BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
obama should be president

"obama. an unexperianced, inconsistent liar." -- Experience is not a valid argument against Obama. Ronald Reagan, 1 of the great American presidents of our time, was an actor b4 he ran 4 president. No experience; however, he has gone down in history as a great leader. So experience is irrelevant. Liar? This coming from the mouth of someone who supports John McCain, who has consistently twisted the truth & spread lies throughout his campaign? 1. McCain said in an ad that Obama wasn't a family man because his half brother was living in a shack. Obama has never met his half brother. & his brother lives in a very nice shack...for someone who lives in AFRICA! 2. I'm sure u're aware of the lipstick controversy in which Obama, referring to McCain's economic policy stated, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Meaning that u can doll it up, but it's still what it is. McCain decides 2 run & say that Obama was referring 2 Sarah Palin as a pig. The lie is so huge, that even the REPUBLICANS r saying that this is ridiculous. 3. McCain accused Romney of telling an interviewer in April 2007 that he favored a secret timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq. In fact, Romney said the United States & the Iraqi president should discuss the possibility of private milestones & timetables for Iraq. 4. McCain accused Romney of changing his position on important issues; however, after the DNC, McCain has suddenly become the candidate of change" Hypocritical? "and [he] wouldn't have ever even been a senator had he faced any real opponent." --this is simply an opinion. Unless u can back this up, it's irrelevant. "people vote for obama because he is change but what they dont realize is that there is no real need for change." --no real need for change? The economy has not improved as you say it has. Health insurance is astronomically high, the job market is terrible, groceries are more expensive, & the rising gas prices. pee upon the Canad
obama should be president

obama. an unexperianced, inconsistent liar. Barrack Obama should not be the next president of the united states. he has no experiance to validate his candacy and wouldn't have ever even been a senator had he faced any real opponent.people vote for obama because he is change but what they dont realize is that there is no real need for change. though our economy went through some rough patches it went right back on track and is now rapidly improving unlike Obama John Mccain will continue this plan and bring wealth and prosperity to our country again. with John Mccain as president we can once again pee upon the canadian dollar.
obama should be president

I knew he used parts of Clinton's speech, but I didn't think of it as plagiarism. It is a common practice 4 candidates 2 use past quotes from others. However, this in no way justifies how McCain is "plagiarizing" his entire campaign off Obama. He's suddenly the candidate of change and Obama suddenly doesn't get it. Parts of a speech or lying to the public 4 the vote? hmm. sounds like you're ignorant to your "innocent" McCain's guilt. McCain has made the statement about 5 million middle class multiple times, not just once. So to say that he misquoted and the Democrats are using it against him is not a valid argument because he has said it on multiple occasions. Shrinking graduation rate is not the cause of the job market in terms of lower end jobs. I understand with bigger companies; however, when extended to the lower end jobs, finding a job is still very difficult. I thank you for debating. for my final statement I will tell you that my opponent has in no way proven that Obama should or should not be president. Half the debate was spent on the economy. And the only mention in comparison of Obama and McCain he has made is the fact that Obama used part of Clinton's speech & therefore he should not receive the nomination. He has not made any mention of the policies of these two men, he failed to rebut some of my points, & he has failed to compare the two on the basis that one is better suited for the presidency. As a debater, I have rebutted the points he made about the economy, gas etc., however he failed to adhere to the thesis of this debate 'obama should [not] be president'. I stated that he should get back on topic, however he continued to argue with the economy. So I rebutted the points made. Since the debate was only 2,000 characters, rebuttals allowed no room for a change in subject, such as why Obama is better suited for the presidency. Perhaps my opponent should have picked an economic-based debate, since he argued so fervently. the cho
obama should be president

If you dont know enough about your candidate to know what im talking about when i say plagerism how can you say any of points are valid. what im talking about when i say plagerism is the nationwide scandal when Barrack Obama stole a piece of pres. bill clintons speech. during his terms Pres. Bill Clinton gave a speech. Barrack Obama stole several lines of that speech and used them during the primaries. He gave no credit to clinton and claimed it as his own. How you could have missed out on that info i cant imagine. Maybe sum more research? -5 million is not middle class I did not in any way say 5 million is middle class. as senator mccain said himself he MISPOKE. the democrats then proceeded to do just what he said they would, which is twist it and use it against him. -shrinking graduation rate is not the cause of high unemployment rates what u stated about this made no sense. what im saying is that the large amount of jobs needed to supply all of these non-graduates is an impossible feat. there are many higher ranking jobs but not enough educated people to fill them. if more people graduated they could take these higher ranking jobs and unemployment rates woul rapidly shrink. -gas prices are rising. youre right gas prices are ridiculously high right now but they were even higher previously. go to this website and look at the average of th u. s. over the past few weeks eia. doe. gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page. html i thank you for debating. for my final statement i tell you that my opponent is not knowledgable enough to be a valid source of information. she also continues to back up her arguments.
obama should be president

plagiarism? I'm pretty sure I have no clue what you are talking about. However, McCain has now come out and said that Obama "doesn't get it". Maybe Obama should get a copyright on what he says, considering McCain is changing his entire platform, in order to turn the campaign into a "who should I believe" race. also, I am well aware that Reagan served 2 terms as Gov. of California and was a well known spokesperson. And Obama has been in the political system for 11 years before running for his presidency. So experience still is irrelevant. -- making less then 5 million a year No matter how you slice it, dice it, or doll it up, making less than 5 million a year HARDLY covers the middle class. In fact, it isn't even close! No matter how the Democrats might "twist it" as you so fervently believe, the truth still remains that McCain made the statement. 5 million is not middle class, that's the truth. That doesn't require any twisting to realize. Shrinking graduation rate is the cause of a bad job market. -- my friend, this would be correct when speaking about big business companies and such that require their employees to have at least graduated high school. However restaurants, department stores, etc. do not require their employees to have graduated. However, they are rarely hiring. In fact, many companies over hire then have to fire those that they can't afford to pay. Also, since the economy is obviously better, then the 80,000+ jobs lost this year and unemployment reaching 5.1% (a 3-year high) isn't anything worth noting. -- gas prices are rising. When I said the gas prices are rising, I wasn't referring to the jump in gas prices in Alabama due to Hurricane Ike. That is understandable considering Houston shut down their refineries. Before Ike, gas was still an average of $3.68 a gallon. And in parts of the USA, it's an average of $4.00 or more. There was a period was gas was going down, but now it's back up. even before Ike. But let's get on
obama should be president

you make the point that ronald reagan had little experiance considering he was an actor before he became president ronald reagan was an actor before he became president but ronald reagan had also served 2 terms as gov. of california before he ran for president. also reagan had been a well known spokesperson for republican candidates and had been involved in the political system for many years before his presidency. -John Mccain is the liar Though John Mccain does occasionally twist the truth you cannot say that Barrack obama has not done the same. When asked what he would consider middle class to tax less then upper class he stated he would not tax middleclass lees then upperclass. if he did have to choose he would say someone making less then 5 million a year. he then proceeded to say that the previous statement would be misqouted and used against him. and he was right. the statement that was obviously misunderstood has been twisted to support the democrats. And just to finish my point, wich of the 2 candidates has been guilty of plagerism? -the economy is not improving i would like to start by saying that my computers home page is fox news. com and almost every morning there is a statement involving the improving economy. -the job market is terrible Many people blame the high unemployment rate on a "bad job market" but in reality the blame belongs to the shrinking graduation rate. Why should the government spend its money and time on those who did not bother to spend any of their money and time on themselves. if they wont help themselves they dont deserve help. i dont want to hear any argument that they couldnt afford to graduate. todays public schools are free admission and cost so little in supplies a hobo could graduate. -the oil prices are rising The oil prices have been shrinking! prattvilles oil price is only high due to the recently closed refinery
God has free will.

Apparenty my opponent could not refute my arguments and chose to ignore my case.However, I will say again that God's omnipotence allows his power to surpass human logic. Remember, I didn't define God as omnipotent, you did. Therefore, anything is possible with God, even making it where he is not God. The point is, God has free will regardless of any argument you can make due to the fact that God can do anything.I choose to end my round here due to Con's ignoring of my argument.
God has free will.

I would like to point out that my opponent has contradicted his own definitions of God many times. In this round, I will be pointing out such contradictions. =God can only have knowledge which is good (positive).False. Even according to your definition-Omniscience - God is all knowing all the time.God knows everything, including bad things.- God creates human and then creates water for human to survive.We can see that in both ways that God has no choice (free will).--If god did not create water, then human can"t survive.+ God has no choice but to create water in order to let human survive.+If HE does not do that, then mankind can"t survive.HE has no choice but to do that.According to the Book of Genesis, God created water before creating mankind.=An omnibenevolent God cannot have free will because there is only one perfect course of action, which God, being perfectly good, must follow.God is all powerful, and invented perfection. Therefore, may decide what is perfect, or change what is considered perfect based on his own choices.Which means sufferings are also in God's control. Then, he is no longer God because HE allows sufferings.You defined God, not me. You are only arguing with your own definition. There is something that God, therefore HE is not powerful.While the meaning is not clear here, it is apparenty you are again arguing with your own definition-Omnipotent - God is all powerful, sovereign.ArgumentsObviously, when you are all powerful, you can do anything, even change aspects of yourself. And Ominpotent being has the ablity to make itself not ominbenevolent or omniscient. Omnipotence, in and of itself, allows you to do anything. Anything.Ominpotence would allow God to forgo any logic, even being able to change anything about logic to fit his own design.
God has free will.

I will do some rebuttals and introduce some condition that God has no free will due to his properties that he possesses. =God can only do good (positive) things. =God can only have knowledge which is good (positive). =God is very powerful since in this debate he exists. 1. Which means every act that God do must be good in terms. - God allows sufferings. -God does not have the negative knowledge since he is all-loving. - God creates human and then creates water for human to survive. We can see that in both ways that God has no choice (free will) . --If god did not create water, then human can"t survive. + God has no choice but to create water in order to let human survive. +If HE does not do that, then mankind can"t survive. HE has no choice but to do that. 2. How does a creator of free will have free will? = An omniscient being cannot have free will because it is predestined by its own knowledge of its future actions. =An omnibenevolent God cannot have free will because there is only one perfect course of action, which God, being perfectly good, must follow. = God cannot sin. = Which means something that he cannot do. = If god gives us free will, then he cannot have free will. Rebuttals: +Obviously, nothing is outside the control of God, being that he is Omnipotent. Also, it can not come from a supernatural power, being that God is the supernatural power. + Which means sufferings are also in God's control. Then, he is no longer God because HE allows sufferings. +A being with unlimited power would, of course, be able to do anything that it wanted. Therefore, God has the power to act without the constraint, not only of necessity or fate, but of everything. + There is something that God, therefore HE is not powerful.
God has free will.

Thank you for the interesting topic. I hope this will be a productive and civil exchange. During the course of this debate, I will attempt to prove that God (Who we are assuming exists for the sake of this debate.) does indeed have free will.ArgumentsAccording to your definitions of God and free will, it is already apparent that God has free will.Omnipotent - God is all powerful, sovereign. Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.Being that you have not defined the word fate, I will take the liberty of doing so myself. I trust you will agree with the following definition.Fate- The development of events outside a person’s control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power. [1]Obviously, nothing is outside the control of God, being that he is Omnipotent. Also, it can not come from a supernatural power, being that God is the supernatural power. A being with unlimited power would, of course, be able to do anything that it wanted. Therefore, God has the power to act without the constraint, not only of necessity or fate, but of everything.Back to you Con.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
God has free will.

In this debate we are assuming that God does exist. The BoP is on Pro. 72 hours to argue. 10,000 characters. No forfeit. No Trolling. No Insults. No semantics. The voting style is open to anyone. This will be a four rounds of debate. First round is for PRO's ARGUMENT. Second round is for REBUTTALS or NEW ARGUMENT. Third round is for CON's REBUTTAL AND PRO'S CONCLUSION. Fourth round is for my CONCLUSION. My opponent shall type "no round as agreed" in the fourth round since he/she has the burden and is going first. If he/she posts some arguments/ rebuttals in his last round he will result in SEVEN-POINT LOSS.NO NEW ARGUMENTS in the conclusions area. By accepting this debate my opponent agrees to stick to the rules that I have mentioned above. If he/she violates the rules as shown above, she/he will lose this debate. Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. https://www.google.com... We will be focusing on the three attributes of God only. Attributes of God: Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent and Omniscient . Omnipotent - God is all powerful, sovereign. Omniscience - God is all knowing all the time. Omnibenevolence- All loving. http://en.wikipedia.org... has: possess, own, or hold. https://www.google.com... Note: I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to do it, then please let me know in the comments. If you accept without my acknowledgement, you have forfeited the debate.
The Creator of the Universe

How dare you insult me and the intellectual community with your Christian terrorism tactics. The DNA model is in no way scientific evidence proving that the Creator of the Universe is real. Your sources are insufficient so stop twisting the scientific truths. I do believe that most scientists identify as atheists because they are being honest not only with themselves but with those around them. But even if they were mesotheists like me why then would a god who created the Universe take their along with my ultimate rejection of him and what he trully represents so goddamn personal? I'll tell you why because he is a sociopath hellbent on Spiritual Enslavement and being a "psychic vampire". If the Holy Bible is his word then he is a evil Trickster because it is filled with many contradictions. And as a Christian back in the day I was always "deep down" disgusted and a "unwilling servant" when it came to the Judeo/Christian God Jehovah. If this god is real he is anarchic. Jehovah has not me not ever! He bullies his angels and the humans/others that are enslaved to him and stuck in his "paradise Heaven". And he envies individuals like me for he is a jealous god. He is full of hate and sin and has an unholy side to him. There is no holy trinity it is false and dead and evil and suppressor of progress in this world. Jehovah is a insane.
The Creator of the Universe

Based on the evidence gathered by our top scientists the biblical model for creation cannot be proven. As further evidence proves they've never seen the Creator of the Universe whom some religious followers/leaders claim was responsible for the creation of the entire human race and all other animals on earth. If creationists are correct then how come none of them are top scientists? It's because science is all about knowledge of the knowable like the laws of physics for instance or the laws of thermodynamics. It's about evolution which explains how all life such as plants and animals and humans physically came to be and how we advanced throughout the ages. It's also about reason because you can never have "the faith" doing work which is all about learning about things then giving it a scientific explanation for it after enough investigatives practices and scientific research. The great scientist never submits to the irrationality of blind faith. The great scientist will only have faith in a system they know will work thats why they don't bother with anything outside the Universe.
The Creator of the Universe

First off the biblical model for creation is wrong due to lack of scientific evidence. The Holy Bible was a tool made and is used by those in power for the sole purpose of keeping the flock of human sheep in control. The Holy Bible is not a valuable source of scientific information but rather is filled with misinformation. The Holy Bible is not the word of any divine figure but a book that is a tool being used by those in power to systematically deceive the human sheep so they never come to the knowledge of the truth. The truth can only be obtained by investigative practices and scientific research not by faith alone. We along with every animal on this planet are the result of evolution. We are not the result of the "God of the Bible". That is creationism which is a belief system that is not backed by the National Academy of Scientists. If creationists are correct then why do most of our human scientists identify themselves as atheists?
The Creator of the Universe

I'll assume for now that you are arguing against the existence of actual scientific evidence of a Creator God. You present many questions which seem to leave me with only one response: I believe because I choose to believe. Your questions are poorly stated. Your last question is especially full of assumptions about what I have to say. How can you make a statement about my position when I have yet to state it? Incredulous! Let's keep this simple, I propose that my acceptance of the biblical model of creation is supported by "irrefutable proof. " I will use one line of evidence: the information content of every living creature's genomes. My argument: If it can be shown that genes contain true coded information which can only have been created by an intelligent mind, then the biblical model would be vindicated and any naturalistic model would be refuted. I will defend and expand on my argument in the next round. Good luck. Oh and keep in mind my entire argument when responding. For example, don't just rebut the idea that there is information in genes; remember that I said "information which can only have been created by an intelligent mind. " I am making the claim so the burden of proof shall be on me.
The Creator of the Universe

I want you to make a choice to debate me. Consider me your intellectual adversary. Why do you choose to believe that "God" is the Creator of the Universe when you or other creationists have no evidence to back up your beliefs. Why do you choose to believe that "God" created the entire human race and the Universe without evidence to back up your claims? Many people of various religious faiths even irreligionists who also "Have the faith" choose to believe differently when they are just lacking evidence to back up their beliefs also. It's because of people like this that there are so many skeptics and atheists because they have never been given evidence for "God" being the Creator of the Universe only false testimony instead of irrefutable proof. Why do people like you choose to rely on a position of ignorance rather then a position of evidence?
The Creator of the Universe

Did you know that I'm a skeptic because I know that all religious books are man-made nonsense used by "people in power" used to systematically control the "human sheep". That's how the "people in power" have been able to make all the religions ESPECIALLY reward/punishment one's for the sole purpose of systematically deceiving and lying to them their entire lives to ensure the complete control of their lives using "customized mind control techniques" effectively breaking them down into "fearful slaves" in order to create "obediant workers" for the "people in power". Everything that my scientists put out to me has been backed by scientific evidence. They never lie when it comes to people's lives on the line as they know it's their duty to free the minds of people like me because they know we have the ability to face the truth. My friend I have a good reason that I'm a misotheist but I really don't want to upset you all over again because I have provided enough evidence for the case against the Creator of the Universe. The intellectual community is not the people preaching scare tactics, propaganda and lies over the pulpit out in the real or virtual world it's the religious community as a whole. For further information my friend go to www.dailysquib.co.uk/sci_tech/3102-scientists-prove-that-all-religious-books-man-made-nonsense.html