BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Privacy is an outdated norm in society.

Privacy, like all things, in it of itself is subjective. The perception of each person's thoughts can widely scatter the view of what privacy is as a whole. When you as an individual think of privacy, what is it? Is it the total keeping of all personal information to yourself? Is it people not knowing enough that it will not interfere with your daily routine? This varies widely. Whatever the case, many people believe privacy to be a thing of the past. Ergo, this rather new invention has been demonized for its releasing of personal, valuable information. The expelling of this information should not have the Internet blamed. The individual people who either don't care or have a separate definition of privacy are to blame. Not only are they to blame, but the people whom talk about their and others private information, not knowing the facts, are to blame. Privacy is not simply a thing of the past; it is morphed into an understanding of it that is different compared to what it used to be. Do you really find this private information if you aren't looking for it? No, you find what is useful and get on to the normal world. The truth is, privacy hasn't changed; we have changed.
illegal immigrants shouldn't be given tuition assistance for college

To be clear, before I start, I want to say I personally sympathize with Pro's situation. I'll be arguing as a devil's advocate so my opponent can warm up and actually argue appropriately. That said, no punches will be pulled. I expect this to become a very ugly debate by the end. Please be warned. Do not feel humiliated. I'm arguing this so you can stand up for yourself. -----End of Warning----- While it is important to remember that our soldiers defend our country, it is likewise important to remember that our country is built upon immigration. Those who protect and serve need to remember what they protect and serve. They should also feel good about being helpful instead of expecting compensation for everything they do. Who they are helping comes first. This means enabling immigrants who become productive members of civilian life unlike the soldiers who needed to enlist in military life in order to become productive. If anyone deserves to be prioritized, it's those immigrants, illegal or not, who have directly contributed to our economy instead of sapping salaries away from the civilian economy. Whether Pro wants to admit to it or not, he is effectively racist because he's taking resources away from those who deserve a better life and are aspiring for the American Dream, many of whom who just "coincidentally" come from the same Hispanic origin. Military personnel gave up their opportunity to assimilate into civilian life. Now it's someone else's turn. That doesn't give military personnel the right to take it back. Furthermore, illegal immigrants have contributed handily to our economy's well being in turns of agriculture and construction not to mention how many of them have extensive social networks of honest contributors to society. It's a shame that military personnel, many of whom come from traditional families themselves, seek to split the traditions of fellow hardworking Americans. Pro has also failed to provide an alternative mechanism for dealing with illegal immigrant naturalization. On the other hand, natives should be ashamed that they don't live in circumstances as bad as illegal immigrants. It could be worse for them. They should be grateful for what they have.
illegal immigrants shouldn't be given tuition assistance for college

I personally do not believe that illegal immigrants should receive college tuition assistance. They are here illegally and it is very unfair for the people that are going through the admitting process to be apart of the country and for the American people in general. They should have to wait in line like everyone else. Our own citizens cant afford college, but yet we have money to give to illegal immigrants. Our troops have suspended tuition assistance, but we can give them money? I don't have a problem with people coming to this country to try and live a better life. I don't care what race you are. I don't care what the color of your skin is. If you do things the right and fair way, I do not have a problem with them receiving financial aid for college, but if you are going to come here illegally, then I do not agree that you should receive the aid.
Play Devil's Advocate!

As for the premise being false, if you can do everything, certianly you can do anything!As for point number one, that only helps prove omnipotence is impossible.Yes, I'm aware. I made a typo. It's supposed to say "C" standing for conclusion. Thank you for pointing that out."By the laws of logic, everything is logical." Says my opponent. Oh, so we're not arguing about whether an omnipotent being exists or not, just omnipotence itself. But if an omnipotent being exists, certainly omnipotence exists. My opponent said it is impossible for something illogical to exist, supporting my point that God cannot lift up the rock and not lift the rock at the same time. Thus he has helped me uphold the resolution that "Omnipotence is impossible". Keep in mind you're arguing con to the topic, and that you have to prove that omnipotence IS POSSIBLE!! Nothing you stated has helped your argument. Perhaps you are confused. Try again.
Play Devil's Advocate!

Rebuttals:premise "Omnipotence means you need to do everything and anything" is false. By definition, omnipotence means "Having unlimited power; Being able to do absolutely everything."1) I am challenging P1. Refuting by example: It is impossible for ant to eat entire Moon, which does not prove omnipotence is impossible.We are not arguing about God. To fix this problem, for this debate only, "God" will be defined as: "Omnipotent being"2) List item 3 is not something that " If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do"God being irrelevant to list item 1 and 2, rock being lifted and not lifted is illogical. By the laws of logic, everything is logical. So it is, by the laws of logic impossible for something illogical to exist. If I argued that rock that being lifted and not lifted exists, that would be illogical.Even if God could do something illogical, we can not argue that, because we are bound to laws of logic, and can only argue inside them. This has nothing to do with God; It only has to do with logic itself.
Play Devil's Advocate!

My opponent creates an interesting topic. Omnipotence (God) is impossibleHere's how my argument goes:Since Omnipotence means you need to do everything and anything, if merely ONE THING is impossible, then omnipotence is impossible.So here's the argument summed up:P1. If merely on thing is impossible, then omnipotence is impossibleP2. One thing is impossibleC. Omnipotence is impossibleSo, what is this "thing" that is impossible?Well, we certainly expect the omnipotent being to be able to do things under certain limitations.P1. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do everything below1. God can run a mile 2. God can run a mile with the universe on his shouldersSo far, so good. Everything is fine. No paradoxes or impossibilities yet. However, here's where everything goes interesting; I add a "twist" to the normal paradox argument:P1. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to do everything below1. God can create a rock that he can somehow "lift and not lift"2. God can create a rock that he can somehow "lift and not lift" while NOT BREAKING HUMAN BOUNDARIES3. God cannot be omnipotent because he cannot do point twoAs far as our human logic and boundaries go, God cannot somehow "lift and not lift" in a way we understand. While his omnipotence should be able to somehow "lift and not lift", it goes beyond human boundaries. Thus I have put a specific kind of "burden" upon God's shoulders that make it impossible for him to "run a mile", since with the burden of being unable to break human logic or understanding, God can't create a rock that he can somehow lift and not lift at the same time. It is simply impossible to do so as we understand it. Similarly, under these circumstances, God cannot go back and make himself not exist in the first place at all. If he does not exist at all he could not have possibly gone back. God also cannot strip himself of all power, then teleport inside a sphere, then run to the end of the sphere. If he strips himself of all power he cannot teleport. If he somehow manages a way, there is no end of the sphere. He cannot create an "end" due to the definition of a sphere and the lack of power.Thus, I have shown that under certain burdens, an omnipotent being is impossible.
Play Devil's Advocate!

RULES-My opponent must choose a debate he or she has done before (he or she has to cite the debate)-My opponent must choose the opposing side he has argued-No rap battles, drawing contests, talent shows, etc.-My opponent can't do "I will lose this debate", "I will win this debate", or any debate that refers to breaking rules.-My opponent must have either tied the debate with at least 1 vote on the debate, or won the debate with the opponent having only one forfeit or less-My opponent may define terms, however they must be either logical or at the very least arguable -My opponent must state the topic within round one and may post no arguments-My opponent can be super clever and force me to play devil's advocate as well if he or she wishes to :DGood luck and have fun!
Play Devil's Advocate!

"I am trying to prove that God can't do something illogical" Yes, I know, but you can not. I am not saying either that God does or doesn't have to follow laws of human logic. If he does, he can do everything that is logical. If he doesn't, he can even do what is illogical. "I put it as a burden upon God as one of the challenges, and God is unable to put on the burden of human logic while still creating a paradoxic, illocial situation" is like everything Pro said so far: God can not do something illogical, because if he did, it would be illogical. This is like saying: Turtles on earth always move in respect to moon. Turtle on earth can not be stationary in respect to moon, because if it did, it would be stationary in respect to moon. My opponent has not proven that God can not do something illogical, he only premised it.
Play Devil's Advocate!

FINAL ROUND My opponent is correct. I am trying to prove that God can't do something illogical--because it has to follow the laws of human logic. My opponent hasn't even inferred as to why God does not have to follow the laws of human logic, while I put it as a burden upon God as one of the challenges, and God is unable to put on the burden of human logic while still creating a paradoxic, illocial situation. Cold Mind has failed to rebut my contentions.VOTE ME.
Play Devil's Advocate!

I am reminding: In this debate, God = omnipotent being. My opponent doesn't understand the issue. It is by definition illogical to do something illogical. Nothing proves that God can not do something illogical. Maybe God can do something illogical. But it is by definition illogical. What my opponent should be proving is that there is something logical, that no matter how much power some being has, it still will not be able to do it.
Islam should be BANNED!

difference is mohammed is a story, a story that certainly involves him being with a minor... a 6 year old i dont care what the christian book says, it isnt forced on people with death threats, so people can pick and choose islam is the most pure evil one can imagine.. a more evil being then a muslim can not exist :) religion is evil.. i am not religious its simple, islam is terrorism.. you dont argue for it you talk about other non sense based on your lack of understanding of islam muslims follow the koarn.. terrorism your brain is incapable of handling truth.. that is all i get from your utter drivel
This house will ban chocolate for under ten children

PRO has forfeited,because he's forfeited I lack exact information.I believe more and more that this is a joke/troll debate.Nevertheless I will give my argument.Part/Teil 1:I've got no information about which house will ban chocolate. But I assume that it has to be a kindergarten or something like that, please correct me if I'm wrong.Giving chocolate to children is harmful in large amounts. 100g of Milk chocolate contains 2,240 kJ of Energy. Chocolate can have a negative impact on children by: highly increasing the risk of obesity & smaller increases of cardiovascular risks. But this really depends on which Chocolate we're eating. (Chocolate 1=white chocolate, 2= milk chocolate, 3= (pure) plain chocolate)(A = sugarB = cocoa butterC = milk powderD = other ingredientsE = cocoa liquor)The high amount of sugar, could also increase the risk of diabetes.But this does not mean that children should be forbidden from eating chocolate. It only means that they shouldn't consume it every day, but instead on holidays or festivals etc.Part/Teil 2:lt makes no sense to ban chocolate in an institution or building only because there are less than 10 children. Chocolate won't have a less damaging* effect on children only because there are more of them. It depends on the amount of Chocolate (also which type of chocolate) consumed by an individual child.* damaging is meant as increasing the risk of a disease.Sources:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.cacaochocolade.nl...=Thank you.
This house will ban chocolate for under ten children

G'day and good luck to my opponent. I'll be taking the CON side in this debate, please excuse me all, I wont write long arguments, I haven't been on Debate.org for a really long time, Helaas. I hope that Pro will give me more information why that house will ban chocolate for under ten children. There was a very good comment by @MagicAintReal : "But if there are more than ten children you're cool with it?"
Obamacare

I am an Atheist, a Liberal, and a Democrat, and I believe that Obamacare is a great policy, but still has a few flaws that must be repaired. It should not be repealed and the Congress and the President should work together in order to repair the broken aspects of the healthcare system. I look forward to debating anyone who opposes Obamacare. Please note that the first round is only for acceptance and making your claim. Round 2 will be for main arguments, round 3 will be for supporting evidence, and the final two rounds will be for rebuttals.
Obamacare

My opponent has not really made any proper refutations against my case except what he would personally do. The problem with Obamacare is that the costs outweigh the benefits of it and thus this is a bad law. When there is a strong majority of people who are against it, then the law should not be made. Health care reform is good, but Obamacare is not. ConclusionI have succesfully won this debate through more reliable sources, strongers arguments, and my opponent's inability to hold his own case.
Obamacare

I will not deny the facts. However, if I were a member of the Congress, I would not want to repeal the law, I would want to shake hands with the President and tell him that I am ready to work with him in order to repair it. Obamacare has flaws, I must admit, but there are successes as well, which nearly all Republicans deny. The duty of the Congress is to work with the President for the betterment of the country. Why can't the Congress work with the President to repair the law? Why is their agenda repealing Obamacare? Obama is focusing on other important issues as well, such as immigration reform, gun control, the minimum wage, among other issues, while the Republicans want to only repeal Obamacare. Please explain this to me. Also, I expect to lose this debate. I am an amateur, so please forgive me if you are annoyed my unintelligent arguments. Thank you.
Obamacare

Continuing with more arguments.No Consensus "For decades, a rule of thumb in Washington has said that there should be popular support and a bipartisan majority before approving an initiative that significantly affects tens of millions of Americans. Health-care reform—ObamaCare—has neither, yet Democrats want to impose it anyway. If they succeed, the consequences could be devastating for the country and probably for the president and his party. The reasoning behind the rule is simple. Forcing drastic change on an unwilling public is likely to cause national disunity, stir angry protests, increase political polarization, and deepen distrust of Washington. But if popular opinion and both political parties support the change, discord will be minimal." [1]In this case, the public his highly unwilling to support the law. It has never had support in the polls, at least as far as the RealClearPolitics average is concerned. According to the latest polls in the RCP average:Oppose: 51.6%For: 39.0% [2] At the confereces and committees when the health care law was first being created, all Republicans and several Democrats were not invited. There was only one exception, but that is simply not fair. The bill is also known to be incredible wrong leading to Nancy Pelosi's "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." [3]The UninsuredObamacare does not at all help the uninsured. Most free market solutions to healthcare allows the effects of supply and demand to allow more quality and cheaper healthcare. One solution I link here provides a very good idea. [4] I have already explained higher premiums and taxes ruin the quality of health care and the Heritage Foundation adds:"Obamacare imposes a penalty—or tax increase—on Americans who do not purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that most of those paying these taxes are middle-class individuals and families making less than 500 percent of the federal poverty level: $59,000 for an individual and $120,000 for a family of four. Three million lower-income and middle-class Americans will pay an estimated $2 billion in these 'mandate taxes.'" [5]Sources1. http://online.wsj.com...;2. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...3. http://www.usnews.com...4. http://archive.lewrockwell.com...5. http://blog.heritage.org...
Obamacare

Your points are valid and I will not deny them. However, I am going to continue making my case: Obamacare is working for millions Millions are insured under the Affordable Care Act and are prospering. An individual the President mentioned in his 2014 State of the Union Address is a perfect example of how it is working: She was uninsured and had to have surgery. She obtained health insurance and got the surgery. A week ago, it would have meant bankruptcy. "The Affordable Care Act already has added nine million Americans, who previously had no coverage or had inadequate coverage, to the rolls of the insured, either by people buying lower cost individual coverage on the exchanges or by the expansion of Medicaid in those states that accepted the federal funding for the expansion. But many Republican-led states, like North Carolina, refused the expansion, despite the fact 100 percent of the added cost is covered by the feds for the first three years and 90 percent forever after. Many such state governments have done all they can to interfere with the implementation by making it difficult for people to get information and understand the new law." [1] Republicans want to only repeal Obamacare All Republicans care about is repealing Obamacare. That is their agenda. They do not have the capacity to shake hands with the President and tell him, "Let's work together." Instead, they focus on repealing Obamacare. While they are fighting the law, they can't see some of the successes of the ACA. Why can't Republicans work with the President in order to repair the law? Barack Obama acknowledges the flaws of the law, but the Republicans in Congress cannot acknowledge the successes. ACA facts "As of Oct. 1, every state will have a health insurance marketplace, where consumers can shop for coverage. In addition to mandating that insurers in those marketplaces offer the 10 essential health benefits, the health care law also sets certain standards that all insurers must meet, whether they're providing health insurance through an employer or directly to individuals and small groups. The law: Eliminates lifetime limits on essential medical expenses; Prohibits insurers from dropping your coverage or raising your premiums if you get sick " or from denying coverage if you have a preexisting condition; Ensures that your child can stay on your health plan until age 26; Caps annual out-of-pocket medical and drug expenses up to an estimated $6,400 for individuals and $12,800 for families." [2] You cannot deny some of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Why do you want the law to be repealed when it is already doing so much for Americans? More information on the following link: http://www.forbes.com... References [1] http://www.the-dispatch.com... [2] http://www.aarp.org...
Obamacare

I can see that my opponent is new here to debate.org. I do not simply intend to win this debate, but I intend to offer him helpful advice on the way which will come in round 4 since rounds 2 and 3 seem to be primarily for giving arguments not criticizing my opponents argument. I wish my opponent well in this debate and hope he has a great time on debate.org. Now for my case.The "Unaffordable" Care ActThe Afforable Care Act or Obamacare or ACA (depending on what you prefer to use) should not be passed because it is simply not affordable. This act will raise far higher costs than we can pay for and our country already has a spending problem. The total cost of Obamacare is $1.76 trillion over the next ten years according to the Congressional Budget Office. These costs are not sustainable and will cause a widening deficit as time goes on. [1]This picture illustrates the problem with revenue and spending: In order to deal with the situation, Obamacare includes tax hikes to pay for it, but as illustrated by the Laffer curve: more taxes means less revenue because less people have an incentive to work harder if they make less money and money will be hidden in tax shelters where it cannot be used to boom our economy: These taxes kill job growth as the CBO has analyzed:"In its new budget outlook, CBO very clearly states that Obamacare amounts to an implicit tax on work and workers that will reduce employment by as much as 2.5 million jobs over the next ten years." [2]Loss of FreedomAside from the high costs of Obamacare, it also leads to a lose in your doctor and healthcare provider. As the National Center reports:"An astonishing 46 percent of responding primary care physicians claim they would leave or try to leave medicine as a result of ObamaCare, gravely exacerbating the existing shortage of primary care doctors (according to the American Academy of Family Physicians, the number of U.S. medical school students choosing primary care has already dropped 52 percent since 1997)." [3]Already millions are losing their healthcare coverage:"Not only is Obamacare costing hardworking American families hours and jobs, but thousands continue to receive healthcare cancellation notices. So far, at least 5 million Americans have lost their current healthcare plans because their insurance no longer meets the new standards set under Obamacare. With the continued rocky rollout of Obamacare, this year will see millions of individuals with small-group market plans, mostly provided by small businesses; lose coverage due to dramatic increases in healthcare premiums." [4]Sources1. http://news.yahoo.com...; 2. http://www.forbes.com...3. http://www.nationalcenter.org...4. http://dailycaller.com...
Obamacare

http://en.wikipedia.org... For me to explain all the greatness of Obamacare, I would have to write endlessly. Therefore, I have posted a link. I recognize that Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source, but you can't say that the entire site is a lie, right? There will be a few inaccuracies in the link, but I assure you, the things listed are either fact or based on fact. Please also take into consideration that I am an amateur debater. Thank you.