BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Essential state services should not be privatized

The privatization of state services will only be disastrous, and as it will only result in the future as a huge mistake. In this debate, I'll define 'essential state services' as 'state services which are always needed for citizens to live with comfort, such as medical services or in the case of South Korea, train services and etc'. Moving on to my argument, our first argument is about rights. Ladies and gentleman, privatization will only result in people becoming unable to use the services properly. Private corporations are corporations that chase profit most. Their sole aim is to get more profit. It is inevitable that when privatization happens, the price of the services will go up, because the corporations will try to get more profit. Some people might say that the corporations will actually lower their prices in competition, so it will be better than the government, but it is not so. The government sets their price so low that they actually don"t get enough profit to cover their losses. Even if private corporations try to lower their prices as much as they can, it will still be higher than the government. Higher prices will only result in lower classes unable to use public utilities. Ladies and gentlemen, does this make sense? Lower classes are same people, same with everyone. Then why can"t they use public utilities? Public utilities are linked with life, such as water, electricity, and medical services. And if those lower classes can"t afford that stuff, just because a private corporation tried to make more profit, their life will be no different with people in underprivileged countries, whose rights are violated. It makes no sense that people should die from lack of medical services because privatization happened and private corporations chased profit. Also, in state services, different areas have different profits. So, there could be also a result where private corporations cover this area with state services, but do not cover this area with the services. So I repeat, private corporations only chase profit, and they are not interested in things that have no profit because there will be only economical loss. However, the government is different. It is their actual duty to provide people with these kinds of services such as medical services and electricity services. It isn"t the private corporation"s duty to do so, so we see that the government will be much better in providing these kinds of services. It will be much more stable than privatization. If privatization really happens, people will lose all sorts of rights, such as the right to be given medical services, etc.
Lindsey Graham would make a better President than Mike Huckabee

I accept and thank my friend for this debate. Mike Huckabee is by far a better candidate for President. He is 59 years old, and served as Governor of Arkansas. Lindsey Graham is only a senator. Huckabee is a saved born again Southern Baptist Christian and as a wide range of support. Graham is not as well known. Huckabee is also very conservative. He is a champion against same sex marriage and abortion. Huckabee is also a former minister which means he could teach the country the word of God in the white house. Huckabee is also very much against common core. I rest my case, over to my good friend now :)
Lindsey Graham would make a better President than Mike Huckabee

I don't doubt that Lindsey Graham cares deeply about America. He has a prestigious record of service to his nation, this is true. Graham has served in the military and knows a lot about foreign policy I don't doubt it. Lindsey Graham is a good candidate, but he is not better than Mike Huck bee. Mike Huckabee has served I repeat as the Governor of Arkansas. He also deeply cares for America and is a champion for conservatives. Huckabee also knows the truth, that"we are moving rapidly toward the criminlization of Christianity." He is against gay marriage and abortion and is a deep passionate leader for America. I realize voters may say church and state, but the Southern Baptist minister has the wherewithal as a Christian to lead America forward to at least its 240th birthday and beyond. I rest my case for this round and thank my friend for his time and the debate :)
Lindsey Graham would make a better President than Mike Huckabee

Thank you for the debate. :) While Lindsey Graham may not be as well known, that should not be a reason to not vote for him. Lindsey Graham got into politics in the year 1994. While working in the House of Representatives, Graham voted for the Defense for marriage act(1996), he was also a member of the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Bill Clinton(1998). Graham has served on four committees: 1. Committee on International Relations: 1995-1998 2. Committee on Education and the Workforce: 1995-2002 3. Committee on the Judiciary: 1997-2002 4. Committee on Armed Services: 1999-2002 Graham cares deeply about America, otherwise, he wouldn't run for President.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

thank you for demonstrating that miracles occur. the bible's claims cannot be observed or checked into, it's weak as a standard, even theists would acknowledge that. i do have some points about whether they were atheists, whether they could be said to be atheists still, etc etc.... but on technicality i suppose i concede the debate. my ultimate bottom line beyond all the technical points is that faith and or God causes miracles to happen, and this has been established.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

Yes, I'm sorry about the citations. I forgot to put them in the round, but i put them in a comment when I realized that I forgot them. Here they are. 1.http://www.revelife.com... 2.http://www.mindpowernews.com... The main point of my opponent's arguments here is that the people form my examples weren't actually atheists or that the miracle didn't happen to them. Under inspection, neither of these points hold up. On my first example, the Pro says that if the man saw God, then he couldn't be an atheist. Firstly, the title of the article that I got the story from is "A Near Death Miracle: The ATHEIST Who Saw God". Second, the man was an atheist until the miracle happened. It was because of the miracle that the man became a theist, so the miracle still happened to an atheist. On my second example, the Pro says that the miracle doesn't count because it was the priest that did the healing. This is not a sufficient rebuttal because the miracle happened to the atheist, no matter who preformed the miracle. Also, he was an atheist because the article says he was "pretty hard boiled, and not religious". The part about little faith in general was more about faith in people and life. The Pro completely ignores my point about Jesus healing atheists in the Bible, so unless he is trying to discredit the Bible, then that point stands. I am winning this debate because I still have three good examples of miracles happening to atheists which the Pro has not sufficiently disproved. Also, Pro's only arguments were little nit-pickings about whether or not the people were technically atheists.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

i thank you for taking the challenge as stated, and using examples. but they are insufficient. if an atheist thinks he saw God walk in, and is healed, that means he's really not an atheist as he saw God etc. he must at least in some sense believe if he saw God himself. as part of conversion, it's too borderline to say it happened to an atheist. if a man is healed by a priest, it is the priest who healed the man. this may have been a technical win of this debate by you as the miracle occurred to an atheist. i assume he's an atheist anyway, you jus said he had little faith. so maybe it wasn't a technical win. too vague. even if this is a technical win, it still shows the miracle happened via the priest and not due to the atheist. it means if you remove all faith etc, nothing happens to atheists. (maybe i should put at "but no to atheists who are abscent faith from themself and anyone else") the gist of my point, is that you'd expect a pure atheist with nothing faith related to him, would have a miracle happen to him. perhaps you won on technicality, but the primary essence of my points still remain. you also didn't provide links to your citations or even written sources to look it up. just some numbers.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

I would like to start by clarifying that because of the nature of Pro's statement, I only have to show one or two examples of miracles happening to atheists. I have found three instances of miracles happening to atheists. Any one of these should be enough to disprove Pro's statement. The first miracle happened to an atheist that went through a difficult spine surgery. His name was not provided. This surgery left him in a great deal of pain and required another surgery. This surgery was also unsuccessful, causing the man even greater pain. At the point where he was contemplating suicide, the man believed that he saw God walk in, at which point the pain stopped. After that, he was fine, with only minimal post-surgery soreness. [1] The next miracle happened to an atheist man that had cancer. He had been fighting it for some time without progress. After some time, he allowed a religious friend's priest who preformed a ceremony and sent him on his way. "Jim [the atheist with cancer] and Sally [his wife] returned to Britain and Dr. Westcott examined him and discovered, to his shock and consternation, that Jim's cancer had undergone "a sudden and deep remission. " What particularly perplexed him, as Dr. Westcott explained to his fellow physicians and journal readers, was that Jim and Sally "are both pretty hardboiled, and not religious. Here was no believing couple: they had little faith in general. " [2] The final example of miracles for atheists happens in the Bible. There are numerous accounts of Jesus healing tax collectors, harlots, centurions, and sinners, many of whom were not religious. If even the Bible shows that miracles can happen to atheists, than I should win this debate. There is really nothing that Pro can do to win this debate now. I have shown that miracles can happen to atheists, so I win this debate.
God does not exist as anything but myth

We could go round, and round over specific cases, but the issue that underpins all the pro-God arguments is the claim that natural does not include all of the existence. As, for instance, natural could only include the physical universe, or physical universe + some non-physical stuff, but not all the physical stuff. I however, claimed, that it is impossible to separate physical from the non-physical: nature is integrated into one existence of everything, that I call "the universe". Everything that could possibly happen is natural. Therefore, every object in the universe must satisfy the law of nature in that it must have an identity. It can't be something arbitrary. And because it has an identity, then everything about this object is particular, and finite. Therefore, we may not apply transcendent to any object in the universe. There is no difference in status between the moon, the sun, a star, a man, an electron. None is transcendent, they are all natural. Therefore, the most you can call God is a being with consciousness and free-will. The least: inanimate matter, like the sun. But God could not have built existence (the world), unlike the Bible says, because he is part of the existence. If, as you say, God is the alien being that can trick people to end up doing what he wants by making them walk in some kind of maze, that does not make him all powerful. His power is limited, and someone who is more advanced could see through his exploits. As a result, he would not be able to "force" his will. Finally, your examples that God exists because there is stuff in the Bible that people couldn't know, does not prove a supernatural being, only at most that an alien being from another planet, who landed on Earth, and gave this info to the people. (However, people could have figured it out themselves, through indirect measurement.) In conclusion, the best you can do is God = alien being from another planet (or any other part in the universe)
God does not exist as anything but myth

Here is a summary of points that my opponent made: 1. To have true justice, God and after life are required to exist 2. That "God can bring His will about, and if required, make everyone else to bow to His will" 3. Transcending nature does not limit God to enter nature (for instance, as Jesus Christ), and from this concludes that "transcending nature" does not mean "to be outside of existence". 4. If we can formulate a concept of something, it is a proof that it must exist metaphysically. 5. We able to conceptualize things that we don't fully understand, such as the concept "everlasting", yet we classify it as metaphysical (that it actually exists). 6. God can do what people can not, such as: to know more, to not feel time and space, and to create (not clear what) 7. The Bible contains information that could not be known to people of the time If I have misrepresented my opponent's statements, he will correct me in the next round. For now, I will respond to these points. In point #3, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Point #1 implies that justice is a man-made concept. Point #7 implies (to an atheist) that people have already discovered by themselves under-currents in Biblical times. Point #4: not necessarily -- we can extrapolate by imagination. A flying spaghetti monster is made concepts from reality which we combine in a fantastic way. Point #5: we see "everlasting" indirectly; we also proved the "atomic theory" indirectly -- no one ever saw an atom. Point #6: a natural alien being from another planet could be such a God. In point #2, observe that the ability to force a will on others is already supernatural, therefore it can't exist. It is impossible to force an irresolute man. A man may refuse, or outright kill himself -- yet, he would not obey if he is sufficiently determined. This is because a man has free will.
God does not exist as anything but myth

My opponent offers the example of a man that professes not to swear, yet in the heat of the moment he swears. The fact that he swears contradicts his previous premise that "swearing is wrong". He then must reject that premise, because following this premise resulted in a contradiction. Contradictions are concepts of the mind. They are epistemological, not metaphysically. Our mind can entertain opposing premises for the purposes of identifying which one is correct. The concept of contradiction is a tool of logic. My opponent is correct in correcting me that the concept is not invalid -- I was mistaken. But this doesn't change the fact (and my claim) that contradictions do not exist metaphysically. Since God is supposed to be more than a figment of imagination of religionists, he is claimed to exist _metaphysically_. This is impossible from the definition and description of God. Further, my opponent confuses the concept with the referent of the concept, when he argues that a concept doesn't have to have an identity. First of all, a concept does have an identity, but this is not relevant to my point which is that the metaphysical referent of the God concept -- the actual God, and not the idea of God -- must have identity. Next, my opponent grants that the Christian God is not limitless in some respects. But is it not true that God is supposed to be all powerful? But this is a minor point. A major point is that every aspect of an entity must be _specific_. This is an equivalent of saying that an entity is natural. A God that is natural, yet is all powerful, is a God of Spinoza of Pantheism. Spinoza was excommunicated from Jewish religion, because God is supposed to be outside of nature, not inside. My opponent says that it is not claimed that God must be beyond nature, and then immediately states that God transcends nature. But "beyond" and "transcends" means the same thing: that God has some attributes outside of nature.
God does not exist as anything but myth

God does not exist as anything but myth. As myth, the God concept servers for literary purposes, as a fictional character in a fable. But metaphysically, in reality, God does not exist. He does not exist for several reasons, all of which boil down to the fact that God is a contradictory concept, and therefore is an invalid concept. Please note that by reality I mean everything that exists, the whole universe. This includes material things, and immaterial things such as consciousness, and even thoughts, which are processes of consciousness. God can not actually exist, because he would have no identity. Everything in reality has specific identity, specific attributes that define the entity. For instance, a person has a specific height, and a movement of a rolling ball has specific characteristic. A concept has specific definition and referents. A thought belongs to a process of a specific man's mind. All in all, everything that exists is of particular _identity_. But identity implies limitation. If God was real, than he would have limitations. But that contradicts the fact that God should have no limitations. Another way to see the same problem, is to note that God is supposed to be a supernatural being. A natural being would be one that exists in nature. Any being, no matter how powerful, would be a natural phenomenon. But this is not good enough for God -- he wants to be a super-natural being. This means he is outside of the universe, outside of existence. I.e. he does not exist (because there can be nothing outside of existence). There are other smaller points that prove that God can't be real. For instance, God denies the existence of Free Will, which we, people, have. And there are more widely known arguments: but I will not go into them, because the arguments I presented cut the concept at the root. Finally, please not that I am asserting that I know that God does not exist. I am not merely holding the agnostic position.
Politicians are bad for America

Your first contention is false. If you look to political policy, it covers a lot p the main issues from taxes, to job creation, to immigration to military, all candidates are forced to cover these issues to get elected. Even though their goal is to get elected, they have to create policies that appeal to at least 26 states in the US. Therefore, they are being elected to serve the people. For your second contention, this claim isn't actually true. If they only appeal to their party, they will get voted down in congress by the opposing party and possibly members of their own party too since many of their viewpoints are different from each other. They have to compromise for ye needs of everyone to succeed, so their party isn't the only group at interest here. that is why the jobs bills got turned down, primarily because it didn't appeal to republican interests. As for your last point, it doesn't matter if they didn't do what certain people for that. In military for example, the president has multiple advisors for that and even then the generals are the ones that control war operations. So the president may have the last say but his decision is based on high rank military officers advice. Plus, in most other issues, the president has been a part of them. Most of them have been attorneys, businessmen and politicians so they have experienced a lot in life beforehand. And for the record, Eisenhower was a general before becoming president.
Politicians are bad for America

Your 1st contention: They only work to please the people so they can get more time in office. They do the minnimum to please the people, not all they can do. Your subpoints A, C, and D are all the same, and by what I have said above, they are refuted. Your subpoint B is completely irrelevent because that is just to achieve support, and they only do the minnimum to please them. Your second contention is also not true. This is because they only do the minnimum to get as I have already said, they don't try their best. Your A subpoint is just another example of how politicians are bad. Lobbyists are only trying to rack up more votes regardless of whether it hurts America or not. The debt would be much lower without them. Your B subpoint is irrelevent because they only spend money to benefit themseleves by racking up votes. Politicians are just lobbyists.
Politicians are bad for America

I accept: here are my contentions Contention 1: The US politicians work for the greater good for the people Subpoint A: They appease what the people want Subpoint B: They focus on a wide scale of issues Subpoint C: Their goal is to appeal to people Subpoint D: In order to be reelected, they must have done enough to please the people Contention 2: Politicians try their best given what they have Subpoint A: Most presidents are thrown into high debt situations due to lobbyists Subpoint B: Their spending is meant to go towards benefitting the people
Dota 2 v. League of Legends

Hello. My opponent (Valar_Dohaeris) and I will be arguing about which game is better. My opponent will argue in favor of LoL, whilst I will be arguing for Dota 2. We will be arguing about aspects of the game and determining which game is better. Rules/Structuring: R1: Acceptance from Valar_Dohaeris, no args. R2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals. R3: Rebuttals. R4: No new arguments, final rebuttals and conclusion. RULES: 1. No semantics 2. No trolling 3. Wikipedia is acceptable ONLY for basic information regarding the games. 4. Forfeits result in an automatic loss on either side. 5. (Voters) Please provide a valid RFD. BoP is shared by me and my opponent. Failure to comply in a rule results in a strike. 3 strikes and a 7 point victory is awarded to the opposition. Good luck and be sure to have fun :)
The Earth is Flat

As my opponent has failed to lay out the rules beforehand, I shall do so. Rules: 1. No forfeits.2. No semantics.3. No kritiks.4. BOP rests on Pro to prove that the Earth is flat. 5. All citations or footnotes must be included in the debate.6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives the right to add definitions of their own.7. Violation of these rules should be taken into account by the voter.
The Earth is Flat

Of course, my opponent's entire argument is simply a copied and pasted argument which he has not in any way quoted. Instead, he decided to copy and paste the entire assertion from one site, and then tried to claim that he lacked plagiarism as it's not an explicitly stated rule. Let it be stated here that posting a source which you copied directly from, with no mention as to which part of the argument was copied, or lack of usage of quotation marks and references is plagiarism. Therefore, as plagiarism is always an implied rule, this is most definitely a case of plagiarism.There are no arguments for me to rebut, as my opponent has yet to state any arguments of his own. In fact, the only arguments he has made are pertaining to his plagiarism, instead of the debate at hand. Thus, as I have rebutted even those arguments, this is easily a win for me.It's ludicrous that I have to explain as to why this obvious troll has plagiarized his entire debate.