BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump and the Republicans will lose the 2020 election.

Here are my arguments on why Donald Trump and the Republican Party will lose the 2020 U.S. election.First, since his tenure as President of the United States, more Americans distrust him because of the campaign he ran, which from their persepctive, inflicted racism, bigotry, homophobia, and xenophobia. Second, his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Change Agreement caused anger to the international community, given the fact that he was elected to represent "Pittsburgh, not Paris", which is shameful and disgusting.Third, his Republican allies wasted no time to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and replace with the American Health Care Act (Trumpcare), which if it becomes a reality, will hurt 11 million Americans and causing the economy to dwindle. Fourth. his election victory was cheered by the extreme far-right in Europe such as Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, Frauke Petry, Norbert Hofer, and Matteo Salvini, white nationalists, and Russia. Even Rodrigo Duterte congratulated him because from his tenure, he openly criticized Obama and praised Trump. Fifth, he promised to "drain the swamp in Washington", but his Cabinet are extremenly unpopular to Americans, especially Betsy DeVos and Neil Gorsuch, which the former is extremely unpopular for her actions and her words on the state on education, and the latter stole from Merrick Garland. And last, his party's special election victories in Kansas, Montana, Alabama, and Georgia would lead to another Republican control in both Houses and could possibly trigger a financial crisis even worse than the Great Depression of 1929 and the 2008 global financial crisis, both under Republican control at those times. With all that in mind, with more Americans disapproving the President's performance, disapproving the acts by the Republican Party, and with continuous anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia, it all makes sense that Trump's America will head into oblivion and the people want real change by handing back the power to the Democratic Party.These are the unbiased facts which I presented to my opponent and I await for him to question my arguments.
Doge is awesome

I think you've gotten this confused with your other current debate about Doge. We are not currently comparing Doge to anything. Regardless, I shall proceed to argue my point. Doge is a dog. He is indeed an interesting looking dog, but he is just a dog. He does not "inspire great admiration" in very many people (me included), he is not impressive in many ways, nor daunting. I also do not fear him. How could he be awesome? He is a dog.
Coconuts are Evil

Again some very good points raised from my opponent here. "Coconuts kill people but malaria kills more - so coconuts are harmless": You stated that "Coconuts are surely one of the most evil forces on the planet". One of the definitions of evil is "Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction" Source: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...My table clearly shows it is not one of the main causes of suffering/injury/destruction. I am actually for Genetically Modified foods so we may be able to agree on some level. Voters: Pro failed to provide any evidence to support his claim.
Coconuts are Evil

Dear Confused One, You seem to have slightly missed the point, here. The fact that the figure for how many deaths are caused by coconuts is pulled from thin air is irrelevant, by saying that you have proven that the figure was indeed pulled from a certain source. You have also mentioned how they are not one of the largest killers in modern society, for other things kill more than them. However I do not think that such a thing means they are harmless. To say that there are larger killers is not to say that coconuts are harmless. It is the equivalent of saying: "Coconuts kill people but malaria kills more - so coconuts are harmless" Such a statement is obviously wrong. Therefore, I propose that we genetically mutate the evil coconut beasts so that they all die of CocoCancer. Agreed?
Coconuts are Evil

An interesting position. Let start first of all with my opponents source from which he gets the figure of 150 deaths per year. The entire article is actually a news piece on how this figure has been plucked from thin air and has no actual data support. The ariticle concludes with the following sentence,"Conclusion: Somebody pulled the figure about 150 deaths due to coconuts out of thin air. Take that, shark lovers"Coconuts are one of the most evil forces: I assume my opponent is refering to the amount of people they kill. (or as I showed before actually dont kill) Here is a list of the top causes of death. World Deaths in millions % of deaths Ischaemic heart disease 7.25 12.8% Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease 6.15 10.8% Lower respiratory infections 3.46 6.1% Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 3.28 5.8% Diarrhoeal diseases 2.46 4.3% HIV/AIDS 1.78 3.1% Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers 1.39 2.4% Tuberculosis 1.34 2.4% Diabetes mellitus 1.26 2.2% Road traffic accidents 1.21 2.1% Source: http://www.who.int...As you can see Coconuts do not appear on the list.BOP was on my opponent to prove cocunuts are one of the most evil forces on the planet and next round no new arguments can be raised. He has failed to do so hence a clear win for CON.P.S Cocunuts taste nice.
Coconuts are Evil

Coconuts are surely one of the most evil forces on the planet. Coconuts kill 150 people every single year and will continue to do so. Whereas just 15 people die each year from shark attacks. Therefore coconuts are ten times more deadly than sharks. My proof is represented here: http://www.straightdope.com.... To deny that coconuts are evil provides a gaping flaw in logic. They taste horrible too.
Spanking children

First of all we have to clarify the differences between spanking your children and physically abusing them. Of course abusing your children can and will probably have the psychological and social effects you mentioned above but that's an another story, in this debate we talk about spanking. From my point of view and from personal experience some children need to be physically stimulated in order to understand something , you cannot just say to them "NO" and they will stop doing the thing that you find inappropriate, I can tell you that because I was on of this children and believe me I never felt abused or damaged because of those 1 or 2 times my mother had to spank me and certainly after some sessions with a psychologist (due to dyslexia) he figured that I was a mentally stable individual. On the other hand scientists tell you not to spank your childern because this can cause them serious mental problems but I believe that they themsleves are talking more about abusing them than spanking them once or twice in there lives, because yes if you spank them for every little thing that they do wrong you will certainly cause some psychological damage to them. Lets not forget the ancient greek proverb "\4;^1;`4;`1;_9;_7; ^0;`1;_3;`3;`4;_9;_7;" meaning everything should be done in moderation.
Spanking children

First of all studies show children who are spanked are more likely to have things mental health problems, which can lead to suicide along with developmental problems, behavioral problems, social and problems and cognitive problems! In this Argument I will talk about mental health. Children will first be bullied by other children due to their social problems, they would already be a little depressed by being spanked anyways, when it all continues they might kill themselves! Now this can be rare but it does happen and I think we need to take action, a child is never worthless and might take a big role in our future society but if they give up then some changes to our lives we never knew could happen would not happen. Mental illness is a serious thing and I want to take action in saving these poor children.
Human Cloning

Again not a lot of people want to pay for all this research. We are already having economic issues with animal cloning and how much that costs, human cloning is just going to cost more. There is problems with recovery. The success rates are very low. DNA is being damaged by radiation from the cloning process. From there the clone is going to have issues. A clone is made from cells taken from an adult embryo. There is evidence proven that the clone will grow up a lot faster than a normal baby. Eventually they will not live long. http://www-hsc.usc.edu... http://healthresearchfunding.org...
Human Cloning

Cloning violates human individuality and freedom of human beings. I agree there are some conditions that cloning could help. However cloning goes against human rights. It can lead to a devolution of clones in comparison to non clones. People are having issues with cloning because people think it is a godly act. It can be viewed as inferior. As I stated before clones could create social divisions among people. http://humancloningproject.weebly.com... http://cbhd.org...
Human Cloning

Yes, I agree there could be ways to change that, however not everyone wants to pay for that. I'm sure it will cost a lot of money to do that. There is also other problems with cloning. It says that "mutnd defective genes could be elimanted," is not always true. Cloning interferes with normal conditions of the human body. Some diseases you can not just fix. A calf had died from skin cell extraction and rapid depletion of red and white blood cells. There are going to probelms witgh cloning and we all know that. There will be some we can fix, but there are some that are highly unlkiely we will be able to fix. http://healthresearchfunding.org...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Human Cloning

Even though you Dolly developed lunge disease and arthritus there's ways to tend to that. You can also clone organs in order to replace damaged ones. With Dolly they could of cloned her lung and replaced it. They could've cloned other damaged parts of the body and replace them as well. Even if a clone as a disease develope that doesn't mean they'll have to die. They can just clone and replace that part of the body or the organ. WWW.clone organs.com/pros-and-cons-of-cloning/20/
Human Cloning

Just because a cloned heart "seems " to work doesn't mean it will work for the clone. Dolly e sheep was the first animal to be cloned in 1996 and ony lived for 6 years. She had developed a lung ddisease and arthritis. For sheep that young that disease is very uncommon. Who is to say that this will or will not happen to humans? It has been proven that 95% of mammal cloned have failed. How many peoples' clones have to die before people notice it is not working out. It is also proven that in later development clones will have many abnormallties such as long organs. This leads to problems with bleeding, and blood flow. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... http://www.ama-assn.org...
1.Salvation is wholly an act of God. 2. God chooses who is saved. 3.Saving grace is irrisistible

. http://www.youtube.com...Let me close of by quoting the debater in the video on this subject, We should not ask "How does a sovereign god express his love? " but rather we should ask "How does a all perfect loving god express his sovereignty? "You ask it the first way and there's an emphasis on the omnipotence of God being the character defining attribute about him. You ask it the second way, and the emphasis is on his love defining his character. And the character of god is everything that matters in this debate, or many theological debates. 'does god infringe on the laws of physics? ' for example. If your going to determine if a supernatural intervention upon the laws of nature is possible, you have to support that God is of a character who would brake those laws that he himself made, or at least on special occasion he would. In this debate his character needs to be looked to if we are to say he would be of the sort to punish us for our disbelief which we were never elected to have the faith to begin with, or if he would punish us as a result of actions that were not ultimately set in stone by him before we ever thought to do them, but rather actions that we did on our own against his will. Is it within the character of God to limit his sovereignty for the sake of love, or is it within his character to limit his love for the sake of sovereignty? The answer should be clear, for all who know just a fraction about what the bible teaches about our god. The god who is love itself, a love that went on the cross to die for us while we did not deserve such a sacrifice. Omnipotence defines the extent of Gods ability but it does not relate to his character, and only by his character does he act. God may be able to do anything but he will not just do anything for his very character prevents him from taking certain actions. Actions that are evil for example. If you do not contest that God made us to be loved by him and to love him, then you cannot contest that his love would limit him from determining our love for him for us. that is not how love worth creating works. It is something that was made to be freely given, any love not given freely is not worthy of our god to have. In conclusion1) my opponent forfeited the last two rounds, in effect not refuting any of my arguments2) these arguments he failed to refute include. .. a) sin cannot exist without free will from god b)the problem of evil negates views of god that do not allow for free will, the entire story of genesis falls apart with the Calvinist view on elected salvation c) omnipotence is not challenged by Gods restraint on his own actions and d) any differences in our understanding of scripture can be explained away easily, but with the simple logic behind how a god with a character like ours has would do things cannot be refuted. How does the God that is love itself express his sovereignty?
(ELO)The death penalty is a justified form of punishment.

Argument 1: In the case of people without psychopathy, my argument stands. In the case of those with psychopathy, nothing would be a punishment. If they cannot feel guilt, no punishment (including the death penalty) will effectively punish the criminal, so it cannot be considered a justified form of punishment. Argument 2: In this case, my opponent makes a fallacious argument. The issue at hand is not what the majority of the population believes is justifiable. As a matter of public safety, a lifetime of hard work in a prison or other secure facility would be preferable. It is more cost-effective, more productive, and there is the potential for a cure in the future. The criminal would be kept away from the rest of society while still benefiting it.
(ELO)The death penalty is a justified form of punishment.

I apologize to my opponent and any readers of this debate for my forfeits. I concede the conduct vote as per rules. However, so as not do drop any arguments, I will respond to them below.A1: The death penalty is not a punishment. My opponent's first argument is that because the death penalty does not punish the criminal, it is not a form of punishment and thus cannot be justifiable. However this point is fallacious. The reason is because she makes the faulty assumption that all criminals sentenced to death would even possess a burden of knowing what they had done and thus be subject to a life of guilt. This claim is erranous in that it does not take into account the existence of people afflicted with the mental disorder known as psychopathy. Persons afflicted with this disorder are characterized by two things. The first characterization is that they completely lack the human emotion we call 'empathy'. They have absolutely no basis for putting themselves in another's shoes and so everything they do is inherently and necessarily egoistic. This might not be criminal though without the second characterization. They have an uncontrollable urge to either inflict pain on others or to kill. This type of behavior is known as sadism. The fact that they cannot conceivably feel guilt, coupled with the fact that they enjoy other people's pain is the reason why my opponent's reasoning against the death penalty fails in this sense.A2: The death penalty is killing and is thus no better than the crime it punishes.The assumption my opponent makes here is that killing of all kind is exactly the same. However there are multiple ways that killing can take place, that no one(or at least the majority of the population) thinks is unjustifiable. Examples of killing that are mostly seen as justified are:A- Killing in self-defenseB- Killing during wartimeC- Abortion*D- Killing animals for foodE- Killing plants for food, fuel, clearing land exc.F- Killing insects simply for beingKilling seems to be universally advocated except when it is just. I defend the death penalty not simply as a retributive punishment as my opponent believes, though it could be argued. I defend it in the name of public safety. A psychopath who cannot feel guilt and has an uncontrollable lust for sadistic acts cannot be cured(currently there is no cure to psychopathy). It can only be eliminated.Vote Pro for arguments, Con for conduct.* While abortion is not universally recognized to be justifiable, most would agree that under some conditions, abortion can be the best option.
(ELO)The death penalty is a justified form of punishment.

Arguments 1. The death penalty is not a justifiable form of punishment because it does nothing to punish the criminal, because they will be relieved of the burden of knowing that they have done something so horrible as to warrant punishment. As a punishment, it would be far more effective to sentence the criminal to a lifetime of hard labor. 2. The death penalty, although also a punishment, can be used as a way for the victim (or, in the case of murder victims, the family) to think they have justice. Instead, they prove that they are no better. They have also killed someone.
(ELO)The death penalty is a justified form of punishment.

I will be taking the affirmative of the resolution "The death penalty is a justified form of punishment." My opponent will take the negation of the resolution. This will be for the ELO tourney, hosted by Cliff[1]. Anyone may accept this challenge. However, acceptance of the challenge also means acceptance of all rules, definitions, and the way in which the BOP is setup.Rules1.) Any forfeit will result in loss of the conduct vote.2.) Drops will count as concessions.3.) Semantical or abusive arguments will not be allowed.4.) Acceptance of this debate necessarily includes acceptance of all rules, definitions, and the setup of the BOP.5.) Arguments will begin in R2. R1's only purpose will be for acceptance and clarifications as to the terms of the debate.DefinitionsDeath penalty: A sentence of punishment by execution.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Burden of proofThe BOP in this debate will be shared. Both debaters must not only refute their opponent's case, but must bring one of their own that sufficiently proves their position on either the negation or affirmation of the resolution.[1] http://www.debate.org...
"Machine-Gun Farts" are better than "regular expected farts" UNLESS IN PUBLIC

Okay, you say regular farting is bad, but really it is not. The MGF is a lot worse. The MGF depicts a man who farts small bursts, not from the same fart, but from different, seperate farts. Although the regular fart and the MGF CAN be equal, the MGF is more unhealthy because an increased rate of farting causes organic diseases including irritable bowel syndrome. So more farting (your MGF) means it is more unhealthy and you are likely to get more bowel related diseases that way. "In addition the M-GF is one of the greatest farts of all, and good friends always compliment it" But this would be classified as being in a public area. And the argument you make clearly says the MGF is better "UNLESS IN PUBLIC". Therefore, you are going against your previous arguments, saying the MGF is better in public. "How can that be a normal fart is always a "pfft" A M-GF can vary in ways such as (patapitapatapita or; ratatatatatataDING or; ptttttshkkkkkptttshkkkk)" This is incorrect. Just as a machine gun shoots the same sound frequency at a constant rate, the MGF will do the same. That is why it is called the machine gun fart, because it is a repetitive noise of the exact same frequency. Of course, the regular fart can be classified in one fart. It can be a multiple of different tones or frequencies, but can be long or short too. It is not classified with a name as the MGF is, so it has the right to be different than the MGF. "I have disproved everything you've said, and proved that the M-GF is a surely much better fart." Eh, not really. Here are my sources (you failed to provide yours): http://www.ccfa.org... Oh yes, one more thing. You say that a MGF releases more methane, but there is also a possibility that a normal regular fart can be seperated a multiple of time, releasing more methane than the MGF does. It can really go either way fart-wise. But I still stand that regulars are better than MGs.
"Machine-Gun Farts" are better than "regular expected farts" UNLESS IN PUBLIC

It is sad to see that you could not respond in time... I hope the voters do not pentalize you for that... Please at least try to answer the next round, all i can suppose is that you're busy.... Anyway, i will continue on with my side of the debate, so as i said earlier the MGF is a very powerful fart, compared to the regular fart. My opponent seems to get the RMF(regular methane fart) mixed up with the classic SBD(silent but deadly), which i think after he realized that he pretty much gave up on this debate... For more evidence that supports my theory that the M-GF is a better fart than the NMF, i will type a complete list of the pro's and con's of each one. < > ; PRO's : The M-GF is an extremely deadly fart that will daze nearby victims; you can obtain privacy; you can get a few laughs now and again; You're reminded that your body is healthy; Relieves long aching stomache pressure; RELIEVES A LOT OF PRESSURE to clarify that last statement; Will often be complimented by good friends; Loud, deadly, funny, and clean!>> ; CON's: The only thing i can think of is that sometimes the smell is pretty bad to yourself! presonally though i liek my own brand TEE HEE>> < > ; PRO's: it relieves SMALL pressure : CON's: Not as deadly, not as loud, doesnt relieve as much pressure as the M-GF, not as funny, no different tones, or pitches....Frankly just a bad fart, and i think the M-GF or the SBD could beat it any day! :)
"Machine-Gun Farts" are better than "regular expected farts" UNLESS IN PUBLIC

Machine gun farts are not better, because they seem wetter and you will have a more likely chance of crapping in your pants. I know this isn't serious, so I'm not gonna be serious lol Regular farts give a chance for someone to merely relieve some gas, whether you are in public or not, matters not. A machine gun fart will ultimately leave everyone in disgust of you. And you will most likely be commented with, "SICK!!!" and/or "GROSS!!!!". A normal or regular fart, no matter which frequency, tone, or length will always be normal and considered the greatest fart of all if pulled off exactly in correct terms that deserve a "ALRIGHT!!" and/or "AWESOME!!!". And sometimes people can pull off a silent but deadly smell with a normal fart. A machine gun fart will not be as deadly because it only reminds your body that you have only small pockets of gaseous gases in your body, and no hardcore gases.