeature&FeatureID=319&E:\ColdFusion9\verity\Data\dummy.txt (4) http://ajph.aphapublications.org... (5) http://www.cdc.gov... (6) https://carm.org...
Gay Mirriage

Starting off Con claims that the government did not legalize same-sex marriage because they ‘cared about gays’ but rather because Obama wanted to stay president. This statement shows how little knowledge Con has of the topic. When gay marriage was legalized, Obama was already well into his 2nd term, meaning he could not have ‘stayed President’ for any later than he already would have. Secondly, Obama did not legalize gay marriage, the Supreme Court did [1]. Con then gives his hypothesis on why people are gay, and concedes that what he had just said had no value and, ‘what I said in the previous segment was nothing but my point of view’. Con then moves onto his arguments; that being gay causes depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence. Con fails to link us to any sort of evidence for his claims, therefore his argument can be dismissed as such. I recommend he provide links in the future. Even if we take his argument as true despite the lack of any sort of evidence, the impact of it does not benefit his side, nor harm mine. Why does gays being more likely to have suicidal thoughts have to do with legalizing gay marriage, Con does not explain why gay marriage should be illegal. If anything, we should do everything we can to fix the harm that is being done to gays as Con lists for us, we should therefore legalize gay marriage to at least reduce these problems. Con’s argument is completely negated.In the second argument Con talks about the health risks that are involved with being gay. I still fail to see how this shows that gay marriage should be illegal. Con does not even mention gay marriage, Con needs to stay on topic.In the end, the two arguments Con has presented have had nothing to do with gay marriage being legalized, and both have no impact whatsoever.[1] http://apps.washingtonpost.com...
Donald Trump is Faking a Run for Presidency in 2012

I accept my opponent's challenge and look forward to a good debate. I would like to provide the following definitions and clarifications: "faking" is defined as "to alter, manipulate, or treat so as to give a spuriously genuine appearance to" [1] As my opponent is the Instigator, she has the burden of proof to show that Donald Trump is faking a run for presidency. I await my opponent's arguments in the next round. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Donald Trump is Faking a Run for Presidency in 2012

This is my first debate on this site so please bear with me if I don't use proper form or abide by rules I haven't read yet. I encourage corrects so that I can improve my activities here. This is not Trumps first time to speculate at a run for the White House. He did this in 2000, 2004, and 2008 as well. I chose "Pro" since I personally believe that based on his previous activities and positions he has no honest intention of running this time.
Donald Trump is Faking a Run for Presidency in 2012

I would like to open by thanking my opponent for pushing me back on track, I have a tendency to "drift"on topics. Thank you for not drifting with me, but rather anchoring me to the topic I proposed. Your focus is truly appreciated. One incident this week has contributed to my doubts of Mr. Trump's seriousness in running. He had declared that he had hired a team of investigators to send to Hawaii to look into the President's birth certificate. Monday he told Anderson Cooper that his investigators found that the President's birth certificate was missing, yet the following day the President provided a copy of the long form. It is inconceivable that if Trump were serious about any of this that he would spend good money on investigators that were that incompetent. Having said that, I have to confess that my certitude has waned after watching the correspondence dinner last night. His utter lack of amusement at the jabs made at his conspiracy hunting could indicate that he was taking all of his actions, no matter how weak, seriously. I have to concede, he may very well be serious. http://blogs.forbes.com...
Donald Trump is Faking a Run for Presidency in 2012

My opponent begins by saying that this is not Donald Trump's first time considering running for presidency, by giving the example of his attempted run in 2000 as a member of the Reform Party, trying to show that by speculating to run for presidency one time and choosing not to, he will not run again. Mr. Trump is, as I will point out later in the round, taking the 2012 election much more seriously than he took the 2000 election, and he is doing quite a bit better in terms of his popularity in the election. Next, my opponent discusses Mr. Trump's company filing for bankruptcy and the books he published. She mentions his consideration of running for New York governor in 2006, claiming that it was used as a way to increase his book sales. She talks about his questioning of President Obama raising his ratings on "Celebrity Apprentice". She brings up his new book, claiming that "publicity generally means higher sales". My opponent is touching on a natural side-effect of running for presidency for anyone- an increase in publicity. However, we have no reason to believe that, in the 2012 election, publicity is Mr. Trump's main motive for running. The fact that he has considered running for presidency multiple times over the past 11 years shows that he is, indeed, seriously considering it now. My opponent concludes by mentioning Mr. Trump taking credit for the investigation into President Obama's birth certificate, giving no reason as to why this should be a potential reason to say that Mr. Trump is faking a run. This argument is entirely irrelevant. I would now like to point out some evidence that shows that Mr. Trump is indeed going to be running for presidency: Firstly, Mr. Trump is taking the 2012 presidency much more seriously than he has previous. He attended the Conservative Political Action Conference[1], and will be attending a New Hampshire Institute of Politics forum in June[2]. The fact that he is attending this conventions as a member of the Republican party shows that he is much more serious about running for presidency in the 2012 election than in 2000. Secondly, Mr. Trump, now as a member of the Republican party, is currently leading the GOP poll for the Republican primary conducted by the Public Policy Polling organization. He currently is leading with 26% of all votes, ahead of Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin[3]. As he is currently leading as the Republican primary, it would be logical for Mr. Trump to continue in his campaign for presidency. If my opponent is correct in her thoughts that Mr. Trump is only speculating a run to increase popularity, then Mr. Trump will logically run for president as the Republican primary, which would generate even more popularity. Remember that the debate here is not whether or not Mr. Trump's motives for running are popularity or presidency, but whether or not Mr. Trump is not going to genuinely be running. And given this information, regardless of his motives, it appears that Mr. Trump is genuinely going to be running for president in 2012. [1] http://townhall.com... [2] http://blogs.abcnews.com... [3] http://www.nydailynews.com...
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

You forgot to respond to the Jesus and prophecies argument. Do it in comments. "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8). If this day can be 1000 years, why can't the yom be more than that? And a yom is just an untold period of time. Some yoms could be much longer than others. They are not all under 130 years. There have been MANY miracles (watch to the end :https://m.youtube.com...) and stories of people temporarily dying, visiting Heaven, seeing God (the God of the Bible, whom this debate is about) and coming back to tell about it. I recommend the book "Heaven is for Real," about a very young child who goes to Heaven while in a hospital, and comes back and explains it in a biblically accurate way, even recognizing a picture of his grandpa (from when the grandpa was young) because he saw his grandpa in Heaven, where everyone looks young. A child that little wouldn't recognize a young version of his grandpa.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

You misunderstood the meaning of Isaiah 30:8, the time isn't forever, it is the time to come and stay forever. You clearly didn't read the verse properly. First of all I scanned through KJV genesis & I couldn't see Adam saying "at last" anywhere. Secondly if you waited a few hours for someone to turn up your response could be "at last". Thirdly the "yoms" couldn't have been that long because after the seventh "yom" had passed and Adam & Eve had left the garden of Eden, Seth was born and Adam was only 130 years old, so 1 yom must be less than 130 years. Also if a yom could be about U28; of the universes length are you saying the Sabbath could be the holy 2 billion years? I think the voters will agree with me in that these are hardly claims. I also checked the internet & they were pretty much the only one that I could find. Also the bible can"t count as evidence which I explained in the comments. *NOTE* I might answer round 5 in the comments. God is still irrational.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

(In the following quote, "yom " is translated to "time") "In Isaiah 30:8, it says 'Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever.' In this case, Yom is equal to 'forever.' How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?" (from http://www.oldearth.org...) "Day 6 is also a problem for the 24-hour interpretation....Adam's response to Eve's creation was 'at last,' indicating that he thought the day was very long indeed." (from http://www.godandscience.org...) That article has more examples supporting a long yom. Secondly, Jesus claimed to be God many times! Ex when "Jesus Said He Could Forgive Sins" and "Jesus Said He Was the Same as God 'The Father and I are one.' " ( these quotes From http://www.everystudent.com...)
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

I luckily remembered an argument that I hadn't addressed and didn't want you posing on me in the last round. The argument goes "All you atheists are always making us prove god exists why don't you prove he doesn't exist" my rebuttal is that it's always the responsibility of the person saying something exists to provide evidence. I know what you said about yom and I have something to say on this. You can't just say 7 days could mean something similar to 1,700,000,000,000 days! You clearly don't have anything to certify this claim because of the way you said could and similar. I also said at the start of the debate the god of the literal interpretation of the bible. If you want yom to mean 4.5 billion years give an example where it means a period of time this immense. There is a Jewish festival named Yom Kippur meaning *day* of atonement. Also not once did Jesus actually say that he was god. Do not present more arguments in the last rounds, just respond to everything that I have said.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

The same book I keep using mentions that the word "day" in the Bible was translated from the Hebrew word "yom," which could also mean something similar to "period of time," so each "yom" could have been many, many years. So, the Earth could have been created in 7 "yoms," not literal days. Biblical prophecies: "There are over 2,000 accurately fulfilled predictions in the Bible, including some 300 specific details and implications about the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. For example, Isaiah 53 beautifully describes the life of Christ 700 years before it took place! Even the town of Jesus' birth was foretold in the Old Testament (Micah 5:2). And there are no prophetic failures." From (http://www.faithfacts.org...). Also, Jesus kept saying that He was God. Any liar would deny it later rather than die. Would anyone persist in lying to the point of an extremely painful death? No. Jesus told the truth.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

I have come across this argument before but I haven't yet found the time to look into it, fortunately for me I don't need to explain it now as your use of it yet again doesn't forward your stance in this debate as even if it were a valid argument. This is because it only argues for the posibility of a deity and not the christian god that this debate is about. This doesn't aid my case but you said that the multiverse hypothesis (which has no evidence for or against it) is way less plausible the god hypothesis (which has evidence on the contrary). The evidence against god is that the god of this debate created the earth is six days and we know from substantial reaserch research that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. "The decay of uranium isotopes to lead isotopes in samples indicates that all the planets in our solar system formed 4.5 billion years ago" that was paraphrased from the official USGS website. link: http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov...
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

Also, let me read to you from that same book, although I got the author's name and the book's name slightly incorrect the first time. "Science has discovered what is called the 'anthropic principle.'...If anyone of dozens of aspects of the universe had been a tiny bit different, we could never have lived. For instance, the temperature of the universe a few seconds after the Big Bang that began it was trillions of degrees hotter than the sun. If it had been a tiny hotter or colder, carbon molecules could never have appeared. And all life is based on carbon." Works Cited (Kreeft, Peter. "How Can You Prove That God Is Real?" Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008. 48. Print.) So, either we are extremely extremely lucky, or God is real. I doubt this all just happened randomly (unless the Big Bang happened many, many, many more times in other universes and we happen to be the extremely rare one with carbon, which seems waaay less plausible than God
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

Well, your first argument is what I believe to be partially correct in the way that the universe has begun, and it is implausible that it "just randomly poped up", therefore there must be something that created it. However this is not evidence for gods existence so it doesn't help you in this debate. All of that being said your second argument is meaningless, and im not sure why you added it because you're basically just saying evolution could have happend if god existed which doesnt even attempt to further your stance in this debate. I will not bother arguing with how you obtained that conclusion as it would be a waste of my time.
Belief in the god of the bible is irrational

Let's start in Genesis. God created the universe. Science proves that the universe had a beginning. It seems implausible that the universe just randomly popped up or created itself. We know that that can't happen in our universe. It had to have been created by an outside force (God!). (Some of these things were pointed out in the book "Because God is Real", by Peter Kreft.) If the universe created itself, then I will have to start watching out for an anvil to create itself right above my head. Secondly, the same book points out that the Bible uses the word in Hebrew, Yom, when talking about the 7 "days" the world was created in, and that yom can also mean something similar to "period of time," so the Earth was not necessarily created in a literal week. Also, read this article about the Bible and evolution (http://www.oldearth.org...). The Bible supports evolution. God had the Earth "bring forth" living things. IhaveMoreProofButImOutOfSpace! IwillFinishInOtherRounds
By the end of this debate, a noob will have been sniped

Thank you, 9spaceking, for initializing this debate.Since pro did not define the terms, I will do so now.Noob - a person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere or activity, especially computing or the use of the Internet.[1]Noob sniping- A term used for when an experienced member debates a noob (and wins) just to inflate his Win/Loss Record.[2]Now clearly both of us are experienced, since we have each completed debates. Therefore, the BoP is on Pro to show how a noob snipe occurred during the duration of this debate.Rebuttals:“In either case the debate is only one round. If my opponent beats me in his response, I will not be able to refute, thus, I will be noob-sniped. If my opponent has a terrible response, he cannot try again, thus I will have trapped my debate in a reverse-noob-snipe position.”It is important to see that my opponent equates winning with noob-sniping. Also, how is a reverse noob snipe a noob snipe? That is like saying 1 equals negative 1. Clearly, the two would be put in different categories. Now my opponent says that a tie is an act of both players noob sniping each other! Not every tied debate is a noob snipe. In fact, according to the definition I provided, one needs to WIN a debate for it to be considered a noob snipe.“I am not that good at debating (no impressive records, most times against skilled debaters I only win by the opponent's forfeiting).”My opponent uses a false dichotomy fallacy. Clearly, you can be both experienced and mediocre at debating. Therefore, my opponent has not shown that he/she is a noob.Also, I believe my opponent is claiming that if one loses a debate, one is a noob. This does not follow. Brilliant masters lose chess games.[3] Brilliant geniuses make mathematical mistakes. The resolution has been negated. Vote con!Sources:[1] https://www.google.com...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://en.chessbase.com...
By the end of this debate, a noob will have been sniped

If my opponent is worse at debating than me, then certainly he will have worse arguments than me, and thus why he or she will be sniped by me within this debate. I am not that good of a debater (my win record is rather shabby), so to be worse than me, my opponent would practically have to be a noob.If my opponent is better than me, that will be no wonder. I am not that good at debating (no impressive records, most times against skilled debaters I only win by the opponent's forfeiting). Thus, if my opponent easily counters my arguments it will display that I am a noob and that I was sniped in this debate by my opponent.In either case the debate is only one round. If my opponent beats me in his response, I will not be able to refute, thus, I will be noob-sniped. If my opponent has a terrible response, he cannot try again, thus I will have trapped my debate in a reverse-noob-snipe position.I could see someone trying to argue that their arguments are equal and the same to mine, however, since we all have different personalities, different arguments are inevitable. The audience will have to prefer one to another. If it is a tie, all the better. Two noobs snipe each other, both losing and dying in the process. I would have fulfilled the topic twice through a tie. (Note that I never said ONLY ONE noob snipe would have been done! Two noobs snipes mean that at least one was already committed, fulfilling the contention!)Round one is NOT acceptance. "And just in case I don't see you again, good afternoon, good evening, and good night." (Truman Show)Thank you all for your time.
European governments need to consider socialist alternatives

Capitalism helps the poor, we have welfare systems that keep the poor alive. WE have charity which is a better way to recover compared to government help. Bill Clinton, Obama, Marco Rubio, Chris CHristie, Paul Ryan, and many more powerful people were born into nothing. Now through hard work they have made a name for themselves. You haven't given one possible solution to consider either. Capitalist "pigs" like the US, havent taken land after a war victory since before the first world war. Communists invade and take what they want. Communists have no morals in their society, and thats why they fail.
European governments need to consider socialist alternatives

Firstly, Communism may have caused many deaths however,wars caused by capitalist leaders have caused thousands more. The fact is that Capitalism is based on greed and keeping the poor in their place. Why should we support a system that only helps the rich and powerful?Why should we be used as target practise to fight in wars that we had no part in declaring? Capitalism has been corrupted by those elite and powerful as a means of controlling those on the lower end of the economic scale. No more shall we pay the price of Capitalism's failures. Failures that came about as the rich tried to avoid the system and changed the rules to meet their own ends.
European governments need to consider socialist alternatives

Capitalism has no pure form.Poverty,war,crime and famine are not natural but are the post scriptum of a system made to support the elitest minority while others starve. Capitalism is built upon greed and is (to use the common phrase)"a gravy train with no gravy" which is heading towards a catastrophic crash. The US stock market crashe was a result of the capitalist system which leaches upon those who laby. To quote MalcomX "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker". Socialism is the future. We can not kid ourselves that the system will improve. The hard truth is that Capitalism will serve the elite as it always has
European governments need to consider socialist alternatives

Socialism will never work! Socialism in its purest from does not exist, because man will abuse any system. A system where you don't have to work will be abused by the masses destroying an economy, like in the USSR. Karl Marx was a satanist, who wanted to, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Push humanity into the pits of hell and follow them down laughing." Three of his children died from starvation because he refused to work, and there were multiple suicide pacts in his family, how can you trust that man with the economy of a nation? Socialism is already in use in many European Countries, like Greece which isn't doing very well if you haven't noticed. While Germany under Merkel is the powerhouse of Europe, they practice extreme conservatism.
European governments need to consider socialist alternatives

With many European countries descending deeper and deeper into debt,surely this proves that capitalism is failing and we must look at socialist alternatives. Whilst, I accept that communism in the USSR failed I must state that that was not socialism in its purest form. Socialism was abused. Capitalists have led us to believe that famine,poverty,crime and war are natural. They are misguided Capitalism causes destruction. Btw i am 13 years old