BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The American Dream has been destroyed

Thank you blaze8 for acceoting this debate! Now for my arguments.According to the most latest figrues from the U.S. Census Bureau, 49.2 percent of Americans are getting benefits from at least one government program.[1]The US government has spent 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs across the past 5 years.[2] 3. Employers have been encouraging their workers to supplement their wages by going on government welfare programs. McDonald's workers have been instucted to meet ends meet by going on food stamps.[3] McDonald’s workers who are unable to pay their bills or stay above the poverty line should find help from food pantries or enlist in government benefit programs instead of seeking higher wages, according to a company resource line meant to help employees. Nancy Salgado has worked for the fast-food corporation for over 10 years yet still earns $8.25 an hour, barely more than the $7.25 federal minimum wage. With help from the worker’s rights group Low Pay Is Not Ok, she phoned the company’s employee hotline, known as McResource, attempting to find some answers on how to improve her situation. A recording of the call was made available to CNN, which reported that Salgado asked the helpline operator multiple questions regarding how McDonalds would help her pay her heating bill, buy groceries, and whether she could afford to help pay for her sister’s medical treatment. Despite never asking how much money Salgado earned per hour or asking how many hours a week she worked, the McDonalds representative said she “definitely should be able to qualify for both food stamps and heating assistance.”4. U.S. homeownership rate has fallen to lowest since 1995.[4]5. Americans are being priced out of the house market. Today, nearly half of all home purchases are all-cash deals.[5]6. Only 40% of adults have full-time jobs.[6]7. The United States has more people doing lower wage work than every other industrialized nation. Thank you for reading my points, now I await my oppenets rebuttels. Vote Pro!Sources:1. http://cnsnews.com...2. http://www.weeklystandard.com...3. http://rt.com...4.http://www.bloomberg.com...5. http://www.zerohedge.com...6. http://www.breitbart.com...
Israel is an illegitimate state, and should therefore be dismantled and reformed.

We have seen numerous human rights abuses originate is Israel since 1948, and this has reached a point wherein we must accept that the status quo of the Israeli state is dysfunctional and must be radically reformed. I am deliberately leaving "illegitimate" as undefined because I feel that what constitutes legitimacy within sovereign states will be a point of contention. By radically reformed what I mean is, via international intervention, which may include military intervention, the Israeli government would dismantled, and would be replaced by a regime that would ultimately be an elected by all residents of the territory that is currently considered to be of Israel. To win this debate I feel I must prove things 1. The Jewish people, who currently form the electorate of Israel, do not have a sovereign claim to the land. 2. The international community has, based on the actions of Israel, a right to invade and intervene. 3. The current state fails to adequately uphold human rights. This is my first time posting, so apologies if I failed in some aspect of formatting, or committed some faux pas.
From the Side of Atheism

"I can't understand why people believe in religion." May I be so arrogant and say that I understand you ? " I mean, literally the best argument for religion is a trick on words (see ontological argument)." How is it a trick on words ? Also, if you're searching for good arguments for theism, I recommend you to check the Bible-Defender account. "Instead of seeing a god that is forgiving, I see a god that had a temper tantrum and killed a bunch of his children. Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior"." Did you actually read the Bible ? Or, did you read what others wrote about the Bible ? "Physical evidence that Christianity doesn't have." Most of what is described in the Bible is sown in todays archeological discoveries. http://www.victoriaadvocate.com...
From the Side of Atheism

I can't understand why people believe in religion. I mean, literally the best argument for religion is a trick on words (see ontological argument). People say that they believe in religion because they "know" it. There is no logical background behind this. I look at the bible and not only do I see a poorly written fairy tale, but I also see a book with contradictory logic. And even if this book has the truth in it, then why would I want to follow it? Instead of seeing a god that is forgiving, I see a god that had a temper tantrum and killed a bunch of his children. Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior". On top of this, there are millions of pieces of scientific evidence. Physical evidence that Christianity doesn't have. Responses should be logical and have evidence in support. I like to keep an open mind, being hostile and illogical will only make me aggravated and unresponsive.
From the Side of Atheism

Please, give an RFD for your votes or just an RFD. Thank you. +In Response to the Ontological Argument+ " Everyone has a different view of what would be the best god or what would be the best possible thing. " Your version (not mine) of the ontological argument states: "I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God. " Indeed, while everyone has a different idea of what the best God would be like, he has to exist to be the best. Even my opponent implies this "what would be the best god". No offence, but I can't believe that you failed. +In Response to a God's View of Psychology+ "If there was just heaven, everyone would believe in this god and there would be no suffering" Satan was in heaven and he was the greatest angel yet he rebelled. This should answer " I mean, what is even the point of having an Earth? " +In Response to a Peaceful God+ "The point I was trying to make was not that he was a warrior or a peace-monger, but instead a hypocrite that states he is both. It is completely illogical for anyone to be such a way. " Can't you be a warrior against criminals ? Can't you fight Nazis and love peace at the same time ? "And assuming he could possible be both at the same time, that would make him defective" This ought to be explained since I have no idea how anyone could come up with this conclusion. +In Response to Interpretation+ " But, if this was a really all knowing god, why would there have to be any interpretation? " Why not ? If the person reading the Bible doesn't want to know what God says then even with one interpretation he will manage to twist the words unless you take away free will but thats another topic. "Shouldn't a book of this god be perfect and have unsound logic? " 1) What evidence do you have that its not perfect ? 2) Actually, no the book should have sound logic and not "unsound". Because: A perfect God ---> Always being right -----> Sound logic +In Conclusion+ "All I have seen my opponent do is rebuttle, but I have seen no counterargument for the existence of this god. " I don't have to, we are debating arguments "From the Side of Atheism" not theism. " illogical logic" That makes no sense.
From the Side of Atheism

+In Response to the Ontological Argument+ I am merely stating that the argument is flawed from its very premise. The premise states that the best possible thing is a god, but that is a relative perspective. Everyone has a different view of what would be the best god or what would be the best possible thing. The fact that it changes with relative perspective makes the argument invalid for reasons of not having a firm foundation. +In Response to a God's View of Psychology+ Well, I will just state that if this omniscient god had foreseen all of the pain and suffering that would become out of him being very illogical and deciding to make a tree of evil, why did he make the tree of evil or even evil to begin with? I mean, what is even the point of having an Earth? If there was just heaven, everyone would believe in this god and there would be no suffering. So I guess I just see flaws in what he has made. +In Response to a Peaceful God+ The point I was trying to make was not that he was a warrior or a peace-monger, but instead a hypocrite that states he is both. It is completely illogical for anyone to be such a way. And assuming he could possible be both at the same time, that would make him defective and , therefore, not a god at all. +In Response to Interpretation+ I understand that people say that if you look at the bible this way or interpret the bible that way, that it fits in. But, if this was a really all knowing god, why would there have to be any interpretation? Shouldn't a book of this god be perfect and have unsound logic? +In Conclusion+ All I have seen my opponent do is rebuttle, but I have seen no counterargument for the existence of this god. And without any logical evidence, I have no intention of believing in a god that is the symbol of illogical logic.
From the Side of Atheism

1) You never showed how the ontological argument is a play on words. 2)" Yet in knowing psychology, considering he made it, he would have known telling them to not do something would make them want to do it more." Indeed, where do you see a problem ? 3)" And there is in fact a quote from the bible stating god as a warrior and other quotes stating god as a peace-monger" Indeed, he is both. However you said that he's only a warrior"Instead of seeing a god that is peaceful, I instead see a god that is "a warrior". 4)"Third of all, I was not describing most of the bible but the beginning of genesis. He basically made the Earth solid in one day." This depends on your interpretation. http://www.nwcreation.net... http://www.theisticevolution.org...
From the Side of Atheism

First of all, the ontological argument is the most popular philosophical argument towards theism. It states as forth " 1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing. 2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God. 3. Therefore, God exists." This argument is merely a trick on words to make a god become real. Second of all, I have read half of the bible. In fact, that was what made me realize I was an atheist. I know he saved one family and flooded the earth. I know that he gave people free will, so apparently they could make mistakes like killing people, harming people, and generally causing destruction. I guess you could compare god himself as pandora and released all evil. And if he was an idiot and made a tree of evil in which people can't eat from. Yet in knowing psychology, considering he made it, he would have known telling them to not do something would make them want to do it more. And there is in fact a quote from the bible stating god as a warrior and other quotes stating god as a peace-monger. Third of all, I was not describing most of the bible but the beginning of genesis. He basically made the Earth solid in one day. In which apparently all of the planets formed, a large object flew into the Earth and made the Moon. Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes. And he had apparently created light before making the suns. And apparently he immediately created all of the creatures, which should have taken millions of years.
The United States should construct a barrier on the border with Mexico.

No offense EpsilonIndi, but I think this proves that anyone who is offering the generic Republican solution of "build a wall" does not understand the immgration problem. We need to take a good hard look at all the players involved. We also need to think about this, if a wall was built and all the illegal immigrants were sent back to Mexico, how much would that hurt the United States? What would happen to the Southwest united States? How many businesses would go under? Who profits from them being here? Why are there no teeth to teh laws that are in place? I am not saying that illegal immigration is a good thing. It's illegal for one, dangerous for another, and it hurts both the illegal immigrants as well as the American labor force. When I think about it, it hurts more than it helps. It guarantees Mexican immigrants who want the American Dream that they will never get the American Dream, because they are not allowed to become real Americans. It hurts our security because the borders are not being taken care of and yes, despite what some believe there is the threat that a group like al-Qaeda could smuggle men through the border and execute some sort of terrorist attack. Also, it hurts honest, hardworking American workers who can not compete with illegal immigrants. Let's face it! If i am a construction worker, landscaper, factory worker, or farm laborer, as required by United States law, I have to work for at least 7 dollars an hour. Illegal immigrants do not. So, if I have a business, and I have an opportunity to cut my labor costs - literally - in half, and get workers who don't have the opportunity to complain about health insurance, OSHA restrictions, etc. then the only thing preventing me from doing so is this one little law with no teeth that says it's illegal to have people who aren't U.S. citizens work here without a work permit or social security card. It becomes even easier for me - the business owner - to justify taking such action after everybody else in my industry starts doing it. Soon, because our elected officials have taken no steps towards doing anything about the problem, I almost have to hire illegals if I am going to be able to compete. This issue has been put at the forefront of the American political discussion and I think that is great! It compromises national security, and hurts American workers and Mexican immigrants. However, it is unnecessary to build a wall because a wall will not do anything. All we need to do in enforce the current laws that are in place and perhaps put more pressure on business owners who hire illegal immigrants. For some reason, our elected officials and police departments are not doing their jobs. In the end, the only real solution to the crisis is to start auditing, fining, jailing, and revoking the business licenses every business owner who hires illegal immigrants Thank you, - Gib
The United States should construct a barrier on the border with Mexico.

I am not conceding your point. I am agreeing with you that Operation Gatekeeper drastically reduced the number of people who came across. However, what effect did Operation Gatekeeper have on the illegal immigrants that were already here? If we are going to discuss the necessity of having a wall in between the United States and Mexico, then you have to make it into an issue of immigration reform. After all, you and I and millions of other Americans would never have any reason to even think about building a wall were it not for the millions of illegal immigrants that were already here. Since there are millions of illegal immigrants in America, any debate about immigration must be a part of a larger one about immmigration reform. If it is not, then it will be shortsighted and will fail to accomplish anything. In short, advocating to build a wall without advocating immigration reform is a cop out. It's like saying that all we need to do to fix schools is throw money at them. It's like saying all we need to do to win and establish a liberal democracy in Iraq is to have more troops and more troop surges. In all three of those instances you are proposing to solve very complicated issues with bandages when what you need is surgery. A wall between Mexico and the United States has only one desirous effect - it would drastically reduce (not prevent) illegal immigration into the United States. In conclusion, I disagree with you for one simple reason - A wall is not enough. Until people in power lok at the causes and effects of illegal immigration and hold businesses that employ illegal immigrants accountable for their actions then a wall is a big waste of time and money. After all, if there were no jobs, there would be no illegal immigrants - wall or no wall. And if there is a combination of profit motive and laws with no teeth with regards to illegal immigration - wall or no wall - there will still be illegal immigration. Thank you, - Gib
The United States should construct a barrier on the border with Mexico.

You Said: "If a wall was up, it would drastically reduce the number of people who come across. This is true. Operation Gatekeeper was quite successful. That is true." You Said: "A wall only stops future illegal immigration." So you are conceding my point? I didn't want to make this a debate into the gigantic issue of immigration reform, just whether a wall should be constructed. It seems you are actually agreeing with me that a wall would have the desirous effect.
The United States should construct a barrier on the border with Mexico.

The United States is being swamped by illegal immigration, of which the vast majority of land crossers come across our southern border from Mexico. Mexico has shown little interest in assisting the U.S. in stemming this flow, and even encourages emigration to the U.S. in order that remittances from its citizens abroad may be maintained to boost the economy at home. With no support from our southern neighbor the U.S. must act in its own defense as countless other countries have done so before. A border fence can and will work. It was demonstrated to work in the mid-1990's Operation Gatekeeper which saw the construction of a fence in the San Diego sector and dramatically reduced illegal immigration into that portion of California. Successive barriers have forced aliens around them and into hostile terrain, demonstrating that they are effective at impeding illegal entry. A double-layer security fence, combined with a virtual fence in the remoter sections of the southwestern terrain, patrolled by the Border Patrol, will massively reduce the amount of illegal aliens entering the United States every year and force change at home in Mexico.
God Exists

*No acceptance round; just start debating.*Voters MUST use the OPT-IN voting standards.*I request that moderators actually remove crappy votes (WF).*By accepting this debate, all definitions are agreed to.Full ResolutionGod, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority, exists.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters to affirm the resolution that god exists.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to negate or cast much doubt on the resolution that god exists.Definitionsgod - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...exist - have objective reality or being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...creation - the process of bringing something into existence.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...process - a series of actions taken in order to achieve a particular end.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...series - a number of events of a related kind coming one after another.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...after - in the time following an event.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...*May the better debater win.
God Exists

RebuttalsPro must show an entity that satisfies all threeWhich I did. The Contingency argument proves a creator and ruler of the universe and the ontological argument shows a maximally-good and maximally-moral being (since morality and goodness are great-making) being and is thus the source of morality.Creation is temporalNot at all. I can imagine a timeless reality with no passage of time in which a candle is timelessly and staticly causing the flame.I can also provide the following scenario which is WLC's scenario where God is timeless chronologically prior to the universe but becomes temporal at the time of creation. He can easily exit the timeless state of affairs because he has volition of free will.Creator can only exist if and only if it is prior to the effectNo. I can imagine an eternal human causing eternal footprints in the sand, both are eternal, not one comes before the other.It would be like a creator using time to create timeIt would be like saying a creator using time to create this specific temporal dimension so your entire argument fails on this point since I do not deny that God created this specific temporal dimensions. There could be temporal dimensions before this one that allowed God to create this specific temporal dimension. [1]What creation meansGod could still be the creator and ruler of an eternal universe the same way a candle is the creator of an eternal flame.[1] - (https://arxiv.org...)
Homophobia is Justified

PrefaceThis for Larz's WODC Tournament. I thank both him and KC for this debate and for making this tournament a reality. The title of the debate is also the resolution; there is a minimum 2000 ELO requirement to vote on this debate. I look forward to a stimulating discourse and request that KC keep an open mind when reading my arguments--I will endeavor to do the same when evaluating his.DefinitionsHomophobia* - a strong fear of or strong aversion to homosexuals, homosexuality, or other LGBTQ minority groupsJustified - to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable [1]*We won't define this as an irrational fear, as it says in the dictionary, [1] because to do so would prevent Pro from being able to affirm. Suffice it to say that Pro's job in this debate is to show that homophobia isn't irrational.ContextIf you'd like some background on the subject, check out this link. [2]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro presents his CaseR2. Con presents his Case; Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case; Pro defends Pro's Case**R4. Con defends Con's Case**; Pro waives**Debaters may also summarize the debate or provide voting issues and analysis in their final speeches.Thanks......again to KC for what I am sure will be an intriguing debate, and to larz for initiating this tournament.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...