BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the democratic party

alright, you say that we're "covert racists" because black guys like us. how is that racism? they just like us because we support helping poor people and they choose to join, we don't force them to. You republicans always say "guns don't kill people, people do!" yeah, but guns are what most killers use, so I'd say it's a pretty safe bet to keep them under lock and key. then, you say that raising the minimum wage doesn't help poor people. how the heck could it not? it takes money from the rich and gives it to the poor. just like robin hood. it's not rocket science, but you think it is for some weird reason. finally, you claim that gun control didn't prevent some mass shooting. well, gun control can't control every gun. it just slows them down a little. he probably got to shoot it because of some republican senator. And there could have been lots more mass shootings that year if you repubbos had your way.
the democratic party

now, i shall offer two contentions. Contention one: your argument is not valid because the parties have switched sides, and what you claim occured over one hundred years ago. you cannot still claim that democrats are bigger racists than democrats. trump is a big racist. so is ben carson. and ted cruz. and mitt romney. and george bush. they all hate mexicans, or blacks, or all sorts of minorities. you see, minorities, because of their oppression, naturally rarely get rich, so they side with the democrats, who support raising the amount of money that poor people get. as a result. republicans hate both democrats and minorities, because the two groups are basically the same. you are no longer on the side against racism. you are for it. Contention two: please do not deny that we have switched. Most black people voted for Obama, both because he was black and a rocking cool democrat. Most mexicans, a minority, hate trump, a republican. seriously, how can you deny this? let's move on to some other topic in the next round, please, besides slavery and all that. most slave owners weren't democrats, but confederates. the confederacy was considered by southerners to be a different country, with no political parties. Now, I'm not saying that would be good, but most slave owners weren't democrats. I await your next argument.
the democratic party

sorry for that sketchy ending on my last argument-you know, all the "http 500" stuff. perhaps the most obvious flaw to republicans is that they don't want the government to control stuff. you know what that's called? ANARCHY!!! he's been asking me to provide sources all this debate, so here's the google definition of anarchy. a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. Sounds pretty much like the whole "kill the government" thing. it's also hypocritical, because since republicans are a dominant force in politics, they must therefore be involved with the government. politicians are government, man. democrats accept that and know it. Saying that republicans aren't part of the government is like saying that donald trump isn't the spawn of satan. both are untrue. You'll note that old password usually goes with over two thousand words on his arguments, just to impress voters, but in that last argument, he only went with about 500 by my estimate, so he's obviously just adding a bunch of filler to impress you guys. Vote for me, but I know you won't, because you're mostly republicans.
the democratic party

Let me first break down my opponents first argument and explain why it's invalid. 1. Yes democrats give money to poor people so they can afford children. But it's not because they're against abortions. No. the true reason that democrats give all of this "free" money away to poor people is to keep them dependent on the government. You see, these policies that you're referring to essentially do the following. "here, if you make the poor decision to have a child you can't afford to support, we will give you free money. Now, you are dependent on this free money in order to support yourself and your family thus you will vote for us in every election from now until the end of your life because without us, you're screwed. please continue to make bad decisions so we don't take your money away." You see, the failed policies of the welfare state have kept the poor in the position they're in by incentivising bad decisions. Thus keeping the poor poor and keeping the ballot boxes stuffed with votes for the democratic party. We Republicans want to break the grip that the Democrats have on the poor by freeing them to make better life choices and climb the income ladder by ending their dependence on government funds. this has nothing to do with abortion. this also ties in to my opponents next statement about how Republicans use democrat standpoints to win votes. My opponent did not address any of the points I made in my previous argument therefore I have nothing left to address.
the democratic party

right. anyhoo, let's move along to the abortion type thing, I want to get to that before the debate ends. Democrats are against abortions, republicans are for them. this is absolutely true. DEMOCRATS give money TO poor people so they CAN AFFORD KIDS and DON'T NEED AN ABORTION. REPUBLICANS TAKE MONEY AWAY from poor people so they CAN'T AFFORD KIDS and NEED AN ABORTION. republicans simply use the democrat standpoint to win votes. you may contradict this, say that democrats are pro choice, but the only reason people need a choice is because they're poor, and democrats work to make it so we don't need a choice. repubs just think that poor people are lazy bums, and they could become as rich as they are in five minutes. Democrats recognize that change is gradual, and things must be taken away from the rich in order for the poor to gain anything. these are the laws of the universe. you cannot contradict this. I wonder what you'll say now. Please votefor me democrats, if there eevn
The only objective reason not to consider women inferior to men is purely physical.

No offence to my opponent but you truly misunderstood my argument about multitasking.I said that multitasking is merely the lack of ability to focus. It is represented by the fact that women have the urge to talk so much no matter what it is they are doing whilst talking, since unless they are doing two things at once they simply cannot seem to process the fact that they must zone in on their work. What other explanation is there or their advantage? Apparently the current theory is more connections between sides of the brain mean there is a far more sophisticated network for women to switch between tasks instantaneously but how is this an advantage if men can focus better inherently? Focusing on something is what made Mozart, the musician he was, Einstein the scientist he was and Michael Phelps the swimmer he was. Women are simply too all-over-the-place only really having an advantage in a situation such as household chores where doing two at once can sav ea lot of time but house hold chores are really only taxing to the body and are usually able to be done by even those suffering from Alzheimer's disease since they are so simple to cognitively process. Its doing actions in a preset order to achieve an outcome, similar to blue collar job style of work, and clearly they are at the lower end of the food chain of workers.Women are more capable than men at using language but throughout history men have shown that they are far more efficient users of their limited talents.In fact it is a man (http://sciencefocus.com...) who speaks the most language (59) fluently in the world. In fact if one were to flick through the Guinness book of world records they'd find very few mental feats being women and the only ones being women being reading speed or talking speed or something down that line. And while such inherent talent seems to make them not inferior to men the sad truth is that reading and speaking fast is not an advantage at all because in fact this woman (shown in the documentary) means she always has to speak and read agonizingly slow if ever relating to other people so overall it's a huge disadvantage to her. It's not even that she can memorise it all after reading so fast, merely that the is able to put thoughts into words (even those form reading) at a high rate... Well this is a useless skill... She hasn't even made use of it whereas I'm sure a man with her 'unfortunate gift' would have made far better use of it, perhaps making a tv show or something (the showbusiness directors are dominated by men, in fact there is virtually not a single female movie director in history of mankind, so it's not just the plain things like business, math and science that men thwart women at).You are yet to display a single way that women prove their 'lack of inferiority' to men other than physically.
The only objective reason not to consider women inferior to men is purely physical.

The burden of proof lies on you, con. For it is you who must prove any other objective reason in support of gender equality.DefinitionsObjective = not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.Inferior = of comparatively low grade; poor in quality; substandard.Physical = of or pertaining to that which is material, for example the body as opposed to the mind.I believe that if men could get pregnant and have babies, as women do, as well as be equally prone to physical ailments (such as ageing, cancer, heart disease, autism and other male dominated weaknesses) and be as flexible as them then women would be definitely inferior to men and without purpose.Also the only industries where the best of it are women are physical ones and not even the sports one but rather things like pornography and dance (art is purely subjective so we can't argue with this).The only point one can raise for men to value women is their ability to get pregnant since in every intellectual and emotional respect men are superior to women.I know that women are more capable at language, team work and multitasking than men but I will prove that this is actually because men's minds are on far more important things and actually multitasking results form inability to focus on anything for extended periods of time (which is why they have to talk all the time no matter what they do).For the premises of this debate being a chauvinist pig is not inherently immoral and I should not lose a conduct vote simply for my resolution/standpoint on the matter.
Theistic beliefs can be rational.

Thanks to my opponent for his arguments.I would use this round for rebuttals, like my opponent, but it seems that my own opening contentions serve as a direct rebuttal to Con's first opening contention (that there is no evidence), and his second opening contention doesn't really make any sense... hopefully my opponent will elaborate on it next round...R1) Suggestive EvidenceCon has missed the point of this contention. I wasn't trying to prove God's existence... I was merely showing through example that there do exist scientific and philosophical arguments that *add substantial plausibility* to the idea of God's existence, thus making it rational to hold theistic beliefs.Now to apply this idea to Con's specific rebuttals...1. Cosmological ArgumentsCon's rebuttal here is basically a straw man. Again, I am not suggesting that God *must* be the universe's first cause... I am arguing that God being the first cause is just as plausible as any other cosmological hypothesis, including cyclic universe models; I am not arguing that the universe couldn't be cyclic/eternal while God could be, but that God is just as likely an explanation for the universe's existence as those cyclic models. 2. Fine-Tuning ArgumentsAgain, Con's misunderstanding of my intentions with this entire contention lead him to straw man my argument. I never claimed that God is the only feasible answer to the universe's cosmological coincidences, but that God is a very plausible answer to those coincidences, especially in relation to alternative explanations.R2) Spiritual ExperiencesFirst of all, it is not my fault if my opponent has never heard of the term "spiritual experiences" before. It is quite a well-established concept...http://www.spiritual-experiences.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent decides to try attacking this contention by arguing that there are materialistic explanations for all supposed spiritual experiences, and thus it is not rational to believe in God because of them. However the only time he elaborates on this point is in saying that there is no logical reason to assume that a coincidence is a divinely inspired miracle.I generally agree that many supposed miracles can be explained upon closer inspection of the circumstances, but that point still does not really rebut my contention, as It only deals with one type of "spiritual experience". Aside from miracles, there are also visions, sensations, fulfilled prayers, and other things of the like which all have much more obvious and direct links to something divine. CONCLUSIONS-- Con misunderstands the entire point of my first contention; it is not an attempt to prove God's existence... it's an attempt to prove that the existence of God is plausible enough for it to be perfectly rational to believe in him-- Con's rebuttal only partially addresses my second contention regarding spiritual experiences, and thus my point still stands that, for the most part, spiritual experiences can serve as a rational basis for belief in God. The resolution is affirmed; theistic beliefs can be rational. I hand the debate back over to my opponent.
Theistic beliefs can be rational.

Basically, my position is that Theistic beliefs are not rational. If I can show that in any way, I will have fulfilled my burden of proof. Contention 1 : Theistic gods do not exist rationally, therefore those who believe in theistic gods (and subsequently theism) do so against the rational nonexistence of gods. We have no proof that theistic gods exist. This is one of the theist's primary burden of proof in proving that his or her theistic belief is true. Upon utter lack of proof, theistic gods and consequently their respective theistic belief do not exist by rational (logical) thinking. Therefore, since those following theistic beliefs do not follow this rational/logical thinking, they are not being rational/logical in their adherence. Theistic beliefs can then be said to be not rational. Contention 2: It isn't rational to follow theistic beliefs Statement 1 = It is rational to doubt theism. Statement 2 = It is not rational to not doubt (therefore follow) theism. (Applying a double negative to statement 1 will result in the statement 2. ) Provided Statement 1 is true, it follows that Statement 2 is true. Statement 2 is an iteration of my side of the resolution. Both my contentions alone are sufficient in fulfilling my burden of proving that theistic beliefs are not rational. . . . . . . Note: upon reviewing this round, I find that the resolution I am arguing doesn't exactly correlate with the resolution I am supposed to be arguing. I have been arguing that theistic beliefs are not rational, but the resolution tells me to argue that theistic beliefs can be rational. The difference is trifling, but enough to semantically undermine everything I've said. I hope this doesn't become a semantic debate and pray my opponent will let this violation slide. If not, what would be left for me are 2 straight rounds of rebuttals. Anywho, let this be a lesson to me in being wary of 'can' and 'could' debates. On to my opponent!
Theistic beliefs can be rational.

Theistic beliefs shall be defined as a belief in the existence of at least one God. The word 'rational' shall be defined to be defined to be something based on reason or logic. Romanii is the only person I expect to accept this debate. Anyone else to accept this debate will forcefully end this in a tie. I will be arguing against the notion that theistic beliefs can be rational. My opponent will argue that theistic beliefs can be rational. I look forward to a fruitful, wholesome (fruitsome? ) debate.
Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

Well it seems like, Though its hard to tell, That you pretty much agree with the article. So I can really say nothing against that. And I cannot continue with this argument. I do agree with pretty much all of what you have to say. Though religion is invented to explain the unexplained. And its also been around ever since man has been around. You've also got a power structure with most religions, Though not all. First comes power, Then comes fear and then comes control. Also the similarities between religions is just far to close to be called a nick knack paddy wack. I think you touched on them. There's an above world, A heaven if you will. And then there's a hell, A below world if you will.
life being nature, there is no, before life

All of Pro's claims are bare assertions. I would like to note that the conservation of energy can be violated via. quantum mechanical fluctuations, as explained in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. [1] The presence of a gravitational singularity can also breach the conservation of energy, as well as quantum field theory. [2] Conservation of mass is breached by mass-energy equivalence. [3]Pro has still not fulfilled their BoP. The resolution is negated.Sources[1] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. p. 54. [http://tinyurl.com...] [2] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. pp. 115-116. [http://tinyurl.com...] [3] http://tinyurl.com...;
life being nature, there is no, before life

Shifting BoP is not an argument. I have already shown that the BoP is with Pro. Pro has committed the fallacy of negative proof, a logical fallacy that takes the structure of: "X is true as there is no proof against X." [1] The Big Bang TheoryThe Big Bang Theory (BBT) states that the universe is in a state of constant expansion, beginning as a hot, dense, millimeter-long point that expanded with immense speed. [2] The BBT is proven by the detections of the Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. CMB is thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang itself. In 2014, the B-mode polarization, a CMB, was measured at 150 GHz in the POLARBEAR experiment. [3][4] The BBT predicts that the universe was created approximately 13.7 billion years ago. [2] Life Came After the Big BangThe earliest evidence for life dates back to 3 billion years ago. [5] Therefore, life came much after the universe. As the universe is nature by definition, the resolution is negated.Sources[1] http://rationalwiki.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://background.uchicago.edu...;[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
life being nature, there is no, before life

I accept. I thank vi_spex for this debate. I would like to note that as Pro is making the positive claim, they have full BoP. Full ResolutionAs the resolution is grammatically rather incomprehensible, I interpret it as: As nature is life, there was no nature prior to life. BoP is with Pro.DefinitionsLife - "... a characteristic distinguishing physical entities having biological processes (such as signaling and self-sustaining processes) from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate." [1] Nature - "the phenomena of the physical world collectively." [2]Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
We do or don't have free will, depending on how you look at it...sort of.

I suppose I should've used a better analogy. I'll try again: Lets say you're playing a guessing game, and to win you have to guess 31, but you are told to pick a number between 1 and 30. You aren't going to ever pick 31 because you don't even know it's an option. Whether or not you would've picked it if you knew it was an option, we cant be sure of, but we can be sure that you were mislead about what your options really were. This could have lead you to making a choice you didn't want to, thus a lack of freedom of choice. The moral of the story is that you must know all your options, or at least have the ability to figure out your options without being restricted by a force outside yourself and nature. Also I'd like to thank Nail_Bat for accepting that it's not always about winning. In the words of someone whose name eludes me: the point of argument is to find the truth not to create it.
We do or don't have free will, depending on how you look at it...sort of.

--you cannot change your 1st argument after it is posted. Once you have made your resolution it is final-- Well I'm just a rebel like that. But to reiterate, my intention is only to get ideas to bounce off the theory, which my opponent has done well so far, so I'd say all y'all should vote for him. The point deserves more discussion: how "free" is an action when the choices have been artificially restricted? If an oppressive government gives its citizens the choice between following them and getting killed, can we really say that the citizens all decided to follow the regime? Of course, short of being subject to mind control, there is always a choice. In the cases we're talking about, however, that choice is between doing something you'd rather not do, or getting assassinated, incarcerated, excommunicated, or any other lovely thing that ends in ated. In the case of a forced choice, going by my model the agent is using "self preservation" as the criteria for choosing actions. This is not so much of a free choice, but a biological one. Since there is such a short link between the action and a biological desire, we would say these decisions are very lacking in freedom. This fits in with my model, as it provides a way of rating the freedom of a choice. Obviously this means there will be choices which are not quite so free at all.
We do or don't have free will, depending on how you look at it...sort of.

For starters I would like to point out to the judges, and to you, Nail_Bat, that you cannot change your 1st argument after it is posted. Once you have made your resolution it is final, so my first argument still stands, but to counter your argument I offer the following point: The key to freedom is not so much considering every possibility as not being hindered in your ability to consider a possibility by something other than nature. Obviously it's inevitable that time will continue and you can't stop time just to make a decision, however if something else is stopping you from knowing of an option it is taking away your freedom of choice. If you are only limited by your imagination and nature you still have the opportunity to consider every option, assuming you have enough time. However if someone stops you from knowing a certain option no matter how long you think you still may not know of that option, thus, you do not truly have free choice. *sorry my arguments are at the last minute and short, I got scheduled to work more than I expected.