BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will Trump be a good president.

Hello,since i'm feeling lazy at the moment,I'll be quick about this. I'm arguing Trump will be a good president. I'm talking about his policies. Now,if you wish to say he's racist,or a bad person,you may,just back it up with facts and evidence. But don't take this as an opportunity to spit out sh*t and talk about how much you hate trump and how he's a Nazi. My rules: 1. Don't be a d*ck. Ok? Can that please be a general rule? Don't be rude. 2. Please,to the best of your ability,have proper grammar and spelling. The first round is the only exception to this. 3. I'm not gonna kill you over plagiarism,just please try to remember to cite your sources. 4. Just don't spout random sh*t and talk about how trump's in the KKK and stuff like that. 5. Idk,just thought there should be a 5'th rule.... The only Constraint I'll have is that the first round is for acceptance only. Thank you for accepting,and have a good day
The Calvinist Doctrine of Unconditional Election is wrong

There are two issues here that I would like to address. The first is whether or not free will exists and the second is what my opponent calls the "anonymous Christian". I would like to ask Con to explain why free will does not exist in order to rebut it properly. I believe free will does exist but determined within context. Let me give an example: If you play chess you have rules that you must adhere to. With those rules you are free to choose millions of different moves and sequences that will determine the outcome of the game. The rules and nature of the pieces and board is fixed and do not determine the choices the player will make. I give this brief explanation awaiting Con"s explanation to rebut it properly. Secondly, the anonymous Christian presents questions that contradict Scripture in my opinion: Do you believe salvation is only through Jesus Christ? If there are people out there who are predestined to be saved who never heard the Gospel then it means that salvation is not found only in Christ. If people are predestined why did Jesus Christ give the great commission to go out and preach the Gospel? It does not matter whether the elect hear the Gospel or not. They will be saved regardless. Jesus himself said He came to save the lost. How can someone who is predestined to be saved lost at any time? Clearly you can only be lost if you are not predestined. There are many warnings in the Bible exhorting Believers to be watchful. Why would this be necessary if you are predestined to be saved? Mark 14:38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak. If you are pre-ordained to be saved what does it matter whether you fall into temptation? The last question I hope my opponent can touch on is what happens to babies who die at birth. Will the un-elected baby go to hell? Thank you!
The Calvinist Doctrine of Unconditional Election is wrong

I don't really hold this position, but I was raised with this belief (we called it Predestination) and it makes a lot of sense. If you start with the premise that God is both all-powerful and all-knowing, then predestination must be true as there cannot be free will. This is because God would have known the outcome of any possible scenario from the outset. Another interesting idea is the Anonymous Christian. These are people who are saved but don't profess Christ. This must also be true, because anyone who wasn't born yesterday can see that people do not really understand their own motivations. Someone who knows you well can give a much more accurate description of you than you would. Therefore a person's expressed believes is a very poor indicator of what is in their hearts. Therefore you cannot decide to accept Jesus in one moment. Also, anyone who wasn't born yesterday can see that there can be very Christlike behavior demonstrated by people who are not christians. If this is not because Christ is in them, it means that Christ is not the only source for christian behavior, which would seem impossible.
The Calvinist Doctrine of Unconditional Election is wrong

The Calvinist position can be stated as follows regarding Unconditional Election: This means simply: God chooses to give some people eternal life, without looking for anything good in them as a condition for loving and saving them. Before any man or woman is born -- in fact, before the world was made -- God decided who would go to heaven and who would not. Before they did good or bad, God chose some to be His people and rejected others. http://www.prca.org... I believe the above position is wrong because it contradicts the Bible that states we have assurance of salvation among others. Con is free to state his/her case from the acceptance round. The Debate is meant for Calvinists who hold to the above position,
TV Rap Battle 2012 - IV

I'm planning on doing quite a few of these this year, so anyone interested in battling me should either send me a message or post a message in the comments.This is a rap battle; themes are obviously self-hype and dissing.Voting should be judged as seen fit, but important elements to take into account:* Slant rhymes* Rhyme scheme* In-rhymes* Multis* Wordplay* Metaphors/Similes* Vocabulary* References.My opponent may take the advantage of going second and being able to respond to my first rhyme if they choose.If they choose to rap first, their first rap will be in round one and they will not post a rap round three.If they choose to rap second, they will simply accept the debate, post an acceptance round and my first rap will be in round two.Good luck and have fun.
TV Rap Battle 2012 - IV

Lol. Straight away you see, my opponent didn’t even denyI fvcked his girlfriend’s a5s and blew my load up in her eye. Of course you won’t sleep, b! tch, how you gonna get your rest? How badly you got beat is like a hole up in your chest. Let’s just take some time to address my opponent’s lame sh! tAnyone can see his rhymes stink worse than his arm pits. You got one thing right cvnt, I am a soulless motherfvckerBut I handle frosty tracks like I’m an Ice Road TruckerNever said I was gangster, can’t be further from the truthI love my fvcking job; you probably work in a toll booth. You say you stay shining, but I think the word is sparkle You’re a closet Twilight fan nd nobody is startled. I maybe a featherweight, but I’m not full of hot airI don’t believe in Heaven mate, I’m not ever going there. So put your mask on Leatherface and cover up that mug. You’ve got a fvcking face that even ya mother doesn’t love. It’s done, it’s over, finished. I’ve murdered this little fvck.
TV Rap Battle 2012 - IV

I thank my opponent for accepting this debateHowever there things he neglected to get straightPro you're getting killed for sleepin on me but there's no Freddy in this placeIf you thinking you will win, your dreaming, I will forever be awakePro thinks he's gangster but this guy's wack he was never hardHe only has as much flavour as a spice rack, filled with empty jarsHis small sized raps stop after my knife slash him he's gettin' scarredI'll walk right past him and stab him and laugh as he's stressin largeYou know I'm a tyrant I've sat on the shoulders of giantsBullies used to beat you up now your souless and sillentYou couldn't even go home from school without telling stories of violenceSo you had no social life and focused on homework assignments On tracks I go buck wild I got style and stay sinisterIf you're a diamond, I'm a diomond cutter like the Diamond Dallas Page finisherI stay shining like the stars in the night skyYou're such a feathweight, I could chuck you in the air to see how far you might flyIf you believe in Heaven's Gate i'll send you to a better placeBut in reality your existence stops then you get erasedThis is a Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I'm leather faceIf you're the Head of State, I'm blowing up your house, like the aliens in Independence Day
TV Rap Battle 2012 - IV

First thing you'll notice friends, about my unfortunate opponent His profile says he's single, but his picture has a girl in it You see women quickly realise there's no one's better than me And when I rode his girlfriend, man, she got wetter than a jet ski. Have a look at this bland chump, yeah dude, nice hat You're up against a monster with more flavour than a spice rack. Your head will flap Terrence, like a Canadian on South Park. When I go subterranean and stomp your mouth apart. You'll be looking like a victim in American History X And asking yourself "Damn, what misery will he bring next?" You shouldn't have taken this challenge b!tch, you make a big mistake Cause I'm harder than a diamond and you're soft like sponge cake. I'll cut you into pieces and serve you with a cup of tea No doubt you'll talk some faeces, but you'll never stop me. Round one I just maim you; round two I complete the kill No one will fvcking blame you if you haven't got the skill I'm here making the claim, I'm the best on debate dot org. I'll burn you with my flames, assimilate ‘cause I'm the Borg.
The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound

I hope it will be enlightening for both of us. Per the link I posted in Round 1, a sound argument argument is one in which the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, and the premises (and therefore the conclusion ) are true. "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. " [1] This means that in order to prove the resolution before us, Pro needs to demonstrate that the conclusion of the ontological argument follows logically from the premises, and also that the premises are true. As far as I can tell, Pro's case has not met either condition. [1] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... Pro begins by saying "The concept of ontology and its relation to the existence of God is no doubt sound, not for its stipulation as a concept, but what that concept entails. " By saying that that the argument is "no doubt sound", Pro has essentially begged the question at hand. He continues with the sweeping generalization that the argument "establishes that there is a God. " Again, he needs to show exactly how the argument does this. The rest of what Pro argues has almost nothing to do with the ontological argument. He points out that mankind's understanding of God has evolved, but this does nothing to support the ontological argument. He also argues that we all believe in God, regardless of how we define him. Three points here: 1) Are we to presume that all atheists are either liars or hopelessly confused about their own beliefs? What evidence is there for this? 2) The fact that everyone believes something doesn't make it true. If everyone believed the world was flat, would that make it true? 3) Even if all of this were true, nothing is being said here that establishes that the ontological argument is sound. One last point. It seems that Pro has argued that God exists and that therefore the ontological argument must be sound because it entails God's existence. If God exists, however, it does not follow that the ontological argument is sound. The Pythagorean theorem is true, but that doesn't make the following (and clearly fallacious) argument sound: My dad is smart, and he believes the Pythagorean theorem is true, therefore the Pythagorean theorem is true.
The ontological argument for the existence of God is sound

The concept of ontology and its relation to the existence of God is no doubt sound, not for its stipulation as a concept, but what that concept entails. It establishes that there is a God, based on priori knowledge, but where we can see that significance is laid in mankind's pursuit in defining what God is, whether he be instituted in the polytheistic deities of Norse mythology, or incarnated in man Jesus Christ. In this sense, it has allowed us, right from the stone age, to define what God is and, as such, our understanding of him, however flawed, has evolved in time and according to our respective cultures. Returning to Norse deities, their concept of God stemmed much from their warlike society. In Feudal Europe, God's will was vested in the separation of those who fought (the nobles), those who taught (the clergy) and those who worked (the peasantry). Now, in today's society we utilise science to understand what God is in far more material terms than the sanctity that preceded it and despite atheistic beliefs one cannot contend that the universe, existence even, has its own observable intelligence and it is that intelligence which establishes that there is God, whether he be Zeus or a deistic watchmaker. Furthermore, we all believe in God, whatever is his definition to us.
The Trinity is Biblical

I am going to forcefully have to excuse myself from this round. The civil unrest in my country caused the internet to be cut; even this I write with great difficulty. I can therefore not post this round, but I ask that my opponent wait 3 days to extend, and I will begin with the next round. I apologise profusely for this, and I understand if my conduct is cut. Once more my most sincere apologies. Ajab.
The Trinity is Biblical

Resolve: The Trinity is biblical Trinity: "Also called Blessed Trinity, Holy Trinity. the union of three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) in one Godhead, or the threefold personality of the one Divine Being."(1) Biblical: "of or in the Bible." "in accord with the Bible."(2) Pro will argue that the trinity is biblical Con will argue that the trinity is not biblical Round one for pro is acceptance/first argument Round two/three Rebuttals and arguments Round four rebuttals and closing statements. No new arguments. This does give pro an extra round, and the bonus of the last word. Thank you to whomever accepts and good luck. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Hillary Clinton will Win the 2016 US Presidential Election

I've gotten several, though not all, of my arguments from this highly Liberal source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So, without any further delay, I shall begin. 1. Hillary Clinton is a woman. Liberals everywhere are looking for a candidate to break through the "Glass Ceiling" in the political arena that women are supposedly held back by. They are cheering on Hillary Clinton as the future first woman president in American history. Be assured that most women voters will, on election day in 2016, cast their votes for Hillary Rodham Clinton. 2. She did not Divorce her Cheating Husband. This was probably just to maintain her image, but either way this choice makes her appear to have good character. She might even appear to some Conservatives to have family values, as Conservativism is usually opposed to divorce. There's the possibility that many Conservatives might vote for Hillary Clinton. 3. The Republicans do not have a strong candidate to oppose Hillary. Rand Paul? Nope. Jeb Bush? Definitely not. Ron Paul? No. What I'm saying is that no prominent Republican right now could defeat Hillary in a fight for the title of President. There's always the possibility of a dark horse, but based on what the Republicans have done in 2008 and 2012, they will not nominate a dark horse. 4. The Democrats have no one to oppose her. Elizabeth Warren, who is perhaps the only Democrat who could take the Democratic Nomination from Hillary, has stated that she will not be running. http://abcnews.go.com... In fact, she has very nearly endorsed Hillary Clinton's future run for the Presidency. http://www.csmonitor.com... Now, current Vice-president Joe Biden might run, but that won't work out so well. http://washington.cbslocal.com... 5. Hillary Clinton will probably run for President. Here's a source that tells us why: http://www.oregonlive.com... I await my opponent's response.
Hillary Clinton will Win the 2016 US Presidential Election

I will address the probability that Hillary Clinton will win the general election since I believe that is a very high likelihood that she will win the Democratic presidential nomination since even though she had the lead in 2008 her leads were not this unanimous and this big. Also many Democratic politicians have already endorsed her. First of all, one party has not controlled the White House for more than eight years since 1988 when Republican George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis to succeed fellow Republican Ronald Reagan. Since then almost every president has faced either scandal, unpopularity or both with Clinton facing scandals resulting in a long impeachment process, George W. Bush facing some scandals and deep unpopularity while Barack Obama is seeing his approval ratings crater as he nears the middle of his sixth year in office. Keep in mind that in 2000 Al Gore could not win even with a strong economy and a president with a high job approval rating. At the same time there was strong economic growth and almost always when there is a strong economy the incumbent's party holds the office as shown with Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's blow out re-elections. However when the economy is weak the incumbent or the incumbent's party loses the office as shown with Ronald Reagan defeating Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama winning against John McCain. The last time an incumbent's party held the presidency for more than eight years, George H.W. Bush had to first overcome big deficits in the polls to win showing the voters' hesitancy to give one party control of the presidency for more than eight years. If Al Gore could not win in 2000 after a long period of strong economic growth with a president having a high job approval rating then Hillary Clinton will not win in 2016 after eight years of a weak economy and a president with low and getting lower job approval ratings.
Hillary Clinton will Win the 2016 US Presidential Election

In this debate, Pro will be arguing that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who is a former First Lady, a former Secretary of State under current U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, and a former Senator of New York, will win the 2016 US Presidential Election. Con will be arguing that Hillary Clinton will not win the 2016 US Presidential Election. As to avoid a "resolution snipe," allow me to clarify that what I mean is that Hillary Clinton will MOST LIKELY win the 2016 US Presidential Election. First Round is for Acceptance, Pro has burden of proof. No new arguments will be presented in Round Five; rebuttals only. In Round Two only Arguments may be used; no rebuttals to stated arguments.
Top Tax Rate should be the Tax Optimizing Rate

The idea is that the top payroll tax for people should esentialy be targeted at the tax optimizing rate. We are going to need many more tax brackets to achieve this system. For this debate this will mean the government will attempt to estimate the tax optimizing tax rate for income above 1 billion dollars. Then all income above 1 billion dollars will be taxed at that rate. Tax rates will then be phased down below that level.Format:Round 1: Definitions and AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Summarize the round. No new arguments.EDIT: It seems I didn't define the tax optimizing rate. The tax optimizing rate is the rate at which increasing the percentage of tax decreases the total amount of tax money you receive. The idea is that at some level of taxation people's incentive to work declines so quickly that when you increase the tax rate you decrease the amount of tax collected.
Top Tax Rate should be the Tax Optimizing Rate

Government should be limited, and its scope shall extend only to protect the fundamentalrights of Americans to their life, liberty, and their property; as well as to adjudicateany disputes that may arise through the judicial system. The taxes required to fund such a government would be relatively light. With a laissez-faire economic policy, government would foster prosperity and aflourishing society. People would have higher incomes which would allow individuals to spend, save, and investmore. Businesses would be free to compete, expand, and invest in capital. With capital accumulation, America would have more production and a higher capacity to produce more goods – thus there wouldbe higher output and therefore America would be wealthier and enjoy a higherstandard of living (GDP). These assertions have been empirically proven by the National Bureau of EconomicStatistics [1]. So the wealthy can invest in ways that improve their own financial situations, as wellas raising the standards of living for other Americans. If General Motors invests in advanced capitalwhich raises its output, and expands its operations, more employees are hired,society is wealthier and economic growth occurs. I believe my opponent will forfeit the following rounds so that explains my short arguments. [1] NBER Working Paper Series; "Solow andthe States: Capital Accumulation, Productivity, and Economic Growth", PDF.
Second-wave and third-wave feminism have, all in all, detrimentally affected the USA.

Here we are once again, dear reader.Thank you for sticking with me through what is now my fourth debate to end in forfeits (out of only five, I might add).I'm beginning to feel like someone is trying to tell me something here.Well, on to the business at hand.I believe that, if nothing else, I have clearly done a better job of presenting my position than Pro has.In fact, Pro has made no attempt to argue anything at all.Just imagine that this was the riveting debate it could have been.Think of all the brilliant arguments that I made in this alternate reality where InVinoVeritas attempted to present his case.Think of all the logical fallacies I pointed out, and how I was able to redirect his argument back to show that he was proving my case for me. Just think of the wonderful laughs you could have had with the sharp wit I used to cut through his faulty syllogisms.I'm terribly sorry we couldn't experience that together, my dear readers.Next time, I hope.Thanks for reading.
Second-wave and third-wave feminism have, all in all, detrimentally affected the USA.

As much as I am disappointed to see the debate end before it begins, I do at least appreciate my opponent letting us know he has decided to drop out.I considered posting arguments in support of Second and Third wave feminism just for the sake of it, but at this point I feel it would be a needless expenditure of energy and time on my part. Given that I was to take the con position, I was preparing to simply defend the position that second and third wave feminism have not caused more harm than good in the United States. It seems clear to me that the burden of proof was on Pro in this debate to demonstrate that they have been, all in all, detrimental to the country.I will say that second wave feminism fought for, and gained, legal protections against gender based employment discrimination as well as equal pay for men and women. Third wave feminism, which admittedly is more nebulously defined due to its contemporary nature, has made gender based violence a central theme and aided in bringing that topic to the national dialogue. I have a difficult time seeing how either of these 'waves' can be seen as being "all in all" detrimental to the United States.I was not coming here with the intention of claiming that the effects of feminism have been wholly good, and even less to defend the idea that ALL feminists are good. But to claim that second and third wave feminism have been "all in all" detrimental to the country was a rather large claim which obviously cannot be taken at face value without argument.Unfortunately it seems as if we will not be hearing that argument.Whatever my opponent's reasons for retiring from DDO may be, I wish him nothing but the best in the future.