BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Requiring photo ID in order to vote.

I. The cost of things A. It's not easy or convenient for every American to get government issued photo ID cards as required by the new laws, so they don't. Usually these are the poor, elderly or people in rural areas. Often it is because they can't afford the fee, or have no permanent address. Some of the states are not simply requiring photo ID, but the ID also has to have the person's current home address printed on the card and be issued by the government (no student IDs). If they move, they have to apply and pay for a new photo ID card. Also, if someone can't produce a photo ID that meets the local standards, they are instructed to travel to a government office (usually a county seat or capital) to fill out a form to apply for some form of exemption or provisional ballot. Another hoop that the poor or elderly may not be able to jump through. Americans are so busy nowadays, that a trip to a DMV can not only be a long drive (rural) but can also take time away from their jobs. No one is going to lose money to vote. Some people could even have a hard time just getting to a DMV (elderly and students without a car). As is America averages 50% voter turnout, and those are just the ones that are registered. So far there haven't been any stories in the media about illegals voting in our elections. There is no problem with illegals voting in our elections. If you want tougher standards to discourage voting fraud, fine. But, requiring voter ID does more than eliminate illegals from the picture it eliminates eligible voters as well. Besides any illegals that REALLY want to vote can get a fake license anyway and would be able to get away with it. Also most illegal immigrants are seasonal, they come to America to work on farms and in the winter when the harvest is over they go back home with all the money they got. So our election month, November would fall in to the time frame when a lot of immigrants will be back home. As said before, the poor, elderly and students tend to vote Democratic...and Republicans tend to support special ID requirements for voting. You do the math. Photo ID makes no sense. My opponent's "Positive effects" are desirable, but he misleads you on the negative effects. "N1. Some people who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. ...N2. People who have no ID will have to spend ~10 bucks and go to their DMV to get an ID." Americans can barely pick their kids up from soccer practice let alone stand in line at a DMV to get a license to do something barely half of Americans do. Plus do we really need to spend any more time and money on something that should be given to us anyway, like the constitutional right to vote. Here are the real negative effects N1. Poor, elderly, and rural and urban citizens will not be able to vote. N2. Illegals who want to vote still will be able to through fake ID's It is even debatable that a significant number of people will get their special voter ID's enough that law enforcement is helped. I still fail to see how Photo ID helps anybody (except Republicans trying to steal the vote...again).
Requiring photo ID in order to vote.

First thanks for admitting that voter fraud isn't an issue, that saves the both of us time. However, the debate is not about the "fairness" of how much one needs to pay for the license or voting inside your home. (Just to add, although the license costs only 10 dollars, documents such as birth certificate and other forms of identification are required which can cost around 200 dollars and upwards). Voting is a constitutional right (unlike "alcholol or cigs") given to us by our constitution and it should be treated as such (unless in extreme circumstances such as a mentally challenged person). Conservatives make it sound more of a privledge than a right, of course they never seem to fond of rights or the constitution. Infact, the reason most conservatives (the proponents of photo ID) are arguing in favor of such action because it helps their vote. Lets think about who this law will affect 1. Elderly people without licenses 2. People who live in cities who have public transportation 3. Poverty stricken individuals who can't afford a car, the insurance, gas etc. These people are all KEY voting blocks for the Democratic party. Photo ID is just another scheme to exclude the minority vote in order to keep old rich white people in power (I am saying this as an upper middle class white person). As we speak, (or type) courts are declaring these laws unconstitional. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://dor.mo.gov... Besides, with voter turnout as horrible as it is in the U.S. do we really need to provide one more obstacle for people to vote?
Requiring photo ID in order to vote.

First, photo ID is not expensive. It's like, 10 bucks. And you don't need to have a driver's license, you can just get a photo ID [at the DMV]. So what's the argument against this? That people shouldn't be forced to go through the trouble of paying 10 bucks and getting a photo ID. It's "unfair." Know what else is unfair? That you have to leave your house to vote. I mean, come on, all those hermits are being excluded from the voting process. You have to PAY to get transportation to wherever you're voting at, unless you're within walking distance. What about people who don't have a couple bucks? They get excluded! You have to SPEND TIME walking/driving/riding there. What about all those people who don't have time? They get excluded! What a serious problem this is! This is VOTING we're talking about, people shouldn't have to go through ANY trouble at all to do it, right? Oh. Or maybe, it's OK for the government to force us to go through a little bit of trouble. Since it fixes a problem, why not add Photo ID as one of the many requirements? I'll admit, voter fraud is not a huge issue. There aren't swarms of illegals/etc voting because of it. But those that do are being allowed to abuse the system. See, that's not how we do things. We don't even let our ordinary legal citizens abuse the system like that. Photo ID fixes this, and it's a very minor thing for peple to get. People who are too lazy to go get one are the same people who are too lazy to vote in the first place. People are already required to have photo ID's to buy alcohol or cigs, so why not to vote?
Requiring photo ID in order to vote.

To require photo ID for voters would be against our supposed democratic system. Unless a special voter ID is issued for free to everyone, than people will be taken out of the democratic process, namely elderly people who do not have a license or urbanites that do not own a car but use a subway or some other form of public transportation (mostly democrats might I add). I will also show that there is no "problem" with voter fraud as its proponents suggest and all evidence to support such a claim are anecdotal and fail to show nay trends. So con is to argue 1. There is a voter fraud problem 2. Having photo ID (other than one issued by the government specifically for voting) would outweigh the cost of excluding certain members of our democracy if there is any cost at all.
Cats are better than dogs

Cats are better than dogs because cats can learn every trick a dog can do while still holding a sense of independence. Teaching a cat tricks simply takes longer but is more entertaining than a dog doing tricks, which we've all seen before. Also dogs will love absolutely anyone but cats are very selective on who they show affection to, thus making it more special. Also cats clearly show signs of annoyance before attacking. I'm not saying dogs do not show signs but (for me at least) it's much easier with cats. Also cats are better to chill with because they don't try and lick your face 24/7. Plus cats are bloody hilarious. Have you ever seen a cat playing? When they do that funny arched back and jump around in a circle, than quickly run off. It's one of the funniest things ever.
Semantics should be debated in theological disagreements

Thank you, con, for conceding. Theology is defined as the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world [1]. This is a topic on which there are several disagreements, and I believe that too many of them rely on semantic points to be ignored in the case of a debate. We can start off with the definition of god. There are several contributing factors surrounding god's capabilities, existence, or lack thereof. The most influential factor, is the denotative structure that can make god a deductively valid or invalid notion, as I will demonstrate here. God is defined as follows: 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3 : a person or thing of supreme value 4 : a powerful ruler [2] As we can see, there are descriptions that very completely. If we define natural as having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature [3], and nature as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing [4], then god cannot possibly exist with one definition. A being cannot have aspects that extend past it's own constitutions. By another definition, god has to exist, because it's nearly impossible to argue the fact that there have been powerful rulers. The point is, one's position on the topic of theology is influenced by the various definitions to a point where not accepting any discussion and debate on them is a direct obstacle to finding insight to the topic. I await your response. [1]http://i.word.com... [2]http://i.word.com... [3]http://i.word.com... [4]http://i.word.com...
Parkour should be free to practice

Parkour today is largely misrepresented with movies and youtube videos as a way of showing off and a form of competition. Even today parkour is as a sport, which is against the original philosophy of parkour, which endorses self-development. Because people see parkour as less of a way to train the self it is abused. Parkour is just as much as a philosophy as it is a form of training much like kung-fu; therefore, there should be better informed practitioners to start a movement of free practice.
christians should not be allowed on this board

Firstly, my opponent ignored my argument showing his own personal contradiction. This is a prima facie argument, and defeats my opponent's criticisms. Moving on to his (few) claims:"This is retarded. Yu[sic] win a debate by being eclared[sic] a winner from a legitimate judge you fvcktard[sic]. obviously[sic] you know nothing about debate[sic]. " Deciphering the spelling and grammar, I would usually address this by saying there are multiple judges in most debates. However, this is irrelevant to the debate, and therefore irrelevant to either of our cases. "it shows that crisians[sic] are stupid stephen_d1psh1it[sic]. seriously its[sic] clear s[sic] day"The irony of presenting a case as clear s day. However, my opponent still did not present his own argument, nor did the idea that Christians having low intelligence affect whether they should be allowed to vote. To conclude, my opponent has presented no arguments in favour of himself, yet managed to somehow make an argument showing he is self-contradictary. Furthermore, he has misspelt words endlessly (Spelling and Grammar -1) and constantly swore at myself (conduct -1).
christians should not be allowed on this board

sinces hes atheist i figure thres at least a small chance he;ll see the ratinaity behind my poisition and concede, but with the stupidity thaat this board is full of i wouldnt count on it anyway, since this is a debate site intelligence should be imporant, especially in voting which christians cant do. in face, saying you "won" a debat with christianvotes is jst an argument from majority It should be expected from studies of Iq and the recent pew research poll that christians don't understand religous topics very well. Logic is also another topic that most college students struggle through, I remember having to help several people through logic 1 and the math version numbers,sets, and structures so to base it on the masses opinion is a argument from authority or majority fallacy and a poor authority or majority at that. . http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com... i know, i know, you guys dont kow what that means but google it you can educate yourself. In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor. this proves that idots shouldnt be on here, and christians are natural fvcktards for believing in an invisible zombie savior
The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet

2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless theapostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way."Paul said that the mystery of lawlessness was already at work in the first century AD. Also, the man of lawlessness would not be revealed until the apostasy (Greek: apostasia- falling away, defection (1)) came first. The apostasy was the catholic church introducing such doctrines as the worship of mary, the veneration of symbols, the prayers to saints, and eventually the universal pope.“Whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of antichrist.” -Pope Gregory (2)The apostasy is revealed, and the man of lawlessness is understood to being a pope, as he alone sits in a temple of God (a church) and dispalys himself out to be God. Now, when Jesus returns, he will overthrow the Catholic Church, and that would require him to denounce the Pope at his arrival, which is why the passages refer to it as one man. So, we can understand that the Papacy is the line of the antichrist, the false prophet leading people into apostasy, and one day the Messiah will return to annihilate this church and replace it with truth.(1) http://www.studylight.org...(2) https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org...
The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet

Hello, welcome to my debate. Rebuttal 1: The Antichrist is ONLY ONE PERSON. "I'm going to have to agree with Sir Isaac Newton on this one and say that the "antichrist" isn't one person, it's a role that can be identified as the pope of the Catholic Church." The role of the Antichrist is strictly only one figure, as told by the Christian bible. Here is a bible verse referring to the Antichrist as only one figure. It is located in 2 Thessalonians. "Don"t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and THE MAN of lawlessness is revealed, THE MAN doomed to destruction. And then the lawless ONE will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming." This bible passage refers to "the man" and "the one", indicating that the Antichrist is only one person multiple times. Contention 1: There is no Antichrist that is Evident Yet Now that we've established that the Antichrist is strictly one person, I am officially stating that there's no single "human figure" that can be proven to be the Antichrist, yet. To be the Antichrist, one must meet all the criteria that the Christian bible describes about the Antichrist. There's no "human figure" that meets all of the criteria of the Antichrist, yet. In Conclusion: I have proven biblically how the Antichrist of Christianity can only be one person. I have also stated that there's nobody that meets all the criteria of the Antichrist as of this time. My opponent must state who he thinks the Antichrist is. I await my opponent's next argument.
The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet

I'm going to have to agree with Sir Isaac Newton on this one and say that the "antichrist" isn't one person, it's a role that can be identified as the pope of the Catholic Church. This is not a blatant attack on Catholocism, as I will try to be as apologetic towards the catholic church as I possibly can, nevertheless, this church is the cause of the apostacy that is linked with the antichrist.I look forward to an intriguing and thought-provoking discussion on the end times that lead up to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet

I do not believe that the Antichrist is completely evident yet (meaning that nobody meets all of the criteria of the Antichrist yet). Here are the rules of my debate. 1. To accept, you must think that the antichrist is evident as of September 1st, 2013. 2. Round 1 is acceptance and con must present the person (or people) who they think the Antichrist of the Christian religion. 3. Rounds 2-5 is no holds barred.
The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet

I'm going to keep this short, because there isn't much to say that I haven't already said. Rebuttal 1: Restating My Points "Now, fifty million murders is not an issue to be passed aside. I understand that modern Catholocism is not to blame for these atrocities, nor are they the same people as their antique counterparts. However, this is the bloody history of the church, the basis of which modern Catholocism is founded upon. This dark history is vital to the present day." Once again, the Counter Revolution changed some of the basic concepts of the Catholic church. As you put it, Modern day Catholicism can not be blamed for the murders that were supported by the Catholic church 500 YEARS AGO. Catholics today are not evil because of something other Catholics did many years ago. Read this point I made in Round 4. "I'm sure there have been extremists who have killed people on a smaller scale since then. However, Christians have done this, too. There probably have been Christian extremists who have killed people in the name of God. So, saying that Catholic extremists who kill people makes the church as a whole evil would also be applicable to Christianity. As you and I both know, Christianity doesn't condone murder. Therefore, any Catholic who kills someone shouldn't be a reflection of the Catholic church's theories." Your quote: "However, much of the theology and doctrines of the Catholic Church are fallacious, along with some of the Protestant doctrines that were kept when they left Catholocism." This still doesn't prove that all Popes of the Catholic church are the Antichrists. All that statement tells me is your opinion, which is not backed by facts. Plus, you even stated that nobody really has misled many people from Christianity. Therefore, your argument is invalid. "After taking a look at the history of the past 2000 years, we do not see many false christs having mislead many people." Contention 1: You Still Have Not Proven Your Theory Not much to say that already hasn't been said. It's this simple; If you think that all the Popes of the Catholic church are the antichrists, you need to prove that with biblical evidence. All you have done is hinted at the fact that the Catholic church might (I stress that word) be corrupt/evil. You haven't proven what you need to prove to make your theory correct. Final Conclusion: My opponent hasn't yet proven that the Antichrist of the Christian religion is actually several leaders from the Catholic church (the 266 Popes), but rather, has given his opinion on why the Catholic church is evil/immoral. To prove his theory, he must show how all 266 popes that have ever existed meet all the criteria of the Antichrist. I await my opponent's final argument.
The Antichrist of the Christian Religion is Not Completely Evident Yet

Dark Catholic History"I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus." RevelationTo further stress my point, this issue must first be clarified. Now, there is much debate on how much the catholic church has killed over its long period of power. Many scholars and historians have tried to produce adequate numbers that hold true to religious history. Here is a quote from such an historian:"From the birth of Popery in 606 to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors, an average of more than forty thousand religious murders for every year of the existence of popery."(Dowling, History of Romanism, pages 541,521. New York: 1871)Now, fifty million murders is not an issue to be passed aside. I understand that modern Catholocism is not to blame for these atrocities, nor are they the same people as their antique counterparts. However, this is the bloody history of the church, the basis of which modern Catholocism is founded upon. This dark history is vital to the present day.Antichrist PapacyMatthew 24:5,24 "For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many." "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect."This passage, taken at face value, does not seem to be fulfilled. This prophecy calls for many false christs to lead even the elect astray. After taking a look at the history of the past 2000 years, we do not see many false christs having mislead many people.However, in light of understanding Greek and Latin, the prophecy sheds much light. Antichrist (Greek antichristos)- either one who puts himself in the place of, or the enemy (opponent) of the Messiah. (http://biblesuite.com...)Vicar of Christ (Latin Vicarius)- substitute of Christ(http://latinlexicon.org...)Martin Luther, one of the biggest influences of the Protestants, believed the office of the pope to be the antichrist.(http://www.pbs.org...)In fact, many of the early reformers held this position, and as time has gone by and as the Catholic Church has become less hostile towards "heretics", this idea has dissipated. I greatly appreciate the better relationship between the Catholic and Protestant churches now, and hope this may continue to last. However, much of the theology and doctrines of the Catholic Church are fallacious, along with some of the Protestant doctrines that were kept when they left Catholocism. Luckily, God judges the hearts of each individual man: Jeremiah 17:10 "“I, Yahweh, search the heart, I test themind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds." So, everyone will be tested by their hearts, but the office of the papacy goes against the will of God, and it will one day be abolished when Jesus returns to build Ezekiel's Temple.