BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

I still don't understand why you think one party systems are so wonderful. Communist China was a one party system, Soviet Russia was a one party system, Nazi Germany was a one part system, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was a one party system. While there are countries with one party systems that work (Tanzania under Julius Nyerere), these are the exception, not the rule. Democratic societies do not engage in genocide at nearly the rates one party systems do; when a democratic society does, it's the exception, and often because it has transformed quietly into an oligarchy or tyranny. Cowboy: "Republican have their basic principals which put them in that party. There may be differences in opinions among the party but not as much as between republicans and democrat.(I am only saying republican now but the same goes for the democrats.)" That's purely your opinion. Cowboy: "Then women do not have to wear face masks and we can remain Christian." USA was never a Christian nation. See: Treaty of Tripoli [1] Cowboy: "black people were definitely born black but there is a question about whether being gay is a choice or not." The preponderance of evidence is such that I feel safe to state that homosexuality is based on both genetics and factors influencing growth inside the womb; by the time you are born, sexual orientation is not "a choice". See: [2][3][4][5] Scruff: "Societies that do not allow for dissenting speech often suffer from violent revolutions. Just look at Syria." Cowboy: "I do not understand your claim at this point." In part, much of our strength is from the internal conflict. The fact that we as a nation have a legal system that allows for (mostly) peaceful resolution of political conflict has meant that we have gone through only one revolution in our entire countries history, and that was 150 years ago. If you set up a system that held certain controversial political positions as absolutes that could not be changed in law, you would assuredly cause violent political strife. "People can live where they agree with the most people." You're asking for the impossible here. People are inherently argumentative. "People do not have to be influenced negatively by a society they do not agree with." Not having to listen to viewpoints that you disagree with is not a good thing. Just look at how scientific and technological advancement have atrophied in certain extremist parts of the Middle East. "Cuts back on bipartisanship." Not necessarily a good thing. "Puts both regions back on the right track in which they become increasingly less split." Not at all. In California, for example, Democrats outnumber Republicans by roughly a third [6], but slightly more voters call themselves conservative than liberal. [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://bit.ly... [4] http://bit.ly... [5] http://bit.ly... [6] http://bit.ly...
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

1. Republican have their basic principals which put them in that party. There may be differences in opinions among the party but not as much as between republicans and democrat.(I am only saying republican now but the same goes for the democrats.) 2. "So move to Iran. Or Saudi Arabia." Or just split America. Then women do not have to wear face masks and we can remain Christian. 3. Funny(sarcasm). Difference is, black people were definitely born black but there is a question about whether being gay is a choice or not. 4. I do not understand your claim at this point. 5. It is about basic principals of the party. There will be exceptions of course. But it is on a more general basis. 1. People can live where they agree with the most people. 2. People do not have to be influenced negatively by a society they do not agree with. 3. Cuts back on bipartisanship. 4. Puts both regions back on the right track in which they become increasingly less split.
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

"For one, a territory with all republicans would support some issues and not others(socially)." Gobshitte. Republicans are a diverse group, and disagree on many issues. "For one, they would not have to live in a country with people who support abortion and gays." So move to Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. "I know I would not want my children to grow up in a society with gay people." Just like when good ol' southern boys kept them there niggers from prancin' around like decent white folk, eh? "I would not want my children to grow up in a society with people who support baby killing. As I am sure the democrats would not want their children growing up with homophobes." Societies that do not allow for dissenting speech often suffer from violent revolutions. Just look at Syria. "The republicans would support border control, military, lower taxes, and lower spending. The democrats would support the opposite. As of now, these issues are meeting in the middle. I simply say go all the way. With this method, the republicans and democrats would not have to compromise focing people into doing things they do not want to do when it comes to the economy and general politics." Simply not true. My mother ad my father's mother are both Democrats who favor a strong military, a strong police force, long and harsh prison sentences, and strong border control. People's political views don't just fit into neat categories, and basing policy on if that was true is a really stupid idea.
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

I will split my ideas into social and political issues. I will start with social issues because this is what can draw the deapest lines between societies. For one, a territory with all republicans would support some issues and not others(socially). For one, they would not have to live in a country with people who support abortion and gays. I know I would not want my children to grow up in a society with gay people. I would not want my children to grow up in a society with people who support baby killing. As I am sure the democrats would not want their children growing up with homophobes. I will save my additional points for later. I will now mention political issues which involves the entire economy. The republicans would support border control, military, lower taxes, and lower spending. The democrats would support the opposite. As of now, these issues are meeting in the middle. I simply say go all the way. With this method, the republicans and democrats would not have to compromise focing people into doing things they do not want to do when it comes to the economy and general politics.
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

I accept your challenge. I would like to thank my opponent here, as well as the audience (for listening in and giving their honest opinion), as well as Thomas Nast. As you requested, I'm registered as a Republican, although I hate both parties. I don't think that splitting the nation would allow any of the split parties to be successful (although I'm getting ahead of myself here, seeing as you have not presented your opening arguments).
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

For the purpose of this debate, we will assume that 1. All republicans live in the southern nation and all democrats live in the northern nation. 2. Dividing the nation up and moving everyone around is not the topic. The topic is whether the two nations would be more efficient. 3. When you begin the debate, tell your political party and if the split did happen, which nation would be more successful and why.
Sandy hook was a hoax

As a really big tip for good writing, please make paragraphs. It makes it easier for people to read you info than just one big paragraph. I looked up those images. I am still in utter disbelief of this. Now you have just creepy me out. So are you talking about this image? http://i1.wp.com... The image to the right or left could have been photoshoped. YOU who don't believe the news, which is pretty official and true in stuff like this, believe info from a site NO ONE HAS HEARD OF?? If you're calling me not smart, maybe you should think again about yourself and ask yourself, do you really think those photos have not been altered to make people believe in this? You really believe in stuff that...well is not even heard of?? And what about this image? http://i1326.photobucket.com... They are obliviously different people. And the one photo were the kids at the football game are not the sames one who were killed. It's called "look-a-likes" I'm not sure if you've heard of that, but yeah. They are people who look like other people. And I ask you, since 9/11, every tragedy that has happened, seems like people like you think they are fake! You cannot think everything that is bad is fake. MAYBE THE TITANIC NEVER SUNK! MAYBE WWII NEVER HAPPENED! MAYBE WE NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON! or better yet, MAYBE THIS "DEBATE.ORG" IS ALL A HOAX TOO! MAYBE YOU ARE SEEING THINGS!! And how come you just target CNN? FOX news reported on it too and said it was real. You seem like a conservative not a liberal. The RIP Victoria Soto page/group was created Dec. 16.Another one was created on the 15th and one more was created also on the 15th. The Sandy Shooting happened on the 14th. So there! You have failed in that part. ALL RIP VICTORIA SOTO pages are all created at least ONE DAY AFTER THE SHOOTING. WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU SEE THE ONE WHERE IT WAS CREATED A DAY BEFORE???? I'm sorry but this really happened. WHy would the government do this just to ban guns?? They WOULD NOT.
Sandy hook was a hoax

I'm sorry, but I pity people like you. You just lack self respect and compassion for others. So you think this was a fake tragedy as a way to ban guns? Are you serious? It isn't I who needs to look up facts, it is YOU. You need to accept some things in life and this is one of them. Answer this question. If Sandy Hook shooting was fake, where are all the children who were killed? Huh? If they are not died, how come we don't know where they are? And no, the government doesn't have them. Even though you have the freedom of speech which allows you to say this, does not mean it's right. Personally, I would not go around telling you friends about your utterly ignorant belief because all of them, 99% will NOT believe you. And no. This was not a hoax to take away peoples guns. I was looking at your profile on this site and you seem like a liberal vegetarian who cares for others, which is great! I'm liberal too. But it seems ironic for you to think the shooting was a hoax in order to take away peoples' guns. Do you actually believe this? Please reply in the COMMENT box.
Sandy hook was a hoax

I simply joined this debate to defend all of the children's lives who were killed and to say that your ignorance is beyond repair. 5) Robbie Parker never laughed. Just saying 7) Yes, he could have. He more than likely had the physical strength to carry all those guns. BELIEVE ME. All of your sources or information does not seem valid or true. I don't know, but it's not right. First of all, you were not there. Were you? Were you a teacher who experienced a gun man shot through your door? Did you see your beloved students die right in front of your eyes? Did you?? YOU cannot say such an evil thing with out actually experiencing it yourself. Secondly, why do you deny this? Are you made? Or are you sad or grieving so therefore you take out your angry by denying it? If so, do not deny. This has happened. It was an atrocity that affected the whole nation. But we must move on. This was a year ago. We can still be sad and pray for the families and children who were killed, but we must not dwell on this by denying it never happened.
Sandy hook was a hoax

1 there was a guy in the woods out side where Lanza was supposed to have parked his car and entered the school. This man was dressed in camouflage and was saying "I didn't do it" before anyone knew what "happened" 2 the footage from above the fire house- it's only people walking in circles 3 gene Rosen was an actor. There's a picture of him standing in front of a sign that says "everyone must check in" 4R.I.P. Victoria soto was a Facebook tribute page posted December 10-4 days before 5 Robbie Parker is an actor. In a CNN interview he is laughing right before he tells them about his dead daughter 6they didn't take any of the injured kids to the hospital 7 the supposedly dead kids all sang at the Super Bowl. They are lighted with their families and in the choir 8120 pound Lanza couldn't have carried all that military equipment 9 there's one picture of this mass evacuation but it turns out the kids are walking towards the school 10 newtown bee published an article where dawn the supposed to have been killed was telling them about the shooting as a witness.
A killing in the act of war is murder

The definition of 2nd degree murder is unlawful killing of a person with intent to kill without premeditation. In the case of war soldiers are sent in prepared to kill people; the intent to kill. Countries and and soldiers enter war and combat with the clear intent to kill how much deliberation that goes into it depends on those in charge of the intelligence and information. Death in war is no happenstance. There are also many cases when larger more powerful nations enter into wars they have no business interfering in. They do it to protect and promote their own agendas. Vietnam was having problems; America and China should not have interfered. The war escalated due to outside interference and that war saw plenty of soldiers being ordered to, or acting on their own accord and laying waste to civilians they suspected of being enemies. The Korean war is another example. You don't go into a country and point guns at everyone and say there is no intent to take lives. You don't drop a bomb on an area and hope that explosion only kills your enemy. That would be ridiculously naive. War is waged to with the intent to kill. Those who die don't want to die, soldier or not so, when do we start throwing law out the window? When should one peoples laws matter less than another's? Which laws count for anything? Which brings up my next argument. Religious law. Now if you are a godless person whose only concern is the law of secular mankind then by all means go to war and kill away without fear of committing murder because the US is giving you a free pass to kill, kill, kill. But if you are religious then you are subject to the laws of your holy text. If you are a Christian, which is statistically high for Americans, then you should heed the words Hebrews 10:30, and Matthew 26:52 because the Bible says you should not be involved in killing in wars at all. There are plenty of religions each with their own laws against the killing/murdering that takes place in war. Muhammad Ali is one such person who's religious convictions prevented him from partaking in the murders of the Vietnam War. If one country invades another there's a good chance some group of peoples religious laws are being broken. And to many religious law is just as relevant as secular. I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate; I'm only trying to highlight the various laws in existence regarding killing another person. You can't have a war without at least the intent to kill and without violating some kind of Law
A killing in the act of war is murder

This is a fair argument but you also must realize that many times when the USA is going in to war in another country they are a large majority of the time being called in by this country. They are being brought in to protect a certain smaller nation from being bullied by another state, they are coming in to renew a state of peace within a country that has been put into war by contradicting view points. But with the definition of with the definition of murder being the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another and with this definition we are able to see that what these men and women are doing is not murder but rather homicide. If by chance someone that was supposed to be unharmed in conflict is killed it is not murder for it was not premeditated by the soldier committing this action.
A killing in the act of war is murder

In order to classify killing as murder it needs to violate certain rules of law. While the US may excuse war as an exception to its own law. The people being killed may not view the invading US soldiers as exempt to their own laws. Heck the country being invaded may not even agree on the declaration of war by the US. To illustrate. If an armed assailant breaks into your home what might you do? In the US you have the right to defend your home and you might attempt to do so. But, what happens if the armed assailant prevails over you and kills you? That person could be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder. 2nd degree at least since they did come armed and this could constitute an intent to kill. Now the assailant could say he came in to protect your family, but how would your grieving family respond? They would pursue a conviction of murder on the assailant and the maximum punishment. The US may declare war and invade another country under the guise of protection, but how do those in the other country feel? US law may permit it the killing as legal under an act of war, but to the people in the other country their laws should still apply and what they see is an uninvited armed assailant breaking into their home and killing the people potentially trying to protect them. Often times US soldiers kill the people they are supposed to be protecting or liberating. How does that look to those people. Think of the perspectives of both people. The only way you can justify the killing is if you refuse to listen to the voices of the people under attack. In the broader perspective of morality, might does not equal right; killing in war is murder and you can't simply declare otherwise and expect everyone to accept your sense of morality just because you carry the bigger stick, or even win the war.
A killing in the act of war is murder

America. The land of the free and the home of the brave. The ones who are willing to be the protectors and mediators who can not supply this need for themselves. But the ones who are providing this service of protection for not only our country, but others have been said to be murderers. The ones that protect us like a mother protects her child have been said to be murderers. The ones that risk their life for ours have been said to be murderers. These people are not only risking their lives for their families and friends but the stranger in a state across the country, the regular Joe who lives half way around the globe. These people are not murderers they are protectors.
There is a God as described by the Christian Bible.

FoC1955 has wasted a rebuttal saying that I have only provided opinions, so I suppose I will use the coveted final statement to clarify my previous one.1. Evidential IssuePlate tectonics - look it up. It can result in things moving underwater or going out of water (volcanoes/mountain ranges grow to form islands)The fossilization process can end up with underwater fossils - through streams.2. EvilI provided reasons which refute your counterargument. You say that human false believers are responsible for evil. However, disease and natural disaster are effects of natural order, so you cannot use human action as an excuse for them.3. ContradictionsIt is evidenced by your response that you did not respond to my proposed contradictions.4. ProphecyWhat constitutes "vague?" Well, it means the prophecy would probably be fulfilled anyway - with or without a Biblical God existing.I provided two unfullfilled prophecies as a counterargument as well.
There is a God as described by the Christian Bible.

Alas; Quite usually, you respond with ZERO evidence. Opinions are your sole defense. Trees do not grow underwater nor in oceans. So tectonic plates is exactly why you never get it. We call it the na-uhh factor. This is why no one debates with atheist. They refuse to prove anything. I gave you evidence, you give opinions nothing much .... a complete waste of time.
There is a God as described by the Christian Bible.

Thanks for responding.Quite unusually, FoC1955 has put his rebuttal first so let's look at that.1. The Evidential IssueYou have listed a series of supposed effects of Noah's Flood as empirical evidence for God. Let's take a look at these, shall we?Plate tectonics explains your first two ideas - these deserts and mountains were once underwater, several hundred million years ago. This does not mean the Noah's Flood happened - it is evidence for plate tectonics, a much simpler hypothesis than the global flood (which I suggest you look up)That something was once underwater does not imply that God put it underwater, nor does it prove the entire world was once underwater.2. EvilYour defense here involves false believers choosing to do evil. The evil that I mentioned, however, is natural evil. God created the nature which causes disease and bad weather, and is thus going against his principles by creating a world which deprives people of(steals) their property and causing deaths(killing).In addition, the God described in the Bible would likely intervene to prevent adverse effects of human actions as well as those of lesser deities, such as Satan.And sure, maybe I should read more of the Bible.3. ContradictionsYou didn't respond to contradictions I mentioned. Rather, you said an elongated version of "Christians understand." I haven't heard this Christian understanding, but perhaps I will never get it.4. Your argument: Fulfilled ProphecyThe claims in Revelation 12:1-2 are quite vague. There are several stellar patterns that would match it, including ones that have appeared in the past; also there are several different Heavens referred to in the Bible. Now reading the claims of Rev 12:1-2, I am further convinced that the symbol which supposedly will appear in September is not matching the verse - what about "laboring" or "crying in pain?"4Ultimately stellar effects are interpereted by humans.You brang up a couple of lists of prophecies - I won't bother to refute everything in them, but I will say that most prophecies either-are vague, or-were not fullfilled;For example the prophecy in Isaiah that the Messiah would bring the Jews to Israel and be referred to as Immanuel or God-with-us.
There is a God as described by the Christian Bible.

The Bible is a very important historical book. However, it is not without its failures - people like myself find issues with its statements, particularly those regarding the supposed King of Everything, Yahweh(the Lord).In support of my opponent I will not make many arguments here.1. The Evidential IssueIf my opponent wishes to raise the issue of faith, the problem would be that in the case in which there is no evidence, agnosticism becomes the most reasonable position. God, as described in the Bible, has done many significant things (such as a global flood and appearing as a person) and those should have left empirical evidence.Furthermore, if disbelief were a sin worthy of hell, God would have eliminated it, again leaving evidence.Without any external and prior confirmation, there is reason to doubt the validity of the Bible.2. EvilGod is equated with love in the New Testament. There are also allusions in the Old Testament to God "knowing all things" and being very powerful.However, if this is the case, a contradiction appears. Plenty of natural evil occurs - including that which takes away belongings and kills people - things that are repeatedly denounced in the Bible. If natural evil exists, then God is violating his own beliefs3. Contradictions.In Judges 1, God is said to be unable to drive out inhabitants of a valley. This is impossible if, as the Bible often states, God can do all things.In the New Testament, God is equated with love; however, in the Old Testament, the quote "I make peace and create evil" is attributed to God - not something that the embodiment of love would do.Finally, two of the Gospels have contradictory geneaologies of Jesus.I await your response happily. Thanks for honest debate.