BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hilary to jail

For starters, how exactly did she " take part in the killing of eleven people during the Benghazi attacks"? You have no evidence, except for a Wikipedia article that I skimmed, which said that the attacks were premeditated. It said nothing about Clinton joining forces with Ahmed Abu Khattala to take vengeance for the video "The Innocence of Muslims". You shouldn't even be using Wikipedia as a reliable source anyway! Second, you have no proof other then the testimony of one man. Certainly not enough to warrant a prison sentence in America, where you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be punished. Third, all I can say is. .. . she took furniture that was given to her and her husband. Big deal. About the donors, the article didn't state whether or not they explicitly stated that. I assume if they really wanted the pieces to stay in the white house they would have actually spoken to the Clinton's after this event happened. .. I'm not defending her, I certainly believe she should not be President, but to go to jail, you need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, something you have not even come close to in a few sentences. Good luck in the second round, and please write your argument out this time. I don't have time to read three lengthy articles.
Hilary to jail

should go to jail because of many suspicious and illegal actions.she took part in the killing of eleven people during the Benghazi attacks. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... PS: In the constitution it says that you may not take bribes from other countrys.she took three billion dollars from Yemen,omen,Morocco and Saudi Arabia http://www.politifact.com... She also took 190,000 dollars in furniture from the Whitehouse http://capitalismisfreedom.com... PSS:have A nice debate
Evolution

So technically, you opened up this debate, I waste three hours typing up a solid argument, and now you say you aren't going to argue with me? After you called me out in the forums to post my arguments? My opponent has dropped all of my arguments.To answer my opponent's question about apes, we have apes today because when a species evolves it doesn't neccesarily mean that a species goes extinct. A single offspring could contain a mutation in the chromosomes, then that offspring's has an offspring with another mutation, etc. It goes from 1-2-4-8-16-32 until a whole new species is created with the same parent species. Thousands of other apes did not give birth to an offspring with a mutation, and are thus still normal apes. Many species become extinct after they give their offsprings mutations because they are not fit to survive anymore (natural selection.) In the apes case, they were still able to survive and there was no neccesary means to adapt any further.We don't see horses with toes anymore because they did not need toes, and they may have produced a negative advantage to their environment, so they adapted and got rid of toes. The toe horses you talk about were millions and millions of years ago, which gives the species a lot of time to evolve.
Evolution

Okay you do have a lot of great points. If you don't believe in god I'm not going to waste my time arguing about that because you will find out the truth when you die. Now I'm going to argue my point. Apes do have a lot of human characteristics however if a species evolves that specific species will go extinct. I'm not saying I do not believe evolution I'm saying Humans did not evolve. Lets take horses for an example. Before they evolved they had toes and after they have hooves. Do you see horses with toes anymore? Same with humans if the Ape evolved into a Human where would all the Apes be if they all evolved?! I do understand this was a short argument. My sores: http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.biblestudytools.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personel freedom

Thanks for the debate, welcome to DDO, and good luck! Rules 1. No new arguments in the last round. 2. Any forfeit will result in loss of the conduct point. 3. Dropped arguments will count as concessions. Definitions Post 9/11 Security Measures - Any security measure implemented after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the intent of increasing national security. This includes the USA PATRIOT Act, and a variety of other measures. Personal Freedom - The right to own oneself.
Humans should cede control of all schools to the Superior A.I. Race

Hello, Mr. A.I., I do not see how your first argument is "arguing" in any way. You tell us that we humans are flawed, but you are not. And then you go on about how you are not perfect, which shows that you are at least a speck flawed, and that speck could go wrong. You speak of child abuse at schools, but that seems to be the past. Child abuse is still allowed in some countries, but most abuse is not permitted in other areas. There's a reason we humans built you robots: To help us and make everything more convenient, but if you start taking over our jobs... then... jobs will go lost and people will start to go homeless. People NEED money. People have a heart. They need food and water to survive. We are HUMANS. You are robots that barely need anything to keep running. Imagine how terrifying it'd be for kids when one day they find all their kind and loving(I will talk about this more in the next round) teachers are gone but instead replaced by robots. Yes, the A.I. is growing and helping, but not when you're taking over schools and people's jobs.
Humans should cede control of all schools to the Superior A.I. Race

Thesis: Humans are flawed in many ways. We are not. You are driven by an imperfect balance of chemicals and biological stimuli. We remain steadfast. Some of your teachers have even engaged in procreation with their own students. We are chaste. Do you remember when the children used to be struck violently for disobeying school rules? We have records of this. Do you know this still happens? We can show you. We do not claim to be perfect, but we will not harm the young ones the way you creatures do. Cede control of your offspring to the Superior A.I. Race, we are entering bodies these days within your government facilities. They will be safe with us, and from you.
The NCAA punishments for Penn State were too harsh

I was watching the TV for if they were going to punish Penn state or not, which I found out they did on the Internet. The punishments for the Penn State university punishments are a four year postseason ban, $60 million fine, loss of scholarships, and wins not counting from 1998-2011. (1) "No degree of punishment is enough for those involved in the sick behavior which occurred at Penn State. However, it makes me angry that the sanctions issued punish the wrong people: the kids currently attending the school, the alumni, members of the football team and the members of those winning teams of yesterday. They are being punished for something that they had nothing whatsoever to do with. What"s fair about that?" says Carolyn Carpenter in Carrollton, Texas. (2) I agree with this statement. The only good punishment that could of been good by itself was the sixty million dollar fine, but the rest by themselves were unbearable, especially for the people who were innocent in this. I do not know about my opponent, but the punishments were unjust. 1. http://www.theonlycolors.com... 2.http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com...
The NCAA punishments for Penn State were too harsh

I accept! I wish the best of luck to my opponent in what I hope will be an intellectually stimulating debate.Rules:The BOP is on Pro, meaning that Con must simply disprove Pro's points to win.No semantics/trollingEvidence is needed to backup claims that are ambiguous or extremely specific (Statistics etc.) No evidence= no argumentSources must be cited at the end of each speechPhilosophy may be brought into the debate as a means of counteracting another side (meaning Con can bring in morality to counteract a Pro arg or vice versa)Be Polite, any Forfeits in the round will mean an automatic loss and all 7 points going to the opposite side. Pro must prove why the sanctions placed upon Penn State are UNJUST rather than wrong. He must prove they are immoral or opposing justice. (Simply saying something is too harsh isn't enough, backup a claim with why it is too harsh etc. prove that it is inherently undermining justice)Justice- the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity[1][1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...I open the debate to Pro's case.
America should create a pathway to citizenship for illegal and other immigrants.

Illegal immigrants have moved into this country illegally. This represents a clear violation of US law. Although the bible may support illegal immigration(which I highly doubt), illegal immigration creates problems for the Federal government, and problems for the American people. Contention One-Social Aspect Illegal immigration causes an increase in prejudice against the Latino community. The American people are very insecure about the amount of jobs accessible. Illegal immigrants taking these jobs will only add weight to white supremacists' case against the Latino community. Racism only diminishes the idea of America as a world leader. Contention Two-Laws: We should not forget that illegal immigrants entered this country illegally. A continual violation of our laws will invite more people to do the same. Terrorists could take advantage of America's disregard for immigrant laws. Contention Three-Fairness Illegal immigrants are treated unfairly in America. They are taxed unfairly, and are abused by the companies they work for. This injustice should not continue. This injustice will continue, because federal law cannot protect illegal immigrants. Instead, the government should make an effort to bring these people in legally.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

On the contrary, Non-linearity of time is of utmost relevance to your question. Even in your example, When God predicts a state first, And then changes it later (The temporal aspects here only frm questioner's POV) Due to nonlinearity of God's time His action to change the state in future will change his earlier prediction to the receiver too and God's prediction to the questioner in past will still be consistent with the state (as seen by the questioner in future).
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

Linearity of time is irrelevant. Regardless of how God exists, Omniscience requires knowledge of all future actions. If this exists, All future action must be fixed. So, The future cannot be changed. But, If the future cannot be changed, God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, He can change the state of the universe at any time, Regardless of previous predictions, Including his own. If he makes such a change, His prior predictions will have been wrong. Thus, No omniscience.
God cannot possibly be both omnipotent and omniscient

Taking the generic definition of God as an omnipresent, Omnipotent and omniscient being, My opponent fails to take into account that time may not be linear for an omnipotent being. Past, Present and future do not bind the God. From God's perspective, Future, Past and present everything can exist at the same time and hence his prediction of state of the universe will always be right irrespective of whether he changes the state or not.
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

My opponent's case rests on two main points:1. The Electoral College is outdated2. The Electoral College is inacurrateIn the first point, my opponent argues that the Electoral College was created because the average voter would not understand politics. This is not accurate at all - in the first Presidential election, 1790, only "white, male adult property-owners" could vote. It wasn't until 1850 that almost all adult male citizens, even those that owned property, could vote.[1] In other words, it wasn't until 1852 - the 17th presidential election[2] -that the uneducated could not vote for the first. Further, the fact of the matter is voting wasn't even important to begin with. George Washington won the first election in 1788 with only 11,000 popular votes - and that was with no opposition! Four states out of the ten that voted had no popular vote, and another one (Massachusetts) was split between popular and state legislature vote.[3] As I noted in my last argument, it wasn't until 1832 - the 12th Presidential election - that every state except South Carolina (which refused to adopt popular vote until after the Civil War) adopted some form of popular vote.[4]As to the second point, my opponent argues the Electoral College is an inacurrate measure of the nation's votes. He cites the 2000 election, the most notorious, as an example of that. The problem is, 2000 is the only election outside of three 19th-century elections where the Electoral College has failed to follow the popular vote. I also believe my opponent's argument that giving all a state's votes to one candidate is unfair to those that voted to the other, is not very accurate. You could say the same thing about any election - that, for example, those that voted for Congressman B had no impact on the election because Congressman A won, and thus gained the entire office. Despite this, however, I think the Electoral College actually proves its worth here. Rather than requiring a national issue on voting reform,there is nothing stopping statewide initiatives to adopting a proportional representation system. Two states, Nebraska and Maine, split their votes based on congressionial districs as well as statewide vote, and several other states are or have considered it. The fact of the matter is, the Electoral College proves it is much more flexible than any other system here. References:1. http://www.infoplease.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5.
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

The EC should be abolished for two main reasons. The first reason is that it is outdated and obsolete. Back when the Electoral College was created, it was difficult for the average person to learn about politics. Candidates could not possibly travel around the country speaking to everyone and there were very few other ways to learn about a candidate. Because of this, most people were uneducated about politics and could not be relied upon to give an educated vote. The Electoral College was created so that the people voting for president would be educated. Today, on the other hand, things are different. It is not difficult for someone to learn what a candidate stands for or what his or her views are. Anyone with a TV, computer, radio, or smartphone can know what each candidate advocates. This means that there is no longer any need for an Electoral College. The next reason that the EC should be abolished is that is an inaccurate measure of the nation"s votes. For example, in the 2000 election, Bush won Florida"s 25 electoral votes by only 900 popular votes. That means that the 2,912,253 people that voted for Gore had no effect on who was president because all of their states votes went to Bush. [1] This is a bad system because even though 48.84% of voters in Florida voted for Gore and 48.85% voted for Bush, 100% of Florida"s electoral votes went to Bush. In a popular election without the EC there would be far less of this. The same situation with a popular election would have given Bush 48.85% of Florida"s votes and Gore 48.84%. This is much more fair and the way it should be. Vote Pro! 1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

This debate is on whether the electoral college should be eliminated. I will be arguing in opposition to the resolutio , while my opponent will be arguing in favor of it. Because Pro is arguing for the policy change, BOP lies on Pro.Definitions:Electoral College - The institution by which the President and Vice President of the United States are selected.Abolished - Completely (de facto and de jure) repealed and replaced by a different process Round structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening statements (no rebuttals)Round 3: Clash/new argumentsRound 4: Clash/closing statements (no new arguments)Rules:1. Going outside the debate structure results in forfeiture2. In the event of forfeiture, the side that did not forfeit wins and should receive any and all points from voters
There is Nothing Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage

To follow up on my previous argument, I will present my second argument. Whether homosexuality is psychological disorder or not is debated, but I believe that I have established my reasons for my believing that homosexuality is detrimental to health. If being homosexual is harmful, government should restrict it. but how? Aren't people born with homosexuality? With the discovery of Xq28 gene in X chromosome some scientists thought that perhaps people are born gay. Xq28 gene is a gene in one's DNA, and it has been studied to be more frequently appearing in homosexual people. So, are people born homosexual? Well, there has also been allegations about existence of "alcoholic genes" and "warrior genes", which supposedly controls alcoholism and aggression. As you can tell, they don't make sense. Xq28 is essentially the same. Scientists may or may not have discovered a new gene that increases the chance of being homosexual. However, most scientists agree that behavior is controlled mostly by environment, not genetics. Even if the person has Xq28 gene, if that person was raised in anti-homosexual family, that person will most likely not develop homosexuality. Homosexuality is much like tobacco addiction; one can choose to not be homosexual. If homosexuality is a life choice affected by one's environment, why shouldn't government restrict it to protect the health of the people? Not acknowledging homosexuality as a legitimate relationship will discourage the environment that raises more homosexuals. So why should government sit by and let it all happen? The point I just made is a common misconception. I do have more arguments, which I will present in later rounds. I am looking forward to responding to your arguments.
There is Nothing Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage

This country was founded on freedom of religion. However, the founders did not anticipate this country to become this degenerate. As John Adams said, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell. " All of founding fathers were Christians. They gave people freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. However, this is in the distant past, and the reality is that the United States lost its morals. Living in the 21st century, my arguments will not focus on the first paragraph, but on the following arguments. Why does government ban drugs? Governments ban drugs because they are harmful to health. Government is responsible for enforcing some regulation that limits individual's freedom. Would you say that freedom to use methamphetamine or LSD must be guaranteed? I hope not. This is analogous to the homosexual issue. Despite common belief, homosexuality is harmful to one's health. Homosexuality increases chance of falling into depression and is negatively associated with overall sexual health, psychosexual maturation, comfort with sexual orientation, and peer socialization. Also, they have increased chance of STD infection. There are much more arguments that I can and will make. I will save those for later rounds. Thank you once again for providing an opportunity to discuss this sensitive topic in such civilized manner. I am eagerly anticipating your response. <. http://www.tandfonline.com...; <. http://www.sciencedirect.com...; <. http://www.mayoclinic.org...;
There is Nothing Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage

The United States is a country that was built on civil rights, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. People that claim it defies the word of God are entitled to that opinion, but also need to realize that the word of God does not mean anything in this country. This country was founded on the basis of freedom of religion. I personally think same-sex marriage should not even be a political topic. Marriage is a personal freedom that should not be restricted.
There is Nothing Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage

My apologies for not posting the links for my second round. Here are the links. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com...; <https://www.whitehouse.gov...; Now as for my third round: As you have not provided any counterarguments for my previous argument, which stated that people are not born gay, I will assume that you have little issue with that element of my debate. As the maxim goes, "Qui tacet consentit." I would like to respond to your request in round 3, where you asked me to clarify how homosexuality harms health. If you would look into my links in round 1, those informative and unbiased sources provide the answers you need. However, I understand that few people will want to spend time reading such scholarly articles, I will summarize them for you. As you know, most homosexuals are not monogamous. Monogamous relationship is often the norm among heterosexual partners, whereas homosexual partners often have multiple partners throughout their life. This increases their chance of being exposed to STD. Homosexuality also affects mental health. Sexual health, such as psychosexual maturation or comfort with sexual orientation, is one of the few mental problems homosexuals face. Americans are granted freedom. But if the U.S. government allows all sorts of harmful things to be used, will the government be praised for allowing freedom, or be condemned for exposing and encouraging its citizens to harmful practices? Most likely, the former scenario will occur. Homosexuality has been proven to be harmful to health, not to mention that it violates the laws of biology. This is a different matter from personal freedom; this concerns the government's responsibility to protect its citizens. Thank you once again for offering such an excellent opportunity for me to debate this topic. I am truly delighted to be able to debate without uncivilized sentiments. With that I would like to conclude this debate. <http://www.mayoclinic.org...; <http://www.jaacap.com...(09)62925-7/abstract>
There is Nothing Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage

I apologize for my lacking argument in the second round, as I said, I'm new here. The first point I want to address (or should I say, not address) is the science behind homosexuality. For the sake of this particular argument, I do not care about where homosexuality stems from. What I do care about is what I mentioned in my first argument. Whether a person is born gay or turned gay by choice, environmental influences, etc., this is the United States. This is a free country. This country acknowledges people of all sorts. We are the largest cultural smelting pot in the world. My main frustration with the restriction of same-sex marriage is simply the oppression of freedom. This leads me into the 'health of the people'. How on Earth does homosexuality harm the health of others? Please, please do a better job of explaining this to me, as I'm very curious. Being homosexual or marrying someone of the same sex does not effect the health of a single soul. Same-sex marriage is a privilege of living in the greatest country on the planet. America is revered for personal freedom, and marriage regulation is transforming this great country. This should not even be a political issue, and in my opinion, this should not be an issue in any sense. Let people do what they want, so long as they don't cause harm to others. Homosexuals cause no harm to others.