BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

Well in the end it is still up to debate because no one came down to the hard facts. But if you look at the facts in the case and why it is still up to debate it should make you think maybe the government is hiding something deeper and darker than you really think.. Of course you still wondering why they pick Oswald I am not 100% sure but what it seems is that maybe there was some kind of connection the government felt that he was there best choice because of his long history and his military background and his love for communisim. In addition, think about this if the government is hiding something they are going to do their best to push it on someone else to defelect from what they actually did. Come on and think about it, if the public finds out that the government plotted this, who would feel safe? who would believe in the government anymore? who would have pride in this nation after they find out that news? Thats why today this is still up to debate and there is really no answer. His brother did investigation as far as he could but of course the secret service and the government hides and lies to cover up the crime they did. And remember that Oswald got killed shortly after he was arrest, you really believe that it JUST happend? It could happen but that needs time and quick planning but it is almost impossible, the government was behind this the whole way and still today, the government had him killed because it made their case stronger and look better and turned the attention off of the government. The government is behind this case the entire way!
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

I still dont believe totally that the government set this plot against the president. Okay there could of been multiple shooters but not known by the government. And dont you think through investigation that they would of figured out the shooter eventually even if the government was involved? If this was a governmental conspirarcy dont you think the word would of got out by now after so many years has passed, because you know the government cant hide secrets forever. And once again why Oswald, why not anyone else?Even if they choose him for investigation, why only him? There can be many other marines who are pro-communist under investigation but why him? If his brother really felt that it was the dgovernment behind his death why didnt this investigation gone on further?
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

There were muliple shooters because the government had it set up as if person one misses the shot, person 2 steps in to take care of what was planned. In addition, the guns werent left at the scene they were removed to hide the evidence like most smart people do. Again, the other people involved werent brought out and accused because they were back up, the government knew that Lee Havey Oswald would hold so they felt the need to not arrest anyone else. Also it was plotted by the government but they didnt make it aware to Lee Harvey Oswald, of course he wouldnt go along with it. But the government had Lee Harvey Oswalt already under investigation and felt that he would be the perfect candidate so they choose him because there would be no doubt in his case. "Oswald was an ex-marine and communist sympathizer. The evidence against him quickly piled up, because of his past history."(http://www.csicop.org...) " The President's brother quickly concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin, had not acted alone. And Bobby immediately suspected the CIA's secret war on Fidel Castro as the source of the plot."( http://www.time.com... #ixzz1s875e29N) This shows that JFK own brother believed that the government was behind his brothers death.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

OKay maybe there were multiple shots then where were the guns to those bullets? Also then if there were mulitple guns then why were there only one suspect not more? In addition, the government wouldnt pick someone to blame for a murder of a president, and if they did would you think that Lee Harvey Oswald would go along with the plot? I dont think he would be okay with being blamed for the murder of the current president. Also why would the government just pick him out of all the other pro-communist people, why him? Okay the president might had other plans, but they were cancelled so he went to the rally instead, not because his secret service was pushing him to go but he knew that was going on and he wanted to go and see the public. I dont think the government was involved i think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in this case.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

Okay, first there is not going to be bullet shell cases laying around everywhere. They were at a motor rally, why would there so happen be random bullet shell cases laying around right where JFK was shot? It doesnt make any sense, those cases were the cases that were fired at the moving vehicle, some hit him and some missed him. Like i said before, the government planned this because he was a suspect not because he was running but because they picked him because he would be a good canidate since he had along history of being a pro-communist and an ex-marine. If the govvernment plotted this then they are going to make sure that they have a person that is so believeable that they would consider that the government was involved. It was plotted because why didnt the other shooter get arrested? JFK was anti-communist but he was a good president but maybe the government didnt like what he was doing, maybe the government had different plans and didnt like that he was ruining the relationship with the communist countries. Moreover, the government had to be behind this assassanation since it was too well planned since JFK wasnt going to go to the rally because he had other plans to make a speech, but the mayor and his secret service talked him to go to the motor rally instead.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

There is no proof that those bullet cases were from JFK assassanation. Again, they caught Lee HArvey Oswalt running down the street and he killed an officer who tried to stop him, which shows that it is not planned and that he was runnign because he was guilty. That is why they caught the suspect so quick because he was running like he was hiding something. There are still people out there that are trained in shooting especially Lee Harvey Oswalt he was an ex-marine who sympathesizes for communist. This is the proof that shows he didnt like people who were against communisim(which JFK was!) and also he was an ex-marine so he was an excellent shooter. Furthermore, the government wouldnt of planned this since he was a good president.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

First off Lee HArvey Oswald didnt act alone because even though there may have been only one gun on scene, the bullet cases shows that they came from different guns. Also there was more than two shell cases on the scene, which shows that there were multiple shots fired. Furthermore, how is it possible to figure out the suspect within a hour?? it takes more time to process a crime scene, let alone to find a suspect! This makes it seem like a government conspiracy because, if it was planned they could of hand someone in mind and thats why they had the suspect within a hour. Moreover, many peple can be good shooters, but how about at a moving target? Not too many people are good shooters at a moving target, and it is even hard for a sniper, so this makes it seems like a conspiracy because it had to be pre-mediatated in order to get the shot. Furthermore, i think since this was a governmental conspiracy, they had it planned that Lee Harvey Oswald would get shot shortly after so it covers up that it was a governmental conspiracy.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

My deabte is that JFK assasiantion was not a conspiracy. Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy alone, then two days later Jack Ruby shot Oswald alone. First it wasnt a conspiracy because Lee Harvey Oswald moved to texas a few months early for work at a bookstore. So Lee Harvey Oswald didnt move down there to just to assassanate JFK. In addition, there were only two shots fired one hitting JFK in the knee that bonced up and stroke him for the second time, and another one that hit Neillie Connolly. Futhermore, you dont need to plan something to hit on target, there are some snipers out there that can shoot from far away. Also there is no proof of multiple guns, only one gun at the scene. Also Lee Harvey Oswald was shot because of a random man who was upset that he shot the president, it wouldnt be a government conspiracy. There is not enough evidence that shows that it was a government conspiracy, they just think it is because he was a president.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

JFK assassanation was a conspiracy because, there is a lot of evidence and facts to show that is a conspiracy. First, JFK was shot twice while in a moving vehicle which is very hard in the first place, so it had to be premediatated to get that shot. In addition, there had to be more than one shooter since there was multiple shots fired from different guns. Furthermore, it had to be a conspiracy from the government because the accused Lee Harvey Oswald was in custody and shot dead shortly after. From these facts, JFK assassanation was a government conspiracy.
World Peace cannot be achieved.

Thanks. I like yours too. What Anime is that from? I'm glad to have such a friendly opponent, and I'm sorry for what I'm about to do to you. (joking) We as human beings can not possibly know a future outcome to it's full extent, therefor to make the claim that something such as world peace will not or can not be achieved is presumptuous and with out merit. You can make claims around the contemporary knowledge as to what will begin to occur in the near future, but, when discussing the distant future, you can not make any definite prediction, Pro's claim being definite. Knowledge of what is not observable is impossible. The human mind acting as a box, in more lament explanation of the Copenhagen interpretation, something I will not explain further in this debate, being rather complicated, (Though, I will discuss this in another place if you like), we can not estimate, measure, or understand anything outside of said box, and, the future, lies outside of the box, being our minds. We can not understand what is not in our realm of understand, and the future is not within our realm of understanding. My opponents claims can not be concluded with the certainty he displays, and, therefor, by displaying a certainty, my opponent is incorrect, whereas, uncertainty is the only answer to uncertain things.
World Peace cannot be achieved.

Alright. I would like to thank iamnotacop for accepting this debate. So, here's my argument: World peace cannot be achieved. You can create a state with so many laws and so many enforcers, but there will always be a presence of evil. Evil is not something that can be gunned down or exterminated. You can eradicate one group, but then two more shall take its place. For example, look at America's "war on terror" -- they went for a long time to destroy Al-Qaeda. They killed AQAP's leader, and (kind of) won the fight, but not long after, ISIL (the Islamic State) popped up. Now, America has another, possibly even more dangerous, threat to take care of. This proves my point - Evil isn't something that can be killed. It is always there, no matter how many people you capture or kill. -End Argument- Side Note: I'm liking that profile picture, iamnotacop.
Resolved The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

The government should not require their citizens to pay for healthcare. My opponent obviously wastes the first round being the devil's advocate and arguing against his own base argument. My opponent, although via his argument he takes the side of those who are against mandated healthcare, chose the side that is for it. Thereby unless he decides to be the devil's advocate and argue for mandated healthcare, he loses on a technicality. Argument against Gov't Mandated Healthcare: Duel contradiction, in one scenario the gov't is forcing people to buy something off the private market, which is unconstitutional to start, because Congress has not been given the power to force an individual to enter into a contract with a private company. Since a prominent issue in this argument is the constitutionality, I hereby argue that the US gov't obviously should not require it's citizens to have health insurance.
Resolved The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

I stand on the firm negation of this topic due to these three contentions 1. The Requirement Won"t Have Any Significant Impact - People who don"t have health insurance will not be suddenly motivated to get it because of some government requirement. They will still abuse the emergency care system as they always have. A requirement doesn"t suddenly make health insurance affordable, nor does it motivate people to pay for something they don"t feel they need. 2. Individual Rights - Every person has a right not to have health insurance. By not getting health insurance, I am only endangering my life and nobody else"s. Therefore, I should have the ability to forego health insurance if I should choose. It"s not the government"s place to tell me how to manage my life. for these reasons i stand on the firm negation of this resolve
The dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the right thing to do

Round 4: Response to opponents rebuttal (Respond to opponents round 3) Any evidence? We tried to reach a peace agreement. It was just not that simple. If we could have reached a peace agreement, why did Japan not surrender after the first bomb was dropped over Hiroshima? We gave them enough time to respond and when they did they rejected the treaty. We then dropped the nuke over Nagasaki and at first they still refused to surrender. Later, when the Emperor suggested the idea to his nation, a coup was formed which tried to kill him in order to prevent him from signing the treaty. Finding a peace agreement was always the goal, that is literally the only way wars have ever ended ever, and eventually the agreement was made, after dropping the 2 nukes. Any other agreement would have costed excessive amounts of more time, money, and most importantly lives.
The dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the right thing to do

Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed. There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore. People who hadn't been in this world for long. Killed. People who were pacifists. Killed. People who didn't support the Nazis. Killed. Many innocent people were killed. Thank you. Round 3: Rebuttal, remember rebut my round 2 post with your round 3 post, not this one "Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed... People who were pacifists. Killed...Many innocent people were killed. " Yes, many innocent people were unfortunately killed. However, substantially more innocents would have dies if we did not drop the bomb. We would of had to continue firebombing Japan. The war would have continued for another year or so. Millions would have been killed. " There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore" What does that even mean, they could not think anymore. Well obviously not, they were dead. I mean I don't see why you need to write that but its really not that important so I'll move on. " People who didn't support the Nazis" Nazis had nothing do with it. Do you even know anything at all about WWII. I'd appreciate if you actually learned a thing or two about what your argument is before you join my debate. The bombs were dropped over JAPAN, not GERMANY. We were trying to get Japan to surrender. The war with Germany had already ended, they surrendered about three months prior to the bombings. You do realize the Japanese were not Nazis correct? In conclusion, the main flaws of your argument are that even more innocents would have been killed without the dropping of the nukes, the Nazis had nothing to do with it, as well as some issues with your writing coherence in general. I await your rebuttal to my first argument.
The dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the right thing to do

Many innocent civilians died because of this bombing. Children, infants, and even babies weren't spared. They were all killed. There lives were destroyed and they weren't able to think anymore. People who hadn't been in this world for long. Killed. People who were pacifists. Killed. People who didn't support the Nazis. Killed. Many innocent people were killed. Thank you.
The dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima/Nagasaki was the right thing to do

Because of this, I'll just post my first argument as if you just accepted, then you can just submit nothing or copy and paste your round 1 post for your round 2 post. I repeat, in this round, do not post your rebuttal, just repost your first one or submit an empty argument. The dropping of the atomic bombs saved millions of lives. If we did not drop them, we would of have to have waged another year and a half of war. This would of caused countless more lives lost. There was very little we could do. We tried fire bombing Tokyo which killed 50,000. We didn't want to go through Japan burning everyone alive so we found a better solution. Prior to dropping the first bomb, the US army air corp dropped over 5 MILLION leaflets urging people to leave Hiroshima as we were going to an atomic bomb. It said that we did not want to hurt civilians and wanted only to destroy military areas and force Japan to surrender. Most people did not leave and the bomb was dropped. After this, the US did not immediately drop a second bomb. Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight in the pacific. We dropped more leaflets over Nagasaki but still very few people left. We dropped the bomb and many people died. Japan then did surrender but not definitively, it was really quite hesitant. Their was in fact, a coup that occurred against the Emperor as the people of Japan still did not want to surrender. The dropping of the bombs was unpleasant but necessary. If it had not been done, millions more innocent people would have died including Americans. We did not simply blast them mercilessly, we gave multiple chances to surrender but they refused. In no way can the dropping of these bombs be considered an unjustified act of terror, it was the moral choice.
Obama Lied About Keeping Insurance

Thanks for accepting.My position is that Obama lied when, on June 15th, 2009, he said: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”1Already, at least 1,519,000 people have been informed that they will lose their insurance,2 proving my case.1 http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2 http://www.forbes.com...
There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

In final summary, I have demonstrated the relevance of the semantic distinction, I have shown my opponent's objections to my argument to be irrelevant(because for my argument to be valid does not depend on the truth of its premises), invalid, and in one case, harmful to my opponent's own original proposition. In addition, my opponent has forfeited the entire latter half of the debate. I believe the outcome here is clear.
There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

Since my opponent has not responded, I am uncertain of what to add in this round. The only relevant thing that comes to mind, that I haven't already addressed, is the tangential issue of whether it is appropriate to take a semantic approach to this debate. In that regard, I point out that my opponent has instigated two other debates on the subject of arguments for the existence of God, both titled "The Fool will refute any argument for the existence of god." http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Given this, Pro is clearly aware of an appropriate way to phrase the subject of debate if the point is to discuss whether an argument for God is true/sound, and this debate is titled in contrast to those, phrased in a way that specifically shifts the focus to whether the argument is 'logical' rather than whether it is actually true. Therefore, the semantic distinction is entirely appropriate to this particular debate.
There are no logical arguments for the existence of god.

You’ve been Fooled! Hook: ‘I submit that the definition of a "logical argument" is any argument that uses a certain set of starting premises, makes a certain number of inferences that follow the rules of logic, and reaches the desired conclusion without creating any implied contradiction caused by the starting premises.’ The Con. Line: I think you are way out of you league, on this one, for language is a set of organized physical symbols which we use to describe a reality. For example the proposition, zebras exist follows because it does refer to a reality because there does exist zebra’s. So it’s a part of language because it actually describes a reality, therefore it is a symbol. If someone is using a proposition to refer to a false reality aka when people lie, the proposition is false. Because there is no such thing which it symbolizes. A physical symbol which doesn’t symbolize anything is not a part of language, let alone to have any meaning. This renders the second proposition of P2 that God exist, as meaningless. So it must be rejected. Aka Semantic Fallacy Straight from the hill! The big stinker! The second logical problem is that a conditional is only valid if there is a shared relation of interaction between the reality of x and the reality of y, so that x is a sufficient condition of y and that why is a necessary condition. Physical symbols that don’t symbolize anything cannot be part of a sufficient of necessary condition of any logical condition. But even if they did, there is no connection between the meaning of Zebra’s and an inconclusive proposition that God. Example of a false conditional: For example: if it’s raining today then are 11 monkeys in Africa. Let its raining=R and 11 monkey in Africa=M So we have R->M but this is nonsense conditional, because there is no relation of interaction that they share to be a sufficient or necessary relation. An example of a valid conditional: Is if I close my eyes I won’t see my monitor. Let’s close my eyes=C and see my monitor=M So we have C->~M That is there is a direct connection of interaction between closing my eyes an my vision of my monitor. Thus it’s a valid condition and also a valid set of 2 propositions However; Con Premise 2: If Zebras exist, then God exists. Have no justified interaction which they could interact. Therefore premise is logically false, therefore failing to meet criteria of logic. False conditional fallacy And as it is stipulated in round one that there could be only one argument for God, opponent loses this debated. This You’ve been Fooled argument has been brought to Straight you by the hill! ‘Is the Universe Eternal the Fool says yes, but the Moose say no way!!’ Fool Vs Moose You be the judge!!! http://www.debate.org... Well the best part of this Debate is that we get to expose the true colours of some of DDO’s dishonest members. Trying to cheat through semantic is not cool VOTE FOOL!! ;)