BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prove that the god according to the bible exists

You cannot prove that YOUR god exists regardless if you using the bible or not. I mean come on here, the bible is not proof of evidence of any kind. And I really should slam you to the dirt for thinking up such a stupid excuse and completely wasting a round. You should have done as such in your clearly not knowing AT ALL what you are talking about. To prove it, NOBODY, not one person, no one, has ---ever--- been able to prove YOUR god's existence according to the bible, and you honestly think you can? A person who is home schooled and in the 9th grade? And since this is true according to you, where oh where and how do you get your biblical and godly instructions from that you, nor anyone follows, so you are NOT a christian, nor can you or anyone ---ever--- be. But first yah gotta prove your god exists, in which you can't.
My political views are more logica and better than my opponent's.

Socialism- In what sort of world would you value sucess as one man having billions of dollars while millions go hungry. Sucess is not valued in the amount of money you can posess but the benifiet you give to society, aren't you a christian? This is not punishment but rightegousness and letting all mankind live in the realm free of starvation. Global Warming- Thank you for affirming global Warming I agree totally. Racial Profiling- "If I see an arab in an airport, I will be kinda scared and suspicious. " How is this anything more then textbook biggotry and xenophobia? Labor Unions- "Conditions may not be as good, but in America, there are other options" Yes conditions will not be as good and what "other options" do you speak of? Conclusion- Be the judge on whose vies are indeed more "logical and better", thank you.
My political views are more logica and better than my opponent's.

Socialism-It is a sad reflection on our society when the people who work hard to make their money lose it to the poor people. Socialism is about punishing the rich and rewarding the poor. In reality, the rich should be rewarded and the poor should be punished. It encourages the poor to get out of their slums and the rich to keep working hard and make their businesses bigger. Global Warming-The link would not open for me. Global warming, as I have previously stated, is just the earth's cycle. Somehow the earth got warmer several thousand years ago, then the Earth got colder in the little ice age, now it may be getting warmer again. Racial Profiling-Rahman wasn't arrested just because he was muslim, he also had burns that suggested that he was close to the bomb at the time of the explosion. Racism-The belief that one race is better than another. Therefore, it is not racist to believe that one ethnic group is more prone to crime. If I see an arab in an airport, I will be kinda scared and suspicious. Labor Unions-A labor union makes running a business more expensive. Conditions may not be as good, but in America, there are other options. Labor unions inspire laziness and inefficiency. My dad is part of the teamsters and constantly complains about the other workers not working but the Union is not allowed to fire them.
My political views are more logica and better than my opponent's.

Socialism-I t is not rewarding the lazy it is giving everyone an equal shot. If you think the 1/6 in this coutry who struggle with hunger are on a level playing field with the 5/6's that do not have such issues then you have another thing coming. It is a sad reflectionon our society that such a slim amount of the population posses so much wealth and many of them do little to benifiet socity and their children get to take everything for granted. Also it is absolutley sickening any man can sleep at night with billions of dollars in the bank while a majority of the world lives off a mere few dollars a day. It is defeat for society when we are divided by the have and the have nots and it is illogical to support this division.Global Warming- Not to disapoint you but almost every scientist in the field agrees there is global warming. I cannot see how it is logical to ignore a growing scientific and data consensus that there is indeed global warming. Racial Profiling-How did profiling Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harb go? That poor Suadi student got bounced on by many news networks but then it turned out it was two Russian brothers and Abdul had nothing to do with the plot. He was Arab, Muslim, and perhaps even a radical but he was not guilty. Now the poor kid will never live that down even thoughj he has done nothing wrong. Racial profiling does not work a good deal of he time and it is racist and frankly humiliating. It is illogical to support such a vile system.Labor Unions-Many industrial, textile and mining employees across the world today are explioted and taken advantage of by their employers. A labor union allows these impovershed individuals bargin to improve their standard of living and push forward out of poverty! It is illogical to be agianst labor unions for individuals rising out of poverty is a win for society as a greater chunk of the population can afford to educate their children who may then go onto to innovate and improve society as a whole.
My political views are more logica and better than my opponent's.

Socialism-Socialism is bad. Socialism is taking away from the people who work hard, got an advanced education, and tried hard all of their life, and giving to the people who did none of this. Why punish those who work hard? Why reward laziness? Let the people reap what they sow. Global Warming Existence-All evidence for of against global warming is biased. It is just one big scheme by the government to make people care for the enviroment and buy "green" light bulbs from China instead of those from Tennessee. The only global warming is the product of the Earth's environmental cycle. For example, the Earth got significantly warmer from the Paleolithic to Neolithic time periods, history teaches anyway. Whose to say it will not get warmer. Who is to say it does not get colder. Racial Profiling-Have you ever been to a prison where I live. I have(on a tour). The majority of people were black. A cop should start with the black neighborhoods when looking for drug dealers or murders simply because of the higher probability of finding the person there. How about airport security. If a muslim person walks in, the TSA should check them out. Simply because the Muslims have a history of blowing up airplanes. Labor Unions-My father works for one of these labor unions, the Teamsters. He complains constantly about how no one works. If a person is in a Union, the company cannot fire them for overall laziness or low work ethic. The person will file some sort of grievance. Furthermore, when the layoffs happen, the companies often go by seniority. The companies do not go by work ethic. Therefore, the people with the high work ethic get laid off, the lazy people keep their jobs, and the company can no longer turn a profit. I find that we also seem to disagree on taxes(which I have basically given my reasoning in my argument against socialism) and government assistance(which I will also add to the debate) Government assistance-This is like socialism. Raise taxes on the rich so that the government can give money to the poor. This encourages laziness on part of the rich and the poor. The rich will stop working and the poor will never start working. This is because it appears more profitable to be lazy. Furthermore, when the Gov't raises taxes for the purpose of welfare, businesses lose money that they could employ people with. Thus, unemployment increases, more welfare, higher taxes, more unemployment. A cycle that continually gets worse. Cut back on welfare, fix the trend. Encourage people to work, especially where the work is needed. For example, in south GA, there is a labor shortage on the farms. People are too lazy to get the job on the farm even though the farmer is willing to hire them. These people stay on welfare and the crops rot. Cut welfare and these people do not have a choice. So far I have defended my views. My opponent shall now try and refute my opinions.
he electoral college be abolished

I would like to start out by saying i meant swing states, and i wrote swing states all but 1 time. Also, my opponent claimed it was a false assumption to say that america is about what the people want. WHAT?! The whole reason america was crated was so the people could get what they want. If most of america wants something, that is safe for our health, we will get it. We got women to vote. Now lets get everybody's vote to count the same, instead of swing states votes counting for everything. I admit I made 1 typo so my opponent used that to get around not refuding my point that america is about what the people want, not about what the swing states want. NYC's population in approximately 8 million people. Los angel's population is about 3,500,000 people. Philadelphia's population is about 1,500,000 people. Americas population is 315,556,000 people. I know not everyone can vote, but no website has an eligible voter count, so saying that everyone can vote. A president would have no choice but to campeighn in every state, because clearly, those state's populations are not enough to get a decisive vote. Meanwhile, in the electoral college, a president only has to campeighn in swing states to win the election. So why do we want only a few state's deciding our country. Also, how is the popular vote like replacing a best of 7 world series with whoever gets more runs. The world series has nothing to do with what THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA want. I would also like to rebut my opponent's point about changing to a full direct democracy. According to an article on slate.com, another option is, instead of amending the constitution, have every state approve the popular vote plan. So, we would not have to change to a complete direct democracy at all. Also, I would like to see a direct source on ancient greece being the last country to use a popular vote. I know they have sources, but I want direct source on that. My sources are, Forbes.com, and procon.org. I would to close by repeating a few of my opening statements. Like, 4 times in history, the winner of the popular vote has not won the election, so we had a president that america's people didn't want. So, a country that was built on the theory that we do what the people want, had a leader that the people did not ant. Also, if you are a republican in a democratic state, or a democrat in a republican state, you have NO say in the election. So again, a country also built on the grounds that everyone has an equal say, people have no say in our election. My closing... Does every vote really count?
he electoral college be abolished

I would like to rebut my opponents' rebuttal. He said that America is about what the people want, and that a popular vote would be what the people want. But that is based on a false assumption that we are a direct democracy, which we are not. We are a republic, so we don't do direct popular votes. Also, he said that since everybody's vote counts, presidents must campaign everywhere. But why would they campaign everywhere when they could just campaign in the big cities of one region and win the election by dominating that region? My opponent also stated that their is no connection that would make small states lower their voting age. But their is. Since presidents are only going to campaign in the cities with lots of people that can vote for them, the small states would lower their voting age so that they have more eligible voters so presidents might come to their cities. My opponent also made a point about slavery. However, abolishing slavery required us to have a CIVIL WAR, that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. Do you want to have another civil war over abolishing something that works? I don't think that's what the people want, which, according to you, means everything. Also, my opponent stated that, "if america is a country about what the people want, we should get to directly choose our president, instead of a handful of SING states. He made quite the typo right there. What are singing states? Are they going to be on American Idol? But anyways, if we should get to directly choose our president, then we would have to change our entire democracy to a direct democracy, which hasn't worked since Ancient Greece, and risk the success our country has had for 247 years with a republic. Lastly, you said that the electoral college can tie, and that if the House/Senate is favored towards a party, then they will give it to that candidate. But remember, WE elect the people of the House and Senate. If they're biased, that's our mistake in voting for them. Also, the electoral college ties were in 1800 and 1824! That was a really long time ago, when our country was much less populated. Their were 24 states! 24 ! That's less than half the amount of states that we have now! Of course it was easier to get ties. But now. the chance of a tie has lowered greatly with 50 states and hundreds of millions of people. Thank you. Sources: saveourstates.org, heritagefoundation.org
he electoral college be abolished

First, I would like to rebut some of my opponents arguments. First, the electoral college is not fine system. America is about what the people want. Why do we want a handful of states deciding our country, instead of everybody. My opponent has claimed that only big cities will matter more in the popular vote because they will campaign there. But the difference is that in the electoral college, people in non-swing states don't matter. In a popular vote, people not in the big cities vote's still count because everybody's votes count, so they must campaign everywhere. In the electoral college, a republican president does not have to go to republican states that they know they will win. This makes people not want to vote for a president because they don't know either candidate since hey never went to their state. How would doing a popular vote have anything to do with states lowering their voting ages? There is no connection. Also, how is a popular vote like saying whoever scores more runs in the world series wins? In the electoral college, there can be a tie. Twice in americas history, there has been an electoral college tie. We had to have the house of representatives decide. That means that is the house is republican or democratic, they may decide he election in their favor. Also, my opponent might say that the electoral college is too hard to pass. Well, 56% of america wants a national popular vote plan. If more of america wants something, then we ail slavery. Slavery, and women voting laws were both passed against odds because the people wanted it. If america is a country about the people, we should be able to pass this. Finally, if america is a country about what the people want, we should get to directly chose our president, instead of a handful of sing states.
he electoral college be abolished

The electoral college should not be abolished. It is a perfectly good system that has led to peaceful transfers from president to president for 200 years. Why risk that by changing to a popular vote? In 2000, all the votes in Florida needed to be recounted, and that took a long time. What if we had to have a national recount? We could be without a president for months! What if a country were to attack us during those months. We would be in complete disarray, and get destroyed by that country! In the electoral college, you don't have to do a complete recount if you mess up counting, because whoever gets the majority of votes wins that state, you don't need to be exact. Also, a purely popular vote would cause the small states to lower their voting age to 16 or 17 so presidents campaign there. Do we really want teenagers deciding the future of our country? Also, the electoral college forces presidents to campaign in all the swing states, and doesn't allow you to win the presidency by dominating one region of our country. If there was a popular vote, presidents would only campaign in the big cities: New York City, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. Getting rid of the electoral college for a popular vote is like getting rid of a best of 7 World Series and replacing it with whoever scores the most runs over the 7 games. Did the Marlins not win the world series in '02 because they scored less runs? Of course not. Also, remember that the last country that successfully used a direct democracy was Ancient Greece. Why? Because it doesn't work. Thank you. Source: saveourstates.org, heritagefoundation.org
he electoral college be abolished

4 times in american history, the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college. What? Isn't america about what the people want? America is a democracy that is supposed to do what the people want. Does every vote really count? If you a republican in a democratic state or the other way around, you vote is all but worthless. The electoral college is outdated and made for a different time. The reason the founding fathers made it was so the man at the tavern was not deciding the election, they wanted a filter. But now, the filter takes away people's say in the election. Do we really want a president that the people don't want? America is about doing what the people want, not what the bigger states that have more republicans or democrats want. So again, Does every vote really count?
he electoral college be abolished

I would like to start off my final statement by answering my opponent's need to see a direct source. The source is answers.yahoo.com, thank you very much, which is a perfectly reliable source. I would like to rebut my opponent's point that a president would have no choice but campaign in every state. The candidates would still only campaign in swing states. It's not as if a popular vote suddenly stops the states from being favored towards a certain party. They are in fact favored towards a party even more! With the electoral college, the candidate that wins California gets 55 electoral college votes. But with the POPULAR vote, the candidate that wins California gets around 25 million million votes, and the other candidate gets around 11 million. What's more fair, a 55 vote difference, or a 14 million vote difference? The candidates wouldn't campaign in the states that are favored towards a party, because they aren't going to win over millions of votes, not even close. And the popular vote would stop presidents from campaigning in small swing states, because it's only 500,000 to 1 million votes, it's nothing compared to 315,556,000 votes, right? Also, every state would not agree to the popular vote plan, not if it's 56% to 44% in favor of it. I would like to close by saying, again, that in 2000 and 2012, we needed to recount Florida, and that took a long time. Luckily, however, we knew that Obama had already taken the presidency, and that Florida didn't matter. (Thanks to the electoral college.) Had we been using a popular vote, we wouldn't have known whether or not Obama was president yet, and we would've been slaughtered by a country that could attack us, while waiting for every vote to be counted about who the president is. It wouldn't have taken so long for just Florida, but if we had had to do a national recount, then that could take months. The chances of us being destroyed in that time period would be much greater. Would we really want to take that risk, only to get rid of a system that already works? I don't think so. The electoral college should not be abolished.
The war in Iraq

The war in Iraq is a nessacary cause. a preliminary strike was needed due to the fact that Sadaam Hussain had weapons of mass destruction, which he would've used if the U.S. had not interveined.hoe do we know he had WMD's we gave them to him during the cold war to fight off communist influence and rise against a regieme the U.S. deemed hostile. How do we know he would've used them, he killed hundreds of thousands of his own people even his family. He made many threats to use them against the U.S.; whom he despises. Operation desert storm and the operation irqi freedom are the same war ther was no treaty ending the first iraq war and thus we were there not only for the cuases of weapons of mass destruction and the furthering of all human's rights.
The Christian God Exists

You insulted the perfect law so I defended it. I never claimed that the fact that the Israelis loved it meant it was from God. The Earth is either a cube or it is circular. Those who seek for the truth in the Bible can know when the Bible is using a metaphor and when it is literal easily by the context. If someone now said "I've been searching for you to the corners of the Earth" do you assume he thinks the Earth is a cube? That would be idiotic. And there is nothing absurd with God setting up a tent on a sphere. After all, we are on a sphere, aren't we? And many set up tents on this sphere. My sources indicate that the prophecy was written long before Cyrus was even born. I even included the years everything happened AFTER the prophecy was written. Everything fulfilled to the smallest detail. I'm not sure I addressed this before so I will do it now. You said anyone can predict the downfall of the most powerful city. How about being right about the name of who will do it, and specifically how he will do it, hundreds of years before it happens. Can anybody do that? You think it was coincidence that the first emperor called Cyrus successfully conquered Babylon without a fight because the gates were carelessly left open just like the Bible said? I already explained what the Egypt prophecy means. The Nile is just part of that prophecy. What does it mean? You might find the answer if you do a careful research of the importance of the Nile river to the Egyptians. The desolation most likely isn't symbolic, though. "After the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., the remnant of Judah fled to Egypt despite the prophet Jeremiah"s warning. (Jeremiah 24:1, 8-10; 42:7-22) That did not prove to be an escape for them because Nebuchadnezzar came up against Egypt and conquered it. The 40-year desolation of Egypt may have followed that conquest. While secular history provides no evidence of this desolation, we can be confident that it took place because Jehovah is the Fulfiller of prophecy."Isaiah 55:11." http://wol.jw.org... Everything with practical wisdom is not from God. But something from God is expected to have practical wisdom. I don't see how this is hard to understand. Why do we suffer? Why does a completely loving and good God allow suffering? Will God end suffering? If so, why does he wait so long? It's all explained here: http://www.jw.org...
The Christian God Exists

Rules Full burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the Christian, omniscient omnipresent omnipotent and omnibenevolent, god exists. No semantics. Con: Round 1- rules and structure Round 2- Main arguments and rebuttals Round 3- rebuttals Round 4- Rebuttals and closing statement Pro: Round 1- Opening arguments Round 2- Arguments and rebuttals Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Pro must only type "No round as agreed upon"