BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Say NO to online social networks.

The main argument I will by replying to, is your one about Specialized networks. You continue to not believe that such a thing can exist. I offered up a few suggestions, and here is one more: http://sermo.com... -- A specialized OSN for Doctors. They talk about the field of medicine, and things of that nature. This is neither spread out nor useless, as it shows that people who's career involves saving lives, can talk to their peers about what they do. This certainly isn't a waste of time. Like I've said before, it's just one of many, and I'd like to reiterate again, that your saying that OSNs are useless, is your opinion. I'd just like to clarify that I know many things on Debate.org are opinions, but, this is where it actually matters, because your statement is that it's a waste of time to pretty much everyone. On the subject of debate.org, while it isn't as vast as Facebook or Myspace, it's closer to an OSN then you think. While we don't have a messaging system, we can still create a pretty deep profile. We can upload a personal picture as well, and can browse other people's profiles. This brings me to another point. People may browse other's profiles just for the heck of it, but it's also could teach them something. At a place like this, someone could learn more about a parties political views, or find a lot of new quotes. At a place like sermo, people can find what methods work for what doctors. When I said "it comes with the territory" I was mainly making a figure of speech. A lot of users know about the dangers of putting information out on the web, whether they learn it from the news, from their peers, or just from reading something on their respective networks. I understand that bad things will still happen, but again, as bad as it is to say, it's not a real significant problem. There are millions of profiles out there, and there aren't a significant amount of crimes reported each year. I'll close this debate by saying this, and this is not just for the sake of winning or losing, but for taking away a lesson: What is a waste of time to some, is a lifestyle to others. We're in an age where someone can have a life online, whether it's through an OSN, or an MMO, like Warcraft. It's not anyone's place to judge which is which, for each person. Thank You. -BBE
Bernie Sanders(Yes) or Hillary Clinton (No)

Even though Sanders lost, we can still argue and say why Sanders would make a better president than Clinton. Bernie Sanders is a true man who is to represent his people. He will raise economy for poor people and make America the great nation it once was. I don't see Clinton doing that! He helps middle class and is not afraid to tax the rich. Not to mention he is the only candidate whom is not afraid to use "the s-word". He is all and all a cool guy.
Bernie Sanders(Yes) or Hillary Clinton (No)

In the fact that there is still argument between Sanders and Mrs. Clinton, Bernie Sanders figures that so much America already doesn't have Medical Insurance, so raising it would only make the economy better for America. Also, if Bernie Sanders gets elected against Donald Trump (we all know Trump will win for Republican), then America still has a chance. If Clinton gets elected, we might as well have Trump for president. Bernie Sanders only wishes to make economy equal for everyone. Not just the rich. Also making a carbon tax, INGENIOUS. America is one of the biggest reasons of global warming.
Bernie Sanders(Yes) or Hillary Clinton (No)

Bernie Sanders is a very great man and I do like his ambition. However, my opponent doesn't state to you one great reason he is more suited than Secretary Clinton. In addition, my opponent states Senator Sanders has "been a part of government for a long time" which former first lady Clinton has also. He adds that the Senator has been a normal citizen which also applies to Mrs. Clinton as well. He knows problems is another, but everyone does. The reason we have the job of presidency is to address the problems not come up with them. My opponent closes with another government statement which directly follows Clinton as well and that he is intellgent on how to be president. However, Secretary Clinton has spent 8 years near this job being the spouse of former President Bill Clinton which makes her more suited. Now I will vouch for Secretary Clinton and against Senator Sanders, coming up with my own points. Bernie Sanders vouches for an extremist democratic ballot. While I don't mind that ( I am a democrat), I believe that nothing will be passed or go into effect. The House AND the senate both contain a majority of republicans. That means that Congress won't agree with the extreme democratic policies Bernie has come up with. Secretary Clinton is more capable. She possess the extreme assets along with a likability rating.
Star Wars is better than Star Trek

Sorry I didn't submit my debate on time. Your ignorance of Star Trek is really showing. Star Trek has more action than the beginning series, (Which was meant to cause nerdgasms). So what better reviews and many people boasting. Note on the 'many'. That doesn't matter. It just has a larger group of fans. Only very few can stand nerdgasms. SWTCW isn't really that bad, I must admit. It was just meant to create a larger group of central appeal. (The lil' kiddies. [SW geeks still watch it though]). Once again, hype from larger group of fans, not the fact of being better. The lens flares are just mean't for effect dude! One cannot be better than the other, because they are two totally different things. (This ends my debate, and concludes the winner. [RageDebate12302{Guy who knows how to argue}])
Star Wars is better than Star Trek

Action is better than long boring scenes of "LOOK! LOOK AT OUR CGI ON THE SHIPS!" Anyways, if you search up "star wars vs star trek", you will see many of them boasting, shouting, and showing that Star Wars is the obvious winner. Also, when it first came out, Star Wars was getting better reviews than Star Trek did. You can argue the Next Generation is pretty cool you know that in an all out war, the Star Wars Universe would ultimately destroy the puny ship of the Star Trek Universe and take little damage from their phasers. Fighters could swarm the ships and be small and hard to hit because the Star Trek ships are used to the large ship versus large ship. The Star Wars Universe also has the amazing spin-off series on TV, "Star Wars: The Clone Wars", which is cool. Here we have main heroes Anakin Skywalker, Jedi Knight with a temper, and Ahsoka Tano, Anakin"s feisty padawan with an attitude. Also we have appearances of Obi-Wan Kenobi, R2D2, C-3PO, Asajj Ventress, Count Dooku, General Grievous, Captain Rex, Commander Cody, stupid droids, brave clones, and many others. Last point, which are you more excited for, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, or the next Star Trek Lens Flare a-thon? That concludes my argument. Thank you and laugh like Jabba at Star Trek.
Star Wars is better than Star Trek

RetroToast, The majority of your opening argument is opinion, that really don't matter. I WANT RELATIVE FACTS!!!! I'm not saying Star Trek is better, I'm saying Star Wars isn't better. What is with Star Wars has a BETTER orchestra!? Star Trek doesn't have an orchestra, because it isn't an opera like Star Wars, it just has cool music to go along with the film. Oh, and when you said Star Wars has more planets, you where dead wrong you ignorant noob. More diverse aliens other than humanoids? Here let's define humanoid. Humanoid- Word describing a creature with human feature or form. This means a flippin' rancor is a humanoid because it shares that particular form. More interesting characters? Really? All characters in each series are awesome. Which one has salacious crumb? Now that's just stupid. All he does is sit there and giggle and make Jabba the Hut. Which franchise has more games? Star Trek isn't a focus in gaming, it's about the TV series and Movies. You can't say one is better because Star Wars is focused on the action, and Star Trek on adventure.
Star Wars is better than Star Trek

First is First, does Star Trek have beams of light used as a saber? No. Does Star Trek have a cool FTL sequence? No. Which franchise has more games? Star Wars. Which series has more lore and a deeper plot? Star Wars. Which has a better orchestra? Star Wars. Which has more interesting characters? Star Wars. Which has better and cooler looking ships? Star Wars. Which has more diverse aliens other than humanoid? Star Wars. Which has Salacious Crumb? Star Wars. Which has epic bounty hunters? Star Wars. Which has more planets? Star Wars. What does Star Trek have? Lens Flares.
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

We learned about Jesus from the Bible, so the story of Jesus (with all its details) would be true if the Bible was true, what is something that no one can prove without raising doubts. The Bible is a ancient document like many others, which suffered many modifications due to the translations, which was written and rewritten many times, by many people who didn't comprehend many phenomena happening around them and were influenced by the prejudices of their time. It also has a lot of contradictions and weird information that don't make sense. Like other ancient documents, the Bible brings us some historical facts from the past (immigration movements, for example), but even these cannot be treated as definitive proofs, only as a guidance to guess what happened in the past. We cannot believe 100% in everything we read without knowing something about the writer, how reliable he or she was, and which interests he or she could have. If these days we know we should not trust entirely even newspapers and scientific papers because there may be big interests behind them, I don't see as the majority of the population can take the Bible literally as you want. The Darwin theory is being largely accepted because it makes sense with many things we see with our own eyes everyday, because it has been corroborated by medicine and biology, because it has showed results and, above all, because it was not imposed as a fact. Darwin theory is in continuous evolution and it is open to everybody who want to improve it (what does not happen in the case of the Bible).
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

The bible is a witness of truth. If rightly divided. And eternal document that will stand forever. Unlike Darwin and his theory of evolution. Which is just wrong. I challenge my opponent to prove that Christ who died on a cross, born a virgin, and who was in Eden ,did not fulfil all the prophecies leading to the cross, or never existed. The same One who promised to return to the Mt. Olives.
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

Again you insist on what I don"t said. I don"t talk in the name of all humanity. And you are making judgments as much as me or even more. For example, it was you who began this debate saying that atheists are wrong. This is a judgment already. And it is you who are putting clearly that Jesus and the Bible are the only true. It is you who wants to decide what is good for everybody. On the other side, I have never said atheism is the best for everybody. I have even said that I understand that there are people who needs religion to find a meaning for life. Therefore, you accuse me, but it is you who want to be the "World Judge". Again, I believe Darwin theory, and I feel no shame for being descendent of a primitive monkey. And neither should you. If god created everything, monkeys are also creatures of god and, therefore, they are perfect! For those who are real appreciators of god creation, there would be no shame for being descendant of a god"s creature. And more important, I don"t have faith on Darwin. Faith is something that you have when there is no concrete basis to believe something. For example, I have faith on my future despite the possibility dying tomorrow. On the other side, I have concrete basis to believe on Darwin theory. I see evidence of this theory everywhere, on the people around me, when I see a baby who earned characteristics from both parents, when I hear that the production of some crop increased thanks to the crossing of different varieties. This is what I call concrete. You saying that I have faith on Darwin theory only proves that it is you who cannot give intelligent answers for your faith in the Bible, and then you are trying to disguise it by distorting my answers. Knowing someone"s ideas is more than sufficient to say if this person is an extremist or not. I have never met Hitler, Stalin or Fidel Castro, but by their ideas I am sure they are/were extremists. Your last paragraph is the best evidence of your unintelligent answers. The basic idea behind atheism is precisely construct our minds based only on the things that we can find on Earth and in the universe, things that we can observe, feel and examine using trustable methods. Any god is far from being one of these things, and this is why we are atheists. At last, this debate is about who is right, atheists or the Bible. This is in the title that you chose. If I am defending the atheists" side and if I am atheist, OF COURSE MY OPINIONS WILL BE GODLESS. This is more than OBVIOUS. Were you expecting to have this debate with a christian?
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

My opponent seems to speak for all of Humanity! America is about self expression and independence is the illusion of USA one nation under God! I refute your assertion about 'what matters' , are you, the World Judge who decides what is good for everyone? I am not crazy because I do not agree with you. Your trust of Darwin's 'IDEA' who taught you your maggot to monkey to mathematician, evolutionary historian and record keeper of mankind religion, is insane in my opinion. Because my opponent can not get his story straight about his meaning of all of humanity if offer this verse: Jam_1:8, A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. Jam_4:8, Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Most who do not trust the bible are angry because of an activity they love to do, Example you mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah. Declaring your opinion over God! Because I have a working knowledge of the bible you again call me a religious extremest, yet never met me personality. Are you my Judge? Why slander me, because you can not give an intelligent answer for your faith in Darwin? Who told you your maggot to monkey religion that you follow and trust. This debate is about what is actually found on earth not your personal Godless opinion.
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

It doesn't matter for my argument whether there are people who know from Jesus from others books or don't know him at all. I know perfectly that many people in places like China and India have never even seen a Bible. When somebody says humanity it doesn't mean 100% of people mandatorily. The only point that I wanted to show is that the Jesus story and all its details (even more the idea of him as being the god himself and not just another prophet) could be considered true if the Bible was a trustable document. And the Bible shows to be everything but not a trustable document. All the noisy you are doing only because of what you called "my statement" about humanity proves again you are completely crazy and extremist. You don't need to have a religion to be an extremist. Your ideas are extremists and that is what matter. You could be called simply a christian extremist. Human evolution took at least 2 millions of years. Check wikipedia and you can see it easily http://en.wikipedia.org... This is science. I don't need to play with words because there are quantitative data supported by many scientists which can support what I say. Again, I affirm you have never studied evolution for real. And it doesn't matter for me if the origin of life was not discovered yet. 500 years ago you and other religious fanatics would say that any disease or any natural phenomena was caused by god, and now we can explain the origin and treat most diseases and forecast many natural phenomena. Science improves continuously. About the violence of your god, I insist on it. According to the Bible, it was him who destructed Sodom and Gomorrah, without saving even the children, who certainly had not commited any sin. This is far from showing god as a pacifist, but as a egocentric who doesn't accept to be put aside. This behaviour is totally contradictory when when thinking how Jesus preached peace even with enemies. I think religion can be of great support for many people, can give them life meaning when they can't find it by their own. However, the existence of fanatic and extremists like you is only collaborating to put more people away from christian religion.
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

I would like to ask you to have respect for what I wrote and don't distort it. It only makes me suspect that you are really crazy or are using this discussion to have some kind of fun. In fact I already expected for it, but I decided to try to see if some religious extremist could develop a worthy discussion. Yes, I believe Darwin theory is true (with the same right you believe that god and Jesus are true). But I didn't say Darwin created evolution, and I dont worship Darwin or anybody else. It is ridiculous. This is another reason why I became atheist, because worshiping anything is ridiculous for me. And if you tell that I should read the Bible to have this discussion, I tell you to read about evolution theory. At least it is not in Hebrew. First of all, we are precisely the primates who came to think and speak. This evolution took more than 1 million years, so you can't expect to see anything big happening in only 2.000 years. Even more because there has been a great quantity of high quality scientists only in the last 300 years. http://en.wikipedia.org... And if you had studied evolution seriously, you would know that this is not a one way process. Evolution doesn't lead necessarily to intelligence and ability to speak. Evolution occurs by the survival of the most adapted, and intelligence is not by itself sufficient to guarantee the survival of any being. About Israel, it has been destroyed and reconstructed many times, and I doubt we will not see it happening again. As I said, wars like this have happened in the same places and for similar reasons through all history. And what the Queen of England claims or who is putting cameras where to wait for some messiah also prove nothing. There are crazy people everywhere saying that they themselves saw or are some messiah or prophet. This kind of madness occurs in all religions, and there are also those who take advantage of innocent and fanatic people to make money. About the contradictions, the proverb 16:29 says "A violent person entices their neighbor and leads them down a path that is not good" . And you mentioned by yourself other excerpts from Bible in which god incites violence. This is a clear contradiction to me. And Galileo was put in jail for defending his ideas (which proved to be right) instead of accepting what the church imposed as the truth (like you imposing the Bible and Jesus). Therefore, if you are comparing me to Galileo, this is a true compliment for me.
According to History, Earthy Evidence and Scripture, Jesus is the Messiah! Atheist are wrong.

I said "we" meaning "all the humanity". All the humanity learned about Jesus through the Bible. That is all. It doesn't matter how many times you affirm that the Bible is made only of facts. This is your opinion. It doesn't matter the Bible is given away freely in every hotel. It doesn't matter whether your or my country was founded by christians. Nothing of it proofs the Bible is 100% true. And even if Hebrew language has not changed (what I doubt), it is not sufficient. Those who wrote the Bible could have changed the texts over the time and it is not possible to affirm now it didn't happen. Above all, they wrote it according to their point of view. In a war, for example, enemies have different points of view, and each side consider itself right while the other side is wrong. Someone from outside cannot judge the situation without knowing all sides, and the Bible gives us the point of view of one side only. About the evolution theory created by Darwin, I see you don't understand it. The evolution is a slow process which can take thousands of years to create big modifications as new or stronger species, and it makes total sense when thinking on genetics . It is slow even more among animals which don't reproduce in the same velocity as plants, fungi, virus and bacteria. See the problems that the evolution of virus has caused recently, as the Avian Influenza. And since the ancient times men have already taken advantage of crossings among varieties of plants and animals to produce stronger ones. What you eat at your house and in restaurants is a result of it. About the contradictions in Bible, I meant more complex things. For example, in one page your god incites violence and war, while in the other page violence is unacceptable and leads to the wrong way. This is a big contradiction. And science has total freedom to evolve. Nobody has the authority to put limits on science evolution or to affirm something without proofs. And even with proofs, any scientist can be criticized by the others with total freedom when having rational reasons. Once we really thought world was flat, in the same way once we thought the sun revolves around the Earth. And it was a scientist (Galileo) who proposed that the Earth revolves around the sun, and then the church prohibited him from going ahead with this idea. And about profecies, I dont see that. Wars and fights have happened in the same places and sometimes even for similar reasons since the beginning of humanity. Egypt and Syria have gone through many wars in their history. And the Bible is talking about idols, the ancient polytheist religion of egyptians. It has nothing to do with the war of these days. The Bible describes wars from the past only.
Resolved:The Federal Reserve Should Not Be Abolished

That1User detailed in the R1 that R2 is for cases only. That being said, my 'cases' might seem as 'negative' arguments of 1User's, but I hope 1User doesn't mind that. The leaders of the Fed are not electedThe leaders of the Fed are not elected. I'm not saying they are cohorts in making a conspiracy to control the world, but that they are not held accountable. [1]There has been inflationThis is generally known and it shouldn't be contested much.There has been Several severe economic crisis.Also shouldn't be contested much. The Fed doesn't seem to be much able to do much in times of recession or depression.I allege that the Fed does not fulfill its obligations, and should be replaced and abolished.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...