BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama is a bad president.

1. President Obama is responsible for six trillion dollars of debt. 2. He has not helped the economy at all. 3. His presidency has been consumed with scandals such as Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and the IRS targeting groups. 4. He has been unwilling to work with Congress. 5. Obamacare is a disaster. 6. He has not pursued Immigration reform. 7. He has not pursued entitlement reform. 8. He has let Iran continue to pursue a nuclear weapon.
Barack Obama is a bad president.

1. My opponent only addressed one of my 12 points, therefore conceding the rest. 2. Studies have shown that premiums will go up in price drastically, by 32%. 3. Your source provides no statistics or studies; they just make unjustified statements 4. SCHIP, which is not part of Obamacare, raises spending and raises taxes. 5. What studies of yours show that Obamacare will improve quality, because it does not. 6. Again, none of your arguments are sourced with stats or studies. The reason why everything you said is wrong is that we are dealing with one big government trying to do everything for everyone. They can say what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that the government will ruin healthcare. Name one service that the federal government has effectively provided to the people, excluding the military. 7. On a different note, President Obama is not a good president. He has broken his promises, and enacted his mistaken ones. The debt is 17 TRILLION DOLLARS. HIS DEBT WILL BE MORE THAN ALL THE OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED. Also, he mismanaged the Arab Spring. He supported people we don't know and gave them military support. The economy is bad, inflation is rising, and unemployment is high. The fed is ruining the dollar, and is being naive at best. Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://cnsnews.com...
Barack Obama is a bad president.

Benefits of Obama's health care plans Expanded coverage A new, affordable national health care plan would be created for any individual American and small business, with benefits similar to government employees. All Americans would be eligible for coverage, regardless of illness or pre-existing condition, and monetary assistance would be provided by the government for those in need of it. Lowered costs Premiums would not rise for those with pre-existing conditions. Employers would be required to alleviate health care costs for their employees, and COBRA would be made more affordable. Competition in the insurance and medicine field would increase, thereby decreasing costs. Distribution of drugs from other countries that have been proven to be safe and effective would also be legalized. Increased choices Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a government program that matches state money for health insurance to uninsured children who don't qualify for Medicaid, would be expanded and made more readily available to those in need. President Obama signed the legislation, called the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, in February 2009. Improved quality An alarming number of mistakes in the health care system leads to deaths every year in the nation's hospitals. Money would be spent for the best medical technology available to decrease the amount of errors and increase the quality of care. Advanced medical research Hospitals would be required to keep computer records of health care expenses and the quality of care given to their patients. Emphasis would be made on medical research and training to provide doctors and other medical workers with the best knowledge possible. Increased preventive care Access to important information and programs on preventive care (such as health screenings) and chronic illnesses would be expanded and improved. Preventive care would be covered by insurance. The importance of better nutrition would also be emphasized, leading to a decrease in America's problem with obesity and, therefore, a reduction in the cost of health care. Read more: Benefits of Obama's Health Care Plan | eHow http://www.ehow.com...
Barack Obama is a bad president.

1. If you look at the Democratic Platform in 2008 (provided in the sources), Barack Obama did little of what he strived for. I am not saying he has to achieve everything on the list or he is a bad president, but he has accomplished so few of it. To name a few notable ones, Prevent Iran from gaining Nuclear Weapons, Immigration Reform, create a better relationship with Pakistan, Jump start the economy, make adjustments to Social Security, FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, and creating good jobs with good pay. President Obama has not even attempted to do one of these thing. 2. Any argument that says he had no cooperation in Congress is false. He had a Democratic supermajority for half of his first term. This is preemptive. 3. Obama's economic policies are not successful. He has attempted to push money into the economy without it working. Unemployment is still above 7%, and the median household income is dropping. Yes the economy has improved since 2008, but anyone who understands economics understands that the economy goes up and down without government intervention. But government intervention can have an effect. 4. You talk about these "economic experts" and how they praise Obama's agenda. Who are these experts? 5. Once again, who are these bipartisan panels in which you speak of? Please cite your sources. 6. Obamacare is a disaster. It increases taxes on the middle class by 165 billion dollars. Premiums are skyrocketing in prices. It is also unconstitutional to force someone to buy a product. 7. Which advisers told the president not to pursue health care reform. Also, if " Many of his own advisers, both economists steeped in free-market models and advisers anxious about a bailout-weary public, argued against his decision to extend credit to, and restructure, the auto industry", than is that a good thing. Also, who told Obama not to get bin Laden other than Biden. 8. Obamacare is not popular, the people are split on the auto bailout, and no one cares about Libya. But why is Libya a good thing. He spent American tax dollars trying to rid a country of someone who has been peaceful to the US for 20 years. Also, we don't even know who helped over there. It could be a terrorist group for all we know. 9. Obama has not stabilized the financial system. The economy is so slow because people are unsure of the system, and its potential vulnerability. 10. What does Mitt Romney have to do with anything??? WHo cares about MITT ROMNEY????? 11. My opponent hasn't addressed Obama's scandals. 12. My opponent ignores the 17 trillion dollar debt. Sources: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... http://www.tradingeconomics.com... http://americanlivewire.com...
God Exists

If everything has a beginning and the universe was created by god, who or what created god? If you tell me that there is no creator of god you are saying that the universe could have been created in another way, and because there is no other proof that god exists there is no point of believing that god exists. If the universe, the world and the human body is created so perfectly why do we need a god? If god exists why is bad things happening? I mean if he controls everything and creates everything, god could stop it. There is no point of making people suffer, if god makes us suffer on purpose then that means that god is a very bad god.
God Exists

I would like to highlight that I am not arguing for the Catholic Church, but for the existence of God. But nevertheless, I'll answer to the accusation. The Church itself wasn't opposed to scientific theories, it just distrusted Nicholas' credibility and supported actual, leading theories that were accepted in the day. It is important to understand that during the days of Copernicus, the teaching society was composed entirely of monks, friars, and other religious peoples. By saying that the Church opposed a Heliocentric system, we are really saying that educated society opposed the possibility, which always happens whenever a new theory is created. Cynicism is what drives our science forward today. [1] As for his death, his theory threatened the authority of established scientists of the day who preferred Geo-centralism. His execution was purely political. Moreover, I would like to point to the ancient belief in an eternal world, one that had no beginning nor end and simply was always. This was widely accepted by Greek Philosophers such as Aristotle, and many others. Religion was one of the first to show that the universe had a beginning, and that God created the world when it wasn't before. Recent theories such as the big bang have been slowly finding this out. Also, elementary quantum mechanics states that, in essence, everything is made of the tiny packets of energy that waves send. Therefore, in a way, our entire universe is made out of solid light, which is the first thing that God made in the Old Testament. The Big Bang is physically possible, to an extent. The theory does explain what happened, yet it doesn't explain how exactly 300 sextillion or probably more atoms suddenly appeared out of empty space. This we can attribute to God. As for why specifically the Big Bang possibility was used, why not? If some other possibility was used, and we figured out what exactly it was, you would ask the same question. There was a chance, but something had to be picked. If God created physics, then it would naturally follow that he could break them as well. Also, I would suggest for my partner to at least try to refute my point. An attempt is seen better by the audience than a flat out forfeiture. [1] https://www.quora.com...
God Exists

A long time ago people thought that the sun was orbiting the earth. After a time a man came up with a theory that the earth was orbiting the sun. This theory was against the church and people didn't accept the theory. Year after year science prove that religion is wrong. If god created the big bang, why couldn't he create in other way. The big bang theory is physically possible, does god need to obey the laws of physics? Because most of the things that is written in the bible is physically impossible.
God Exists

My opponent's points can be summed up in three logical paradoxes, which I will state here for the benifit of viewers. 1) What made God? According to popular belief, God wasn't made, he simply is. Never had a beginning, and will never have an end. Could the uniferse have a different cause, if God had no cause? No it couldn't have, as it lacks the parameter for zero causation. It has a specific beginning, at least according to the widely accepted Big Bang theory. If the universe was created in the Big Bang, what created it? Religion points to God. The M-Theory points to giant u-branes colliding and giving matter. They really might be the same thing, as both are infinite, never ending and never beginning, all-powerful and unreachable for humans. Yay, we have a theory for god (probs not)! 2) Humans don't need God. Have you determined how much humans depend on God by scientific study? As far as we know, he may be holding all of matter together, or just standing by the side and watching, and there is really no way of determining even how probable it is that he is doing either, so this argument has to be dropped by lack of information. 3) Evil in the World. Human free will generates evil independently from God. Natural disasters aren't necessarily 'evil', just damage-dealing. MY POINTS Occam's Razor - is a philosophical proof that allows us to choose between two possibilities without solid evidence for either. This proof says that the option with the least amount of assumptions is statistically more probable to be correct. Opponent's assumptions: The Universe, and all it's Laws. My assumptions: God Notice that I have to assume neither the universe nor its laws, as God, being an omnipotent being, could create both. Ergo, I have the least amount of assumptions, and according to the Occam's Razor, I am correct.
Atheism is not a Religion

To have faith in something is basically saying you have faith in a religion, and when you have faith for what you BELIEVE in it is then declaring it a religion. Another definition about religion is: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. Atheists usually have a set of beliefs including the theory of Evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. If this definition is correct (which it is) then Atheism should be considered a kind of religion. They have a set of common beliefs just like any religion.
Atheism is not a Religion

No. I do not "believe" in atheism. I don't "believe" in anything. I understand and know things. Atheism is just a word to explain that the person rejects all forms of theism. I hate the word atheism because it's an ism. I am just godless. Things that aren't religions under this definition include mathematics, boat building, the culinary arts, square dancing, and virtually all of the other things we normally don"t consider religions. They don"t have a position on the existence of the divine or the afterlife, so they"re not religions. Of particular note, belief in evolution is not a religion"despite the claims of some Creationists. One can believe in the existence of evolution without taking a position on the divine or the afterlife. On the other hand, belief in evolution can take on a religious dimension if, e.g., it is proposed as a reason to either reject or accept belief in the divine or the afterlife. But then that"s true of anything that is proposed as a reason to reject or accept belief in the divine or the afterlife.
Atheism is not a Religion

Thank you for accepting this. I'm looking forward to a peaceful debate. Let's get started! Well, let's first define religion. Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Firstly, science is not a god, nor is it superhuman. Science will never answer everything, therefore we cannot justifiably call it a religion. Calling Atheism a religion is like calling abstinence a sex position, or a TV in the 'off' position a channel. Atheism is the lack of a god or a supernatural being, which is what the definition implies.
Abortion should be kept legal

First off, if no one knows, then why do they become human, or why they had the abortion in the first place. Yes I agree the adoption agency needs some reforms, but you are saying that because of that, you are going to take a life. Plus if it isn't a life, then they would not be pregnant huh. Having abortion legal, leads to irresponsible women, that see themsleves as I can do what and want and fix it. A vote for the Aff, is a vote for dead babies and IF it were the Aff taking, then it would be a vote for possible dead babie? Vote neg, Abortion is tottaly unjust and wrong, it kills human beings and is never just.
Abortion should be kept legal

First off, before the debate begins, Abortion is a tricky issue, which many have strong opinions about and please vote on how has the best arguements. First off the main issue here is why abortion, should not be legal. Now I do agree that it can be seen as a moral issue, but you must understand, one thing, it is taking another life. Why do Republicans say no to abortions, yet say yes to the death Penalty, why is it the inverse for Democrats. I believe that no life should ever be taken. 1. reason why you are taking a human being, that has a life. Two you can easily put this child into a adoption agency, which by the way is successful everywhere. Third, yes a woman has control of her body, but woman hold other people with them at some points, why should a teenager or a naive person or even a rape victim, take a life, that has already began. It is unjust, for someone to stand here and tell me that taking a life is just, because a woman has control of her body. We all know that isn't true, even with the example Britney Spears. A vote for the Neg is a vote for giving a voice to those who don't have one. A vote for the Aff is a vote for silencing that voice forever.
Abortion should be kept legal

I believe that abortion should be kept legal. Abortion where it concerns the invidivual woman is a health and life choice. Abortion where it concerns society is a legal and/or political issue. The moral or religious oppinions of a third person - should not have an affect on the law or the health care choices of another individual. Women should not be forced - by government officials - to gestate and birth feoti agianst thier will.
Oil Should not be Used for Electricity Production or as a Transportation Fuel

This debate is about whether or not oil should be used for electricity or as a transportation fuel. My thesis shall be: 'Oil should not be used for electricity production [1] or as a transportation fuel [2].' My opponent's thesis shall be: 'Oil should be used for electricity production or as a transportation fuel.' This debate has conditions, though: Any information gained from Internet research needs a link to where you got the information from, and any information gained from book research needs the title, creator(s), chapter and page that has the information you're using. No opinions can be accepted as evidence, unless it is that of an expert [3] (if you use an expert's opinion, you need the expert's name and occupation as well as the link or book page). This debate will follow the format below:Round 1) Acceptance of Conditions and Debate--No ArgumentsRound 2) Opening Arguments--No RebuttalsRound 3) Rebuttals/More ArgumentsRound 4) Rebuttals/Summary and Conclusion of ArgumentsPlease note that you only have 24 hours to respond to a post. Any forfeit from CON means that you vote 7 points to PRO by default. CON, you are allowed to make part 2's of your opening arguments in round 3 if you wish. By accepting this debate, you accept all conditions above and all definitions below. With that, Good luck, CON.[1]-Electricity generation is the process of generating electric power from other sources of primary energy.References:http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org......[2]-Fuels used to power cars, planes, anything that is meant to transport things. [3]-A person who was enough knowledge and experience in a specific part of a field to be a reliable source in that specific part of that field (eg: an elementary school teacher is an expert at elementary education).
Homosexuals already have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals.

I am of course referring to human homosexuals living within the United States. DEFINITIONS: same- Conforming in every detail . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... rights to marriage- (divided up) right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... marriage- The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (though my opponent may prefer:) marriage- The state of being married; wedlock . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Homosexuals already have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals.

However, I am afraid to let a misconception go by on a terminology technicality. It is true that both a heterosexual and a homosexual have equal opportunity to change his/her beliefs and marry someone permitted by law, but that does not entitle them to the same rights! Heterosexuals are able to marry whomever they want. This is absolutely true, based upon the definition (sorry, I should have put this in earlier, I suppose) . http://www.medterms.com... that heterosexuals are attracted to members of the opposite sex! therefore, a heterosexual would have no problem in today's legal system. A homosexual, on the other hand does have a problem. In forty six out of the fifty states of America, he or she is not allowed to the same 'pursuit of happiness' that a heterosexual is. Only four states have legally approved the homosexual's right to happiness. Even there, they are not all united. Iowa has recently approved homosexual marriage. *************** ""It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a nonprofit research and educational organization committed to strengthening the family. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed," he said. "We're saddened. Perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down. " English, who said opponents of gay marriage prayed outside the courthouse Friday as they awaited the court's decision, already has begun lobbying the legislature for an Iowa Marriage Amendment. " ******************** how often do you hear that the idea of a heterosexual couple's marriage is disastrous or saddening? Therefore, homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexuals, neither in the minds of the public nor the views of 92% of the state courts in America.
Homosexuals already have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals.

--------------- BURDEN: I must prove that Homosexuals have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals. -------------- CASE: A heterosexual man has the following rights to marriage: He can marry 1 woman (and in 4 states, 1 man). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... A heterosexual woman has the following rights to marriage: She can marry 1 man (and in 4 states, 1 woman). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... The 14th ammendment grants all people "equal protection" under the law. . http://www.usconstitution.net... Because of the 14th ammendment, these same rights are bestowed on homosexuals: A homosexual man has the following rights to marriage: He can marry 1 woman (and in 4 states, 1 man). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... A homosexual woman has the following rights to marriage: She can marry 1 man (and in 4 states, 1 woman). . http://www.usmarriagelaws.com... --------------- CONCLUSION: Both homosexual men and heterosexual men have the same rights to marriage. Both homosexual women and heterosexual women have the same rights to marriage. So, on can conclude that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights.
Homosexuals already have the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals.

Thank you very much; I look forward to this debate. I shall try to restrict myself to definitions, however, I think my opponent covered most of the direct denotations but I would like to cover some general concepts. The Constitution of the United States does not mention marriage between either heterosexuals or homosexuals. However, the Supreme Court Justices have. "When the Court decides to hear a case, it usually does so for one of two reasons. Many cases that reach the Court involve an important question of constitutional interpretation that the Court wants to decide. In other cases, the Court chooses to resolve a "split among the circuits". There are twelve different federal circuit courts of appeal, and sometimes these appeals courts will reach different decisions in different cases on an important legal issue. The Court will then decide to take one of the cases to resolve the issue. " http://www.essortment.com... Therefore, the Supreme Court Justices are the ones who interpret the constitution and constitutional law. However, the Constitution never mentions marriage at all. In that case, the Supreme Court should keep out of it, but they're not. I say 'they' because every state has a Supreme Court, and so far there are four states whose Supreme Courts have ruled homosexual marriage as legal. I shall reserve my arguments for the next round:)