BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes That Hosting the olympics is a good idea

Hello and welcome to my debate round! I'm going to jump right in! Human Rights Violations, When preparations are made to host the olympics people are forced out of there homes and neighbourhoods and are forced to move to places far away from schools,family and friends. The olympics only last a few days and HUGE changes are made for this event that only lasts a few days. Now onto my second argument The Cost of hosting the olympics is simply too great! it can cost up to 50 billion dollars for example in Bejing it costed 45 billion dollars this is simply to great a cost for an event that only lasts a few days Thank you so very much TheDebator333
The United States Federal Government should help to modernize third-world countries.

so this next round is going to be short because i'm at debate camp right now and i don't have much time, but here we go on the definition debate 1. extend my argument that help requires that the pro must actually act 2. extend my argument that modernization must be a modernization of all aspects of life. 3.extend that 3rd world refers to the developing areas of the world these all are dropped and should be extended across next on my case extend that increased foreign aid will cause a dependency on it then extend that the aid will trade of with local forms of wealth doom any chance of escaping poverty. next extend that this turns all of my opponent's arguments because dependency on the US makes the problem worse. next extend that the pro sends aid with a neo liberal mind set then extend that neo liberalism has cost africa 272 billion dollars and finally extend that neo liberalism cause global poverty agian these all go conceded and extend them across
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

My opponent concedes my entire case thus far, merely noting that I ignore the "will be" present in the resolution. However, Obama's charisma can be expected to persist through his tenure. This charisma will, no doubt, lead to greater approval ratings. Note that Germany, under Hitler, supported the Third Reich despite its vast moral failings, due to Hitler's incredible charisma.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

My opponent ignores "will be" in the resolution. This isn't about whether or not people think Obama is great now. This is about whether or not we can determine if Obama will be great in the future because of his speeches and promises. He only talks about the present, which is irrelevant. Obama generally does more that give great speeches and promise hope and change to gain approval. If Obama fails to meet present expectations in the future, he will not be a great leader. Great speeches and hopeful promises of change do not make someone a great leader.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

My opponent is ignoring the criteria for a "great leader" provided by the definitions of this debate. A leader is any person who has commanding authority or influence, and their greatness is determined by the degree of approval that they command. Fulfilling expectations is not a relevant criterion. I have shown that speaking ability, and promises of hope and change lead to increased approval, a criterion relevant to this round. This point has not been refuted.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

It doesn't matter that I concede that Obama commands authority and influence. My opponent has to show how a person will be a great leader only because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change. The people hoped that Hitler would turn out to be a great leader. He did not fulfill their expectations. He ended up giving Germany a bad name for their Jewish discrimination, and he lost Germany a costly war, and he eventually committed suicide. Hitler turned out to be a horrible leader, not a great leader. Obama could just as easily be the world's next Hitler. In other words, great speeches and perhaps empty promises do not predict a great leader.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

My opponent concedes that Obama is charismatic, and that he commands authority and influence. The only remaining burden is to show "how a greater command of authority and influence gains overall approval." "My opponent has not shown how a greater command of authority and influence gains overall approval." It is undeniable that Obama's charisma has contributed to his voter base, and hence, his approval among the American people. "Hitler was not a great leader." Hitler was an evil man, and in fact, a fairly poor military strategist. However, given the definitions of "great" and "leader", our only criteria to judge a leader by are their approval, authority, and influence. Hitler commanded all three of these things. In fact, his rise to power was largely caused by promises of hope and change, along with his speaking skills. Therefore, per these definitions, Hitler was a "great leader". The definitions with which this debate is concerned do not address morality.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

My opponent is using my definition of "leader," but not my definition of "great." My opponent is using "great" to mean "large." The resolution uses "great" to mean "a generalized term of [overall] approval." My opponent has not shown how a greater command of authority and influence gains overall approval. Now, I am going to show a counterexample. His name was Adolf Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org... He gave great speeches. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Hitler gained notoriety outside of the party for his rowdy, polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians (including monarchists, nationalists and other non-internationalist socialists) and especially against Marxists and Jews." http://www.nostradamus101.com... "From the deepest part of Western Europe A young child will be born to poor people Who will by his speech seduce a great multitude..." Hitler promised hope and change. http://answers.yahoo.com... "Homework Help: Did hitler promise germany hope and change before he was elected?" "Yes, he did. A reason why he came to power was because of his charisma in his speeches, and promises of a better future for Germany since there was an economic crisis that began growing after WW1." http://blog.indecisionforever.com... "The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an open Christian with some Muslim friends. He called for unity and considered himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as naive and inexperienced. He also had a lot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that." This one quote could almost describe Obama as well as Hitler. Hitler was not a great leader. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically regarded as gravely immoral. Historians, philosophers, and politicians have often applied the word evil in both a secular sense of the word and in a religious sense. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are overwhelmingly condemnatory. The display of swastikas or other Nazi symbols is prohibited in Germany and Austria. Holocaust denial is prohibited in both countries." Therefore, just because someone gives great speeches and promises hope and change, doesn't mean that they will be a great leader. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. I now await my logical argument to be attacked in some way, shape, or form. Thanks.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

Some people claim that the above is true. I don't get it. Barack Obama - . http://en.wikipedia.org... great - used as a generalized term of [overall] approval (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) leader - a person who has commanding authority or influence (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) speech - a usually public discourse promise - to pledge to do, bring about, or provide (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) hope - desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) change - TRANSFORMATION (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) I don't see the connection.
Barack Obama will be a great leader because he gives great speeches and promises hope and change.

The criterion used to judge a leader in this debate is public approval. Speaking skills, along with promises, contribute to charisma. Charisma generally contributes to public approval. With my opponents example of Hitler, his promises and speaking ability caused Germany to turn a blind eye to his blatant immorality. As Obama is also charismatic, he is likely to enjoy continued public approval, fulfilling the criterion for a "great leader". Thanks for the debate, thanks for reading.
April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

I recognize that this is a heavy topic and hope that none take offense to my opponent’s or my arguments. Often when the topic of abortion is debated the focus is on the rights of the fetus. Indeed the concept of a fetus having rights is a controversial issue. My opponent and I however, both accept the right to life being applicable to a fetus. Thus our debate hinges on another point. The question then becomes whether that right to life supersedes the moral right to one’s body. To this I confidently answer no. C1) “The Violinist” “Judith Jarvis Thomson is an American moral philosopher and metaphysician…. She is most famous for her 1971 essay "A Defense of Abortion” (2) Within this essay is the following thought experiment. “You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. ” (3) The right to life does not equal the right to use another person’s body. No such right exists morally or otherwise. It would seem absurd that the famous violinist would have a right to my body. Likewise, with a fetus. While abortion may not be a desired action, the right of a fetus to life does not take away the right of a women to her own body. Essentially my case is this. Does a woman have an absolute right to determine what happens in and to her body? Yes! She does. It is moral to retain the right to your own body. Though short, I believe this case to be convincing. Due to the moral right to determine what happens to one’s own body, I affirm the resolution that In spite of a fetus' right to life, Abortion is morally acceptable. (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...
April Gauntlet Tower: Trial by Fire

This is round one in the April Gauntlet Tower (1) that Mikal helped me set up in response to the trial by fire thread.(2)Kasmic vs GeogeerResolved: Inspite of a fetus' right to life Abortion is morrally acceptableClarification: We are debating abortion from the assumption that a fetus does in fact have a right to life. Abortion: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy." (3) 4 rounds/72hrs/10,000 CharactersSelect Winner/2500 Elo voting restiction. Typical rules...... (1) http://www.debate.org...(2) http://www.debate.org...(3) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
Jesus is God

"Of course, these laws are always true in our natural world. God is beyond this world. He's a transcended being. This is Christian Theology per-se," - PRO.So, are you saying God is beyond Logic, Reason, and Rationality."Jesus, being dependent of the Father both in nature and authority does not mean that he is not one in nature with the Father but rather, it only reinforces the fact that his true Son-ship is the evidence of his true Godhood ( John 10:28-30)," - PRO.If A is dependent on B it means A is not, or not equal to B."unclothed his God-form by taking on Slave's-form," - PRO.if you read Bible you would know that, your Bible says, nothing can contain God. If nothing can contain God, this includes universe and everything in it, therefore God cannot come into universe, because universe cannot contain Him."It only says he will hands over "the kingdom" to God. Nothing more, nothing else," - PRO.The Kingdom includes everything God gave to Jesus, doesn't it. And Jesus returned everything back."John 1:1In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. ---> In this verse, Jesus is shown to be with the Father before everything came into existence ( v. 3)," - PRO.You first have to prove God here refers to The Father, not to trinity. Then you can make point."Jesus is immortal in his divinity while mortal in his humanity," - PRO.Nothing and nobody can be immortal and mortal, divine and human at the same time. Law of Non-contradiction."Independent existence or self-existence is an attribute of the Son of God," - PRO.If Jesus is an independent god, therefore there are more than one independent gods. Polytheism."That is your own private interpretation," - PRO.That is Bible's interpretation.Only way you can prove divinity of Jesus, by disproving Law of Non-contradiction.Thank you for reading.And, Long Live Logic.
Jesus is God

Everyone knows the three laws of Logic - The Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle.So, lets first identify God and Jesus. God - Creator; Independent; Subordinate to No-one; All-Knowing; To Whom everything belongs; The only One who exempt from death (as Bible says only Immortal).Jesus - Creation of God, Dependent on gravity, air, food, water; Subordinate to God, prays to God, asks for help; Ignorant; Nothing belongs to Jesus; And also not exempt from death.Using brain and Law of non-contradiction we can say Jesus is not God. But some people stupid, and they will bring up some verses and misinterpret it in order to try to prove their point (if they have a point).John17:1-3 proves nothing, because it says "...You (God) have given Him (Jesus) authority...." and it proves that Jesus cannot be God, because God cannot be given authority, because God has the All-Authority there to have. These verses shows that Jesus has a boss, but God cannot have a boss.John10:28-30 is misinterpreted by Pro, because after Jesus said "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE." Jews pick up the stones to stone him, and Jesus asked them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" and Jews said, we don't stone you for good works, but for blasphemy, showing that Jews understood same thing as Pro today, but Jesus said, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods" ' " - showing them they misunderstood him, because if you interpret "I and my Father are one" to mean Jesus claims to be god, then all Jews were called gods by God, so you should interpret it in same way, and worship Jews.But Jesus also says (or rather prays to God) make disciples one with us, therefore disciples are also gods.And also, giving life to death, go read OT, OT prophets gave life to death also....
atheism is belief that god is false, disbelief

Sure, I will agree that no belief is NOT belief, that only makes sense, but so what? No belief is STILL atheism. The 4 L's 1.) Litterally Anything that is not (+)belief is atheism. 2.) Lack of belief is not (+)belief.3.) Logically, you can't believe nothing and something at the same time.4.) Lack of belief is atheism
atheism is belief that god is false, disbelief

There is no question to answer lol, so I can't answer.the following will be air-tight logic, if none of these points are refuted then I cannot, in good conscience, be voted against.logical proof:1.)There are 3 types of belief: (+), (0), and (-)2.) According to the roots and definitions I have given, atheism simply means, "Lack of (+)belief".3.) These three types of belief are inherentlymutually exclusive, meaning someone cannot hold both as true without a logical contradiction. So in other words, you can't believe god IS and IS Not real, you cannot believe god Does exist and hold No-Belief, and you cannot believe god Does Not exist and hold No-Belief about his existance. Doing so would be a logical contradiction.....Once again, logically you cannot simultaneously have: (-,+), (-,0), (+,0), nor (+,-,0). They are independent states which Do Not co-mingle, this is in line with the Law of Non-contradiction*.3.) If someone has a (-)belief about god then they DO "Lack a (+)belief", and are thus atheist.....If someone has a (0)belief then they DO "Lack a (+)belief", and are atheist as well.4.) Vi-spex must show that atheism is ONLY disbelief [aka...(-)belief]. However, because of the last few premises we know that (0)belief is ALSO Atheism. This implies that (+) and (-) are both, independently, atheism. and thus that (-)belief is Not the only position that is atheist.5.) Thus the resolution cannot be affirmed.*Law of Non-contradiction: "In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction(LNC) (or the law of contradiction(PM) or theprinciple of non-contradiction(PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive." ~Wikii: https://en.wikipedia.org...
atheism is belief that god is false, disbelief

(+)Belief - A belief that something Does exist(-)Belief - A belief that something Does Not exist(0)Belief - The lack of any belief, ignorance. (do not mistake this for being agnostic)I agree 100% with everything vi-spex has said so far...but this doesn't affirm the resolution for you. Vi-Spex has to show that atheism is ONLY a negative belief in god, I'm here to show that this is a misconception and that there is more to atheism than just a (-)belief. The Only thing atheism means is "Lack of a (+)belief in a god or gods"Now, imagine those people who do not know about the concept of god. Those people have a (0)belief in god. They still lack a (+)belief, and thus are still atheists.To give credit to my derivation of the definition of atheism see the next part:a - "not/without" [1]theism - "the belief that God exists or that many gods exist"[2] notice that the prefix 'a' means without belief, not belief against.This is my argument.
atheism is belief that god is false, disbelief

atheism = a + theisma = without/lackingtheism = belief in a god or godsatheism = lacking the belief in a god or godsTherefore atheism is not solely disbelief, it is non-belief, meaning you have no belief or are ignorant. Disbelief is a smaller part of nonbelief, it fits the definition but is not the whole picture.This implies that anything with the capacity to believe, which has never heard of any gods, is an atheist. babies are atheists, monkeys are atheists. Athiesm CAN be belief that god is false, but not always, in fact, usually it is not because so many things don't know what god even is so they are ignorant and have (0)belief.
atheism is belief that god is false, disbelief

According to that logic, if animal X said to you "I am a monkey" and you said "I do not believe you", then that sentence would never mean that you disbelieve the creature. Of course this could mean that you disbelieve and thus have a (-)belief, but it could also simply mean that you harbor neither a (-) nor a (+) belief...aka, no belief...aka (0)belief.I do not think the opponent refutes my logical proof and thus I don't see how he can be voted for. I thus extend it:1.) Litterally Anything that is not (+)belief is atheism. 2.) Lack of belief is not (+)belief.3.) Logically, you can't believe nothing and something at the same time.4.) Lack of belief is atheism5.) Thus lack of belief and negative belief are both atheism6.) The opponent should only win when he proves only negative belief is atheism (disbelief)7.) Thus he should not be able to affirm
Resolved: In the contemporary US, it is better to be female than male.

In the contemporary US, it is better to be female than male. I't is true that the western world has come very far in regards of the rights of women. The modern american woman can be a single mother without being judged, have an abortion or have the opportunity for equal pay and career opportunities a man. However despite the increasing rights of women in our society, it is still far more beneficial to be a male. This country has always awarded men in leadership positions, men are judged more by their character rather than their appearance. They are generally taken more seriously because of things such as their tone of voice, facial expressions, posture and of course height. Women still have the reputation of being weak and irrational, and if not they are a "bossy bitch". A man in a leadership position can be either authoritarian or sympathetic towards his subordinates while women don't have that second option, they have to be mean and aggressive to make their way in the management world. Despite the fact that women need to work more to make themselves noticed, there are also several practical benefits to being male. As a male you have the freedom to walk down the street at night without the fear of being harassed and assaulted, its easier for you to enter political office, you can see your gender being widely represented in the media and have lower beauty standards imposed upon you, If you drive poorly it wont be attributed to your gender, people wont question your judgement because its your "time of the month" and you have the opportunity to practice a religion that doesn't propagate the idea that men aught to be in a position of authority over women. While I would say that being a women in the United States is still superior to being a man in a developing country, to assume that being a woman in America is more beneficial is simply false.
Marijuana Legalization

I support the legalization of marijuana for many reasons. The biggest reason why I'm such a supporter is because the legalization of marijuana in Colorado has shown pure positive effects. In the first six months, over $10,000,000 was raised in tax money, and in the last year, about $3,400,000 was sent to improve schools. Along with the taxation, people should have the freedom to smoke it. It has been scientifically proven that no one has died for overdosing, and it's much safer than alcohol. Along with that, it was also scientifically proven that you are 4 times more likely to get into a car crash while under the influence of alcohol then you are under the influence of marijuana. The reason I bring this point up is not to promote the idea of driving high, but to show that the buzz from marijuana is not nearly as intense as the buzz from alcohol. Continuing on, marijuana has medical benefits. Some, like Tommy Chong, argue that some THC oils can cure cancer in some cases. Whether or not that is true, it has still been shown that marijuana can help slow the process of cancer, and even Alzheimer's.