BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump should be president

1. Totalitarian Trump: Give me some examples, how is Trump not bound by the constitution? What does he want to do that violates the constitution? If anything this proves that it is Hillary Clinton who is a totalitarian, because I can give you examples of how she has no regard for the Constitution. Such as how she received money from China in exchange for US military technology, committing treason against the United States, and violating Article 1 Section 9, last paragraph:“no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Vladimir Putin is not a dictator, the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, it’s called the Russian Federation, and it has as a constitution, which Putin obeys, meaning he is not a dictator. In fact he is a likeable guy, I also like his foreign policy, and how he is prepared to g to war at any time, by building his military, increasing military spending, but always choses peace first. He is a leader that will protect his nation and is loyal to the citizens, this is the kind of leader we need, in this case, Donald Trump. He is also kind of funny, because when Hillary Clinton said that Vladimir Putin “has no soul,” he said “I have no soul? Well, at least I have a brain.” 2. Trump vs. Islam: First of all, the First Amendment is only ensured to American citizens, we don’t have to, neither should we, grant it to foreigners. Second, just because Islam believes in a G-d doesn’t mean it deserves status as a religion, Manson founded a cult based on him as a god, but we didn’t grant his cult status as a religion, we arrested all his followers. I see no difference between Islam and Nazism, both are political and cultural ideologies devised by a mad man seeking political and military authority, which justifies horrendous things, and which contains occultic and spiritual beliefs, which Hitler did prescribe to. Both hate Jews, abuse women, and attempt to present its followers as the best people (Qur’an 3:110).
Donald Trump should be president

Sorry it took me so long to get back.First off, once again, I'm far from a Bernie supporter, but I don't think he has ever publicly admired Stalin, and you shouldn't be dragging his name through the mud by saying he does. Just because he's a socialist and may support certain aspects of communism doesn't mean he admires Stalin.1. Trump as an AuthoritarianYes, I do believe Trump would be an authoritarian. Under the second definition from Merriam-Webster [1] authoritarian essentially means a ruler not abiding by, or not bound to, his or her nation's Constitution. Pull through all my Trump is anti-Constitution arguments and you have a perfect match to the definition of Authoritarian. Throw in his admiration of Putin (which he definitely does, as via my sources you can find his outward admiration he himself admitted), and it's almost like he'd appeal to Americans who favor authoritarianism. [2]2. Defense of Trump vs. IslamA. Islam is a religion. [3] The definition of religion is essentially belief in a deity. [4] Islam is a monotheistic religion, as is evident not only as common knowledge, but also if you take a look at the Quran. [5] (Evidence can be found in the first verse on the page the link takes you to. English translations appear under the Arabic). Comparing Islam to Nazism is ridiculous.B. Trump's ban originally applied to literally every single Muslim not currently in the US, but he took a step back, saying it would apply to immigrants and American citizens living overseas. If they are only visiting a foreign country, they may return, but if they are citizens residing elsewhere, they wouldn't be allowed. {Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said Trump’s proposed ban would apply to “everybody”, including Muslims seeking immigration visas as well as tourists seeking to enter the country. Another Trump staffer confirmed that the ban would also apply to American Muslims who were currently overseas – presumably including members of the military and diplomatic service. “This does not apply to people living in the country,” Trump said in an interview on Fox News, “but we have to be vigilant.”} [6] Citizens residing overseas are entitled to the same rights as those living within our borders.Voters please remember, no new arguments in the final round, as per my framework.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.politico.com...[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://quran.com...[6] https://www.theguardian.com...
Donald Trump should be president

Hold on a second, you honestly believe that Trump will establish an authoritarian government? I wonder where you dug that up, do you honestly believe whatever the liberal television tells you. Trump isn’t anti constitution and I never said that because Jill Stein is a doctor she shouldn’t be president, I said that because she is a liberal she shouldn’t be president, you cannot elect a president who does not believe in the constitution. Banning Islam isn’t a violation of the freedom of religion because, first of all, the 1st amendment protects American citizens, not foreigners. Second of all Islam is not a religion, it is an ideology, invented by Muhammad for political and militant gain, it’s no different than Nazism, and should be treated likewise. Trump doesn’t admire Vladimir Putin per se, but China and Russia are enemies, Russia is afraid that China will destroy them, so Trump prefers Putin above De-zong, Bernie Sanders admires Barrack Obama and Joseph Stalin, who were real tyrants.
Donald Trump should be president

Alright. I'll start with a constructive, and will wait until the next round to attack Donald Trump as well as the arguments my opponent has provided. Though I believe literally any candidate would be better than Trump, my counter-proposition will be Gary Johnson, and I will provide Johnson's stances on major issues facing the United States. 1. Drug War Gary Johnson is a proponent of legalizing recreational marijuana and decriminalizing other drugs. [1] As Colorado has seen, this would decrease arrests [2], freeing up space from our nation's incredibly overcrowded prison system. [3] It would also create revenue from taxation to be spent on schools and youth drug prevention efforts, as well as create jobs. [2] It has also been correlated with decreased traffic fatalities and crime rates. [2] Legal marijuana would also help deal a blow to drug cartels. [4] 2. Spending Johnson vetoed many bills that included excessive spending while governor of NM and balanced the state's budget. He has experience balancing a government's budget. [5] 3. Taxes Johnson advocates a simplification of our tax system. [6] 4. Abortion Johnson is pro-life as an individual, and pro-choice when it comes to other people. Like most Libertarians, he's just going to leave you alone if elected. [7] 5. Education Johnson believes eduation should be left to the states, as it does not fall under the Constitution's outline of the role of the federal government. [8] 6. Environment The health of the environment is directly linked to our health as a species, and as government has a role to protect its citizens from harm, it has a certain role in ensuring a healthy environment. [9] Johnson also acknowledges the existence of global climate change. [9] [10] 7. Immigration Johnson advocates a simplified process to obtain legal status upon entry to the United States [11] and has stated on the Stossel Forum as well as the CNN Libertarian Town Hall that illegal immigrants would have some sort of punishment, likely a fine, then given a chance to become legal, rather than deporting them. 8. Terror Governor Johnson advocates a lessened global military presence, and believes in engaging in fewer conflicts and lessening support to rebel groups, as this has caused trouble in the past (ISIS, al-Qaeda). [12] 9. Bonus Points As a Libertarian, Johnson believes in personal liberty. Johnson and Weld combine for over a dozen years of executive experience [13], and not a single other candidate has any. [1] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [2] https://www.drugpolicy.org... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com... [5] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [6] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [7] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [8] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [9] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [10] http://climate.nasa.gov... [11] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [12] http://www.johnsonweld.com... [13] http://www.wsj.com...
Donald Trump should be president

Let's examine our alternative options:Hillary Clinton- A war criminal who committed treason against the United States on multiple occasions, sold US military technology to China in the china gate scandal, and who has sold Uranium through Uranium One to Russia, then selling it to Iran to help them get a nuclear weapon. Bernie Sanders- A communist who wants to tax our brains out, nationalise healthcareand drive its price through the roof, and destroy our right to bear arms. Jill Stein- A liberal doctor who doesn't believe in the constiution. Gary Johnson- wel I actualy like this guy but he wants free trade with China which will kill us.
Donald Trump should be president

As Pro did not set up any guidelines for this debate, I will take the liberty of doing so. Definitions: Donald Trump- Donald J. Trump, businessman and Republican presidential nominee should- I assume this not to be a traditional definition of the word, but rather one implying the best possible path of action. Therefore, the BoP falls upon Pro, as they must prove Trump is the best option as the next POTUS president- as in the head of the United States of America's executive branch of government *Counterplans amay be used by Con* Round 1: Acceptance/Definitions Round 2: Constructive Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Up to each debater, likely defense of constructive/extension of rebuttal Round 5: Closing Arguments/Voting Issues NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE FINAL ROUND
Humans are natural monsters---We need to fear ourselves

I am arguing that monsters are only through a misunderstanding of other cultures, that the more we understand the further it appears that monsters turn on out to be that, and that naturally in a species like ours. Where communication and working together is natural, that eventually with time, we will see this idea of monster fade away. I would also state that humans are naturally caring. It is in their interest to be protective, but also there is an empathy and sympathy in this species that others don't possess to this extent. Do we have, as humans have a few bad eggs? Yes, but I feel that if your statement was correct, than we would have many more wars than today. Despite the fact that we have 7 billion people, weapons capable of doing mass damage and evil, and so many culture/beliefs/ideologies, living so close to each other that don't just immediately run and attack the others... well, that also gives one a good reference point to see that humans aren't monsters. Don't get my wrong, I'm not an overly optimistic, blind to world events, random peace loving computer hippy. ( Just decided to make that phrase up) However, we have seen it time and time again, cultures which may have done horrible things to each other are eventually getting overrun by the human instinct to work together, if there is a monster in all of this, it isn't humans, it is more likely ideas and values that get passed down either thru religion, or a few very extreme governments with insane influence.
Humans are natural monsters---We need to fear ourselves

I am glad you bring up the tension from the Police Brutality cases... You make a very good case... congrats!Are either exclusively wrong... no...well unless you ask them... But essientially we cannot make up for our wrongs and we never have, the media will always depict officers as being racist, or whatever the new fad is... and infact in your own arguement the monsters are dictated by history and why shouldn't they and if they are how can that be changed unless we change hisory itself? We do fear each other but "isn't better safe than sorry" human emotions will dictate human fears and human fears actions and actions who we are, not the other way around>>> So far you have argued that fear is the problem but I would argue if it wasn't for fear nothing would change! We naturally accept things and fight for our beliefs is that wrong?If monsters are in a sense as stated before imaginary-- why do we fear them and "very fear that of humans that makes us "appear" to be monsters" isn't seeing believing? and if not than How can we judge what monsters are?if we don't know that but justify our actions we are nothing better than monsters...-BurningCrit
Humans are natural monsters---We need to fear ourselves

First may I say, very interesting argument topic and I look forward to this debate. With that being said, I bring to you the idea that a monster is in the eye of the beholder, and the definition of monster is usually dictated by history, and that we as a society have become less and less "monstrous", and that even with genocides of the recent century and the brutality that we describe as having the monster qualities it would be more akin to growing pains of a species. As we meet others who are not like us, our initial reaction is fear which causes us to things which are usually brutal. My reaction to your claim that we need to fear ourselves is that, no, we need to embrace ourselves more often. The times when brutality exist as humans it seems to center around a fear of the other and vis-versa. I think it is this very fear that of humans that makes us "appear" to be monsters, because as a pack and communal animals, the only way to justify brutality against another of our species is to make them out to be something else. I am not sure your location, but in the United States there is a huge issue between many cops and minorities. This is nothing new, but if you looked at the two different sides, they envision the other to be the aggressor, the dangerous "monster" that would kill them and not think twice. In reality, that is not true, they have been put in positions were fear overcame their basic knowledge of humans and they turned their enemy into a monster, because they did fear. To not fear, to go out with understanding and compassion may show that many of these horrible things that we talk about now in history could of been avoided, and as we grow as world, become much more intertwined people begin to see that humans are not the monsters, we just didn't take the time to learn about each other first.
Humans are natural monsters---We need to fear ourselves

A monster is as defined by googlemon·ster /G2;mänstər/nounnoun: monster; plural noun: monsters1. an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.and naturalnat·u·ral /G2;naCH(ə)rəl/adjectiveadjective: natural1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.I can see your confusion as said becouse some of this definition contridics itself, but what I mean is Humans are naturally born with the concept of Fear: an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.and childhood develops the sense of this fear with unnatural things like monsters...So my arguement is that Humans being naturally inclined to fear monsters become the things they sometimes fear most and this cycle is unpreventable. Individuals in a sense might not become a monster, but society seeing its own faults become a monster.Ex: America fought for its freedom becouse it feared rightly being enslaved, and eventually themselves became slave-drivers to African Americans and to this day even through repentance over and over and over again we still make ourselves the monster(s) in every story forgetting those who fought against it.
Humans are natural monsters---We need to fear ourselves

As I have accepted your challenge, and I completely and whole heartily disagree. I will make a few initial points. 1) What is a natural monster? Is this defined as something that kills/ destroys/ is violence? If so, are you including any animal with predatory instincts in that "natural monster" category? 2) Are you saying to fear one another or humanity as a whole? Is this a physical fear to one another, fear of breakdown of culture? What is the extent of the fear you are proposing? 3) As far as sources, can we agree to only use things current or recent and accountable history, science etc. while I am accepting of the concept of religion being brought in, can we keep this from a one god is better than another, (just out of respect towards the argument at hand)?
Scorpions are good pets in general.

Hey there, Chelcerae! I'll be arguing that scorpions are, overall, inferior to the various species more commonly taken as pets (Cats, Dogs, Birds, Lizards, etc). My arguments will be based on the following measures of pet quality: 1: Benefits of Owning 2: Safety in Handling 3: Adaptability of Habitat This is not a limit on what I will say; just an outline. If other topics are raised, I am perfectly willing to respond to them.
Scorpions are good pets in general.

I will be arguing that scorpions are good pets in general, and Con will be arguing that scorpions are not good pets in general. Good- To be desired or approved of Scorpions- A terrestrial arachnid (order Scorpiones) Pet - an animal kept in confinement General- not confined by specialization or careful limitation First round is for acceptance. The debate will be back and forth arguments and counter-arguments. All sources must be linked and available online, and no semantics are allowed. BOF is shared.
Jesus was Raised From the Dead

My opponent has put down quite a few arguments, all of which I believe to be fallacious. My opponent argues first that we cannot accept supernatural explanations of events as historical. This is all well and good, because it is not necessary in history to completely prove that something happened. All that can be expressed by historians is whether something probably happened. For example, it's probable that King William II of England had six daughters. It's not certain, but it's probable given the circumstances surrounding him. Similarly, I believe that given the historical evidence of Jesus' empty tomb found in the first recorded Gospel of the Bible, the Gospel of St. Mark, and given other facts, such as the fact that the disciples were ready to die for their belief Jesus had risen from the dead, I believe it is probable that Jesus was raised from the dead, at least more probable than other explanations of why Jesus disappeared from the tomb in which he was placed by Joseph of Arimathea. My opponent's second counter-claim is that the claim of the resurrection is not well attested at all by historical writing. But there are many accounts which have been dated to around when Jesus' disciples were around which attest to the historicity of many facts which make the resurrection plausible. Some of these sources are in the Gospel of Mark, which my opponent seems to think has been altered, and the epistles of St. Paul, which I notice he does not address. The problem with saying that the gospel of Mark has been altered and is therefore not a historical document is that there are other earlier versions of Mark, like QMark, which is an early version of Mark's Gospel, which makes an acount of Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalane and other women followers of Christ. I believe this demonstrates the historical facts which make the resurrection of Jesus historically probable. My opponent then makes disparaging remarks about Josephus, which I believe can be answered by historians nowadays. It is true there is some interpolations in the quote by Josephus about Jesus, but most of the interpolations can be shown to be from a non-canonical manuscript of Luke's Gospel, and so you can take out the words which favour Christianity and get to a ore passage. Most historians believe that the Jesus reference in Josephus' Flavianum is not entirely made up.[1] On the other historical quotes, they demonstrate more than my opponent lets on, I shall let the voters decide on them.
Jesus was Raised From the Dead

My evidence for the ressurrection of Jesus can be found in two paces, the first is in the Bible. In the NT's eariest documents Jesus' cave tomb is said to be found empty, despite it being sealed off by a rock, a rock that was almost impossible to move back over the cave entrance according to the Mark's Gospel.[1] My second piece of evidence is also in the Bible, in Paul's epistles where he describes Jesus as having risen from a cross yet more proof that he did do that because Paul was so persecuted for his belief that he wouldn't have wanted to lie, but merely get his beliefs out.[2] The second place you can get evidence of Jesus being resurrected are select Roman and Jewish historians writings, some of the people who wrote about Jesus being raised from the dead are Josephus, Mara-Bar-Serapion and Celsus. I will list their writings here and source them one-by-one Josephus- Antiquities of the Jews "Jesus, a wise man... appeared to them alive on the first day, and the sect named after him, the Christians, have not died out to this day.[3] Mara-Bar Serapion- letter to Mara-Ben Serapion "...what did the Jews gain by hanging their wise King? ...after they killed him their kingdom was abolished." (the Bible describes how the Jews will have their kingdom abolished if they reject the Messiah) [4] Celsus- History of Rome "Jesus accordingly exhibited after His death only the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality so wounded as He is described to have been."[5] 1. https://www.biblegateway.com... 2. http://www.bethinking.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://thedevineevidence.com... 5.http://thedevineevidence.com...
YOUNGSTERS MOVING TOWARDS WESTERNISATION ARE EXPLOITING INDIAN CULTURE

I disagree. I believe that I have a very good idea on the topic that you wanted to debate on. I do not believe that an Indian opponent is necessary to debate it, and to think so is incredibly ignorant on your part... no offense. As Pro, please respond to my rebuttal, and make your case on how/why westernization is exploting India in particular. Why is India above westernization or cultural change in general? Pretend I'm Indian (Uh, how do you know I'm not Indian, by the way?) and give it your best shot.