BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

:) "I'm glad that I can say this with conviction. McCain will not be president. " From this statement, I can conclude that you are positive that McCain will not be the next president. But how do you know for sure? We have not voted yet, therefore we have no idea. It is as simple as that. Who thought that Huckabee would win the Iowa Caucus? It was unexpected and a big win for him. "He's like Bush all over again. " Mr. McCain does have the same ideas as President Bush, but he is a totally different man. Just because you have the same ideas as somebody else does not mean that you are the same person. Also, McCain was in war so he knows what it is like and what happens. In fact, I don't believe that Clinton nor Obama were in war, and their viewpoints are to take the troops out almost immediately. This will have severe effects on both the US and the countries we are in at the moment such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. Also, the war is benefiting the countries and improving them tremendously. But, this is not a debate on the war nor on whether or not President Bush was a good president or even if Mr. McCain would make a good president. It is simply ," McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee. " Again, I ask how do you know? We have not yet voted so therefore there is no evidence showing that he will certainly not be the next president. "Conservatives AND Liberals don't like him. " Not all. You posted this statement as though every single conservative and liberal hates Mr. McCain. This is not true. McCain is the leading Republican in the race, so I am guessing that he is getting votes. :) Also, it is all a matter of opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. So far, McCain has 974 delegates. Actually, many people all over the US support McCain. That was not a good statement to make. "so unpopular war in Iraq which McCain wants to keep for as long as it takes" This is irrelevent. For, this is not a debate over the Iraq War. These are his beliefs, and many people agree with him and think that he could lead the country in the right direction. I will conclude this argument with, even though my opponent has stated that many people do not like McCain, that is true with every single candidate. No one has 100% of the votes. My opponent has failed to support his "fact" that McCain is certainly going to loose. I await your response.
Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

I'm glad that I can say this with conviction. McCain will not be president. He's like Bush all over again. Except that "I'm moderate" story isn't going to work for McCain. Conservatives AND Liberals don't like him. Even Ann Coulter said she'd vote for Hillary or Obama over McCain. Not to mention the president's 30% apporval rating and the so unpopular war in Iraq which McCain wants to keep for as long as it takes (and I quote, "maybe 100 years"). Resolved: McCain won't be the next president of the United States.
Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

"That's what happened to Ron Paul and that's why his supporters' slogan was "google Ron Paul!" This may have been true in his case, but he was pretty much unknown before the race and the publicity. Pretty much all of the United States I would say knows that Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are running due to the fact that both can make history. Also, this is off topic. "McCain will certainly not be president because there are more registered democrats than registered republicans and the independents have been voting on democratic nominations. It's resolved, and when McCain loses the election you'll see I am right." This may be true (the fact that there are more registered democrats than republicans) but how do you know that if somebody who was hoping for Clinton to be the nominee and was against Obama would not vote for McCain? You do not know. Also, not all independents are going to vote democrat. "when McCain loses the election you'll see I am right." I may or may not. The election has not been held yet, has it? I will close with this: I do not believe that we can be certain that McCain will loose the election. No matter what you say, you cannot prove that McCain is certainly, without a doubt going to win. Although, many of you may believe that McCain should not be the next president, as much as you wish, it cannot be proven. Who though that Huckabee would win the Iowa Caucus?!? Overall, my opponent has yet to give me one good hard fact as to why he is certain that McCain will not win. He is still the front-runner on the republican side and has a chance to win just as all the candidates left do. Thank you for the debate and I hope that the voters will vote on who made the better arguemnt rather than on whose side they agree with. Thanks again! :)
Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

"This does not prove that somebody will vote for a person just because they get more media coverage" That's what happened to Ron Paul and that's why his supporters' slogan was "google Ron Paul!" McCain will certainly not be president because there are more registered democrats than registered republicans and the independents have been voting on democratic nominations. It's resolved, and when McCain loses the election you'll see I am right.
Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee.

"I'm glad that I can say this with conviction. McCain will not be president. " "Well I'm more than 80% sure. " "Resolved: McCain will not be president, even if Hillary is the democratic nominee." From the above statements you have made, one can conclude that your thesis statement and parts in your debate began with, "Resolved: McCain will not be president." to "Well I'm more than 80% sure." The topic of this debate is that in fact McCain will not be president. It doesn't say probably not. Therefore, you must prove to me that McCain is definitely not going to be president. You can say, "Well many people don't agree with him," and things, but that is true with all candidates. "Hillary and Obama (mostly Obama) have received more than 10 times the attention from the media than what McCain is getting. " I agree (probably not 10 times but..). This is because an African American male is running and a woman is running. Both could create history. The media brings you up and then tears you down. Also, who said that it was all good media coverage??? This does not prove that somebody will vote for a person just because they get m ore media coverage. Again, this is off topic and not relevant to your thesis. My opponent has failed to show me why McCain is certainly not going to be president, which is what his side of the debate is.
World War II Was the Only Truly Justified(Foreign) War Ever Fought by the USA

I apologize. When I wrote out the requirements of the debate, I had grouped conflicts like the Barbary Wars in my head with the War of 1812("nor do conflicts like the War of 1812, which could be argued to be a purely self-defensive conflict") since the Barbary Wars were purely defensive in nature. I consider wars like WWI to be the controversial ones since they were preemptive wars, with the US being the aggressor against a state that had not yet directly threatened America. If I were to amend the title of the debate to be more specific, I would use the word "preemptive" in there. Now, although the Japanese were clearly the aggressors that drew us into WWII, I have met people who claim that WWII should have been fought as a purely defensive war, with the focus being on Japan alone and allowing Germany to duke it out with Britain(even though Japan and Germany were freaking allies). This claim got me interested in this debate, since I always found the second war against Germany legitimate in a way that the first never really was. Preemptively invading France in this case was warranted, while, say, preemptively invading Vietnam was less so. I do concede your points about the Barbary Wars, and I agree with your assessment, I had simply not considered it to be an issue. If I may outline my theory a bit better: There have been 5 formal wars fought by the US: 1812, Mexican, Spanish, WWI and WWII. Of these five, 1812 was defensive, and the rest were either preemptive to a degree, or they were acquisitional and thus controversial( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) It is these types of wars that I debate the legitimacy of, as well as those wars that were not formally declared by Congress, and especially those directed by the UN(which I think has the least authority of all). So Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, all of these I challenge the legitimacy of. If my worthy opponent wouldn't mind debating on these terms I would be honored. Otherwise, I will concede to him, since I failed to clearly outline the parameters of this debate, and thus he wins both substantially and technically. I eagerly await his response.
World War II Was the Only Truly Justified(Foreign) War Ever Fought by the USA

Since its founding, the United States has been engaged in a nearly endless string of conflicts. ranging from relatively minor skirmishes to two full blown world wars. I posit that of all these conflicts, World War II has been the only foreign affair that was justified. Serious arguments only please. For the purposes of this debate, we will confine our definitions to foreign, interventionist affairs. The War for Independence does not count, nor do conflicts like the War of 1812, which could be argued to be a purely self-defensive conflict, or the Civil War, whose purpose no can agree on to begin with. First round will be opening arguments, second will be rebuttals and further arguments, third will be final rebuttals with closing arguments. To begin, I will point out that of all the wars fought by the US, WWII was the only one with clearly defined goals, clearly defined stakes and clearly defined enemies who instigated the conflict. The Pearl Harbor attack was a violent declaration of war which no sane nation could ignore. Hitler was fast revealing his true intentions: to become a world ruler and dominate as far as he could reach. With the fall of either Britain or Russia, Hitler would have been unopposed on the European continent. Once the solidification of power there was complete, the US's ability to defend against a naval invasion from Japan AND Germany would have been exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Thus the US's cause against Hitler was clear: a preemptive alliance with Britain and Russia was necessary right away. To delay a counterstroke by even a year would have meant a purely defensive US operation, at best. Hence the need to intervene in France and push into Germany. By contrast, all other forms of interference by the US have been shakily justified, with many of these engagements doing more harm than good. WWI, for example, was an affair between European powers that should never have happened. US intervention DID end the conflict, but in the aftermath, the meddling by Wilson and other US policy makers only served to jumble the European continent and set the stage for WWII. To back up my points, I refer to the ever reliable Just War Theory, which, more or less, is defined to include: 1) Just Cause 2) Comparative Justice 3)Competent Authority 4) Right Intention 5)Probability of Success 6)Last Resort 7) Proportionality(Source: Wikipedia, Obviously) Examination of these points supports the need for WWII, while all other US foreign affairs do not. These arguments are very broad for now, but I shall refine them and source them as we get further into the debate.
The Bible Does Not Teach Christians Must Keep the Seventh-day Weekly Sabbath

You say in your first sentence, don't stop. So you say that it is not a sin to do so. But the force. People can choose to think whatever and do whatever. Free will some call it. We have infinite rights to God. Not man however. If men were angels they would not need government. - Thomas Jefferson We must follow man and God. But according to Ruth and other chapters you choose God. And Jesus said "Give what is to Caesars to Caesars, and give what is to God to God." I would also like to wonder your views on the 3rd temple. And what is has to do with Revelation. So you are suggesting to abandon the Ark of the Covenant? The Ten Commandments? Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Even by Jesus' time the Pharisees stop killing boys for cursing, for of too many and so inhumane. Laws have been hard to accomplish. You must be totally pro-gay, are you pro-choice? 3 Temple thoughts? Christ on Sabbath? Thanks a lot, God Bless.
Presidential Election 2016

First of all, this isn't a debate, this is an opinion so don't even ask me why you posted it on debates. Second of all, I'm against, but against what?? Trump winning, or Clinton winning? I don't think this is considered a debate so therefore, I will just tell you the person I think is gonna win. I think that Hillary Clinton is gonna win. Even though I think that Trump has the right idea, I feel that he spoke too irrationally and negatively during his speeches, which caused people to believe that he's an irrational and negative person so therefore people would go to Clinton instead of Trump. I also believe that Hillary Clinton is gonna win because according to the stats, Hillary is winning and the only state left is Pennsylvania.
Re re-upload: God cannot be morally good while giving humans free will

Copy of the same debate I did twice before. Hopefully this time Against would stay until it is over either by not forfeiting or deleting his/her account (or whatever having a not active account means). I am going by the basis that God does exist. I want the other side to show me how God is morally good while also giving us free will. There are inconsistencies with free will that I can mention but I did think about that it but I will narrow it down to morals to keep it simple. Wanting someone who believes God is morally good not someone who is playing devil's advocate. Arguments starts the round you start. God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. I'll leave the definition of morally good to Against since it will give them more room to give counter arguments and starting arguments. Premise:1. By God giving free will to humans It has given the power to humans to do wrong. 2. For God to be morally good It must do what is right. 3. By God giving free will to humans It is not morally good. May both of us learn something new.
God is ONE, not a trinity as per the Hebrew Bible

This verse refer to plural majesty as even Trinitarian Christian Websites agree: http://www.gotquestions.org... Another explanation could be that G-d spoke to the angels. As per all the bible verse I put G-d is one and the Trinity is not biblical. I will wait for my opponent to provide proper proofs that god is three in one, and not ONE as Deuteronomy says. Thank you
God is ONE, not a trinity as per the Hebrew Bible

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Gen 1:26-27.
God is ONE, not a trinity as per the Hebrew Bible

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [ak]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Gen 1:26-27. Done.
God is ONE, not a trinity as per the Hebrew Bible

As G-d is infinite and is a Spirit, he does not have a mouth to speak. The Bible uses expressions for us to understand. The same can be true when G-d said "Sit at my right hand". It does not mean that the King in Psalm 2 will literally sit at the right hand of G-d. The same is true when the Bible talks about the face of the earth. It is not a literal face as we both know that the earth has not face. The same is true when G-d said "let there be light", G-d does not have a body and he is not actually standing in the emptiness of space. G-d is infinite and he used ways for us to understand how he created the universe. We would not be able to understand how if he would not use things common to us like speaking, standing and sitting. Or if you want to keep it literal, as I said in the previous argument G-d could also be speaking to the angels and included them in the creation of men.
God is ONE, not a trinity as per the Hebrew Bible

Who is Godspeaking to in Gen 1? G-d said it. The same as Queen Victoria saying "We are not amused". Was she more than one? Or maybe another interesting quote from the gruffalo's child by Julia Donaldson, when the child (singluar) said to her father " What does he look like ? Tell us, Dad. Is he terribly big and terribly bad ? " But again, if G-d is not using plural majesty, he could speak to angels who stand in His presence "I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him, on His right and on His left." (I Kings 22:19) There is no reason to believe God is more than one as the verb is singular. נַֽעֲשֶׂה http://www.hebrew-verbs.co.il...(do) And again, the Bible said "God created man in HIS own image, in the image of God HE created him; male and female HE created them."
Will Humanity fall from the position of a predominant life form of the earth within 500 years

The Human race is flawed in many obvious ways. I will begin the argument with this approach -It seems to diminish logic and reason all too often for it's better. By doing this humans take in account only how their lives would be affected by such actions at the very moment of thought. Even though humans realize this as truth this is still practiced and is considered human nature. With that i will like to add in consideration the current state of humanity: We are governed in a way which is barbaric as ideology of any orthodox rule has been. Our Governments ( i am talking about every "seprate" government in our little blue earth)is run through the power of the all mighty dallor. There is no actual freedom of choice for the people of this world. There is only an allusion, this propaganda is run only by the rich of this world. The politicians the "peace keepers" have close to no say in all the major decisions that take part on our earth. Money can overpower anything in it's decision it effects everything from scientific exploration to construction of the order of thought and believes of our public. This in it's self is slavery and our masters are dictators without doubt. To observe how this effects our debate we will establish that for a society to succeed in scientific achievements and constructing a promising future it must have as many of its peoples with similar status and control of any situation as possible. But as a result of this method of rule, all power is given to but a chosen few. and better still these corporate minds run through a very similar order of thought. There objective is to achieve more power and to make sure YOU have less. Thus continuesly plunging humanity further from achieving harmony.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I negate that felons should retain the right to vote. In my oppenents first statement of round 4 he said "I value democracy. This value is preferable because it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. Any given society is better off under a full democracy." A democracy is a government where the people of a society choose their own leaders, and laws. So if this sociaty says they don't want felons to vote shouldn't feons not vote. This is part of democracy. Majority rules. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. My oppenent also spoke of discrimination in that blacks lose their right to vote more than other races. This is not because our court systems are racist. Our court sytems are fair and just. If any became racist they would immediatly be taken out. My oppenents third contention in round 4 was about felons being in jail and not deserving more punishment. Being sent to prizon and disenfranchised come together. You made a bad choice and got sent to prizon and disenfranchised for it. American citizens are no longer going to allow you to choose who you want to lead them, when you have just got against them all together. Felons are bad people who do not deserve to vote. They are rapists and theives. Murderers and drug smugglers. We, as the american public, do not need the help of these people in voting for our President or any other election.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I affirm. In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I value democracy. This value is preferable because it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. Any given society is better off under a full democracy. The Stanford Encyclopedia if Philosophy explains. "Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that a democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens (Mill, 1861, Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each, more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that "no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press" (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor." Democracy is extremely beneficial and thus is the ultimate goal of any society. The standard is individual agency. The main goal of a society is to assure each indviduals right to agency. If people could not make decisions then society would not exist and democracy could not exist. Violation of an individual's agencies are therefore baad. Any action denying an individual of his agency thus is also bad. My burden is to prove denying a felon the right to vote in a democratic society violates that felons agency. 1. Convictions may be wrong. This means that we are denying a felon of automatic right when he actually may not have commited the crime in the first place. A innocent person may lose a right guarenteed to them by democracy. This is a clear violation of the agency of the innocent individual. 2. Discrimination. In the United States, most of the inmates are black. This means that in society, blacks lose more rights than white. This is unfair and bias and is a violation of blacks autonomy. 3. By commiting a felony, convicts are being punished by being confined in jail. It is unfair to provide extra punishments and violates their autonomy.