BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump has finally gone to far

The Pro just lists things that are going on in the world but that doesn't mean Trump will leave office early. They say that Trump will resign but I already answered this, The Power evidence is really good on this issue. It says that Trump will start wars to stay in power. That means he won't willing resign. Also the Dems won't impeach or force him to resign either. The fact of the matter is Trump is just far to valuable to the Democrats while he is in office. If he reigned and Pence took office not only would conversion therapy be a thing but a pence presidency would damage the Democrats in 2020 by allowing the GOP to appeal to moderates again. Trump is just not going anywhere he is more valuable to the Democrats in office than out of it. They won't allow him to be impeached. And the evidence that shows Trump would start diversionary wars to avoid being impeached is not a person that would willingly resign. It is for those reasons that the Probos wrong Trump's days are not numbered
Trump has finally gone to far

The Pro says that Trump"s days in office are numbered however this could not be further from the Truth. First is that Trump being in office will all but assure than the Dems will win in 2020. The longer Trump is in office the better chance that the democratic candidate will have to flip Republican moderates in 2020. The Dems know this and will not impeach Trump. The next reason he will not be impeached is diversionary war. Trump will just start wars to divert attention away from any domestic problems Jonathan Power writes in 2017 that Trump would start a war with Iran if threated with Impeachment Trump could play the nationalist that would rally his electorate. Trump could begin his diversionary tactics with Anti-Trump congressmen feel that they couldn"t continue with their effort to impeach him while America was in such a serious situation. There is a military stand-off But Trump is off the hook Lastly If Trump is impeached Mike Pence would become President and allow for Shock therapy.
Naruto Battle! Naruto vs. Danzo

Excellent rebuttal, now let's finish strong. :) For the vision of the fight I was actually thinking more like "show up as you are and fight." So no sneak attempts and shisui's eye assassination attempts by danzo and no sage clones lying in wait or showing up with a small army of toads. No before-battle preparation. Because if we had let there be pre-battle planning, it would also be fair to say that danzo could bring his bodyguards and naruto could bring his friends, and from there where does it end? So a simple naruto vs danzo as they are fight will do. Now for the summonings, yes, naruto has the upper hand. However, summoning so many and so large of toads would drain his sage chakra quite a bit. He'd probably have to sacrifice the chakra he would use for the rasenshuriken just to summon them. Well, at least one rasenshuriken. Which would be pointless because the toads would not stay there for the whole fight. Naruto only has 5 minutes of sage mode and danzo has 11 minutes of non-death. This entire battle will come down to who can outlast who, in which case danzo would win. Also, danzo does have a summon as well which was only defeated because of it's vulnerability to fire while using it's suction technique. However, the toads themselves are incapable of using fire jutsu so this won't be a problem. Baku (danzo's summon) also greatly increases the power of danzo's wind style jutsus which, being the same element type as the rasenshuriken and having its power increased by Baku, will be able to cancel out naruto's strongest attack. Danzo can also for a wind sword as well as perform binding seals which would paralyze naruto. Throw in danzo's ability to evade naruto because of his long range jutsu capabilities and it's is done. As for naruto's super secret weapon, the sage mode-fox combo, the counter is simple. HE CANNOT DO THAT IN THIS FIGHT. The original description of this fight stated it was danzo vs naruto (with all his abilities up to the sasuke vs danzo arc). Naruto has just recently been able to perform that combo and since those abilities don't come into play until well after the danzo arc, that ability is admissible. He can use sage mode and he can use kyubi mode, but not both at the same time. And once sage mode wears off, he'd be dumb to use the kyubi because of his once again acquired susceptibility to danzo's sharingan and wood style element. Most of your last rebuttal was based on naruto being able to prepare before the fight and his ability to use the sage mode-fox combo, but seeing as how he can do neither of those things, he will not win. Naruto is very powerful, no doubt, but he is only powerful for a very short time. Not nearly long enough to be able to finish danzo off. Danzo FTW!
death penalty

If there is not enough significant evidence to carry out the death penalty, then there shouldn't be a cause of arrest and imprisonment. There is no level of evidence that determines how the convict is punished, only if they are or are not found guilty. A family will be brutally hurt and tortured by the loss of a family member, I agree. But, to make that family feel whole again by killing someone that seems very barbaric. You will not bring back the life of the lost one. Unlike the death of the victim, the death of the suspect would seem more peaceful. The way that the criminal killed the victim probably wasn't peaceful. It was probably barbaric in nature, whether it be stabbed, shot, beaten to death etc, while the death penalty knocks out the criminal, then kills them, kind of putting them to sleep the way we put our beloved animals to sleep. We peacefully let them free. And you can also be serving the criminal a deed that they wanted. They killed someone, their conscience is probably messed up. They lost it. They have to deal with the extreme guilt that they, in a few cases, did not immediately exactly wanted, but seemed instinctive, so by putting them away, to sleep, the way we do with our animals, we are ceasing their pain. The whole idea of someone dying, be that a pet or a person, hurts us all from the bottoms of our hearts, and you know what, I will admit of someone killed my family member or pet, you better be damn sure I would try to kill them myself, but how sacred is life if we are willing to take another's to prove a point? I'll say myself that the sacristy of life isn't real, and that we just made it up because... well guess what? WE'RE ALIVE. You don't see John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr, and John Lennon talking about the sacristy of life because they are dead! We made it up to feel special, but this all a different argument. If you are willing to take someone's life, because they took one from you or your family member, then wouldn't you be just as guilty? If someone is kills someone because it would bring them joy for someone to be gone, then you kill them because it will make you feel better, don't you essentially have the same goal as the killer, which is feel better after a life is gone?
death penalty

I am going to accept this challenge. The death penalty shall not be used. I have several arguments for my side. I will first say that I will respectfully argue, and will using demeaning words towards my opponent, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. I would also like to say that I, without any reading, only thinking, changed my side of this argument. I used to be for it, then up until 2 weeks ago, I changed my opinion. Oddly enough when answering the question "why does France think we're barbaric for using the death penalty?" As I was giving their reasoning I realized how barbaric (in my opinion) it is Firstly, there have been many mistakes in this system. Accusing the wrong person and having them executed has happened many, many times. What is the use of the death penalty? To be sure that the criminal can never cause such harm again? Well, if they are bad enough, they will stay inside prison forever. What else is the reason? They took a life so we take their life? But doesn't that sort of defeat the point? "life is sacred and you shouldn't take life because it's just to precious and to prove our point we are going to take your life away". So lets take a life because they wrongfully took someone else's life? How is taking a life in some way proving life is a good, sacred thing. It seems as though life is okay to waste if it's a murderer? Personally, I am against murders, and I wish no one would kill, but what would killing them do? If anything, you still hurt the world. You can put a murderer to work in some way shape or form. You're wasting possible knowledge and strength. Yes they may have killed, and some may argue that then can or can't change, and we can all agree that you can't undo what's been done, but that's just it. You can't undo what's been done. And will killing another person, wasting life, taking them off the face of the earth, really make someone feel all that much more whole? That doesn't seem barbaric? This is moral issue that doesn't occur around the world as much anymore. America used to be the country leading morality, and now it seems we're falling behind. France, a country that kept the guillotine around up until not too long ago thinks that the United States is barbaric for using the death penalty, and rightfully so. Another reason people point to the death penalty is that it is to put fear in to people's eyes that if they take someone's life, we will take yours. Not a lot of these people who do such crimes are afraid to die.
death penalty

Im not saying that in all cases of extreme crime that the death penalty should be implemented. As I understand that people are falsely accused and the jury system does sometimes get it wrong. But in those cases with undeniable evidence which proves the guilty party to have either commit murder themselves or repeat offenses such as rape, then the death penalty should be used. This would create more space in prison, which undeniably is a problem. Also it would reduce tax payers money for the amount of people being kept in prisons. Although I do believe people can change, just in some extreme cases it is very unlikely that this will happen. For example in most interviews with serial killers (with four times life sentence), the killer cant see how they could have made a different decision at the time. It is either someone else's fault or they had no control over what happened. With someone who thinks with this mentality it is impossible to show them how they were wrong in the situation.
theists and atheists have no place in a debate

While I agree that disbelief is belief to the contrary, not knowing and believing are not the same. You KNOW, for example, that person X has or had (if they have passed away) two biological parents. However, by your logic, you are then not believing that they have two biological parents, because as you say belief is not knowing, the opposite of knowing. Since "disbelief is belief to the contrary", by your logic then if you KNOW a fact you DISBELIEVE in the fact. This is completely false - does it not make more sense to say that if you know something you believe in it? I doubt if you asked a theist they would say they don't know whether God exists, they simply believe it to be so. Theists like myself are utterly convinced that there is a God - to them, it is fact. "i can believe any theory is true, but my belief dosnt make it true" Your belief doesn't make it untrue, either, which is what you're arguing. I'm saying that belief is irrelevant to a topic as belief and truth don't necessarily correlate (though they might). As an aside, if atheist and theists have no place in a debate how are debates possible? Everyone falls into those categories.
theists and atheists have no place in a debate

disbelief is simply belief to the contrary.. you can believe i am wearing a hat, and you can believe i am not if i claim that, both side being belief, believing either is theism not knowing and believing is the same belief=false know=true knowledge=truth belief itself is false, belief is not matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now belief being based on the i dont know position, i can believe any theory is true, but my belief dosnt make it true i dont know is position, and its a position i know. i have to see, to see that i dont see a dog right now, is like saying, i have to know to know i dont know a dog right now i like the nut example, but lets say that the nut has a little bit weight, but could also be empty.. same, still belief evidence is a belief system, kNow=now what evidence is sufficient for you to know, that i am wearing a hat right now, yet you still have to imagine it? theism and atheism can never be true, because belief automaticly is a position i dont know, therfore i dont know is true, not belief. beyond what i know, is what i dont know
theists and atheists have no place in a debate

Thank you for the prompt reply. "disbelief = belief" I don't even need to refute this. It's ridiculousness should be apparent. "religion is belief, belief is false." belief = be lie, as I don't know is true" I'm not sure if your argument here is that believing in anything is false or that to believe is to not know that something is true. Either viewpoint is incorrect - Believing in something doesn't make it false, it means you truly think it's true. The fact that something is believed in doesn't make it false - You may believe in a scientific theory. This doesn't prove or disprove the theory. "I don't know = I have to imagine it" If you truly didn't know, you would indeed have to blindly follow it. But, as this debate is arguing of theism/atheism, I know that there is truly proof which validates both sides. This point is irrelevant. "if we walk in the forest and stumble upon an unbrekable nutshell, you can believe there is a nut inside it, and i can believe there isnt, while its true we both dont know, therfore a debate about wheather or not there is nut inside it is irrelevant, given we can not know" To be honest, this is a good example - except for the fact that in the case of this nut, we have no evidence as to either point. As I previously said, there is valid evidence for both theism and atheism that still has yet to be refuted.
theists and atheists have no place in a debate

atheism=disbelief disbelief=belief belief=theism i have no beliefs, i know my experience of now realigion is belief, belief is false belief=be lie, as i dont know is true i dont know=i have to imagine it kNow=physical experience of now a theists arguments are false in any case theists have no place in a debate, as their claims are false, and atheists are theists to the contrary if we walk in the forest and stumble upon an unbrekable nutshell, you can believe there is a nut inside it, and i can believe there isnt, while its true we both dont know, therfore a debate about wheather or not there is nut inside it is irrelevant, given we can not know
theists and atheists have no place in a debate

You are an atheist, yet you argue? Contradiction. This entire debate is in my favor, because you said that. Now to mention, everyone is either an atheist or a theist. By your logic, debate must not exist. Yet, as I pointed out, you are debating.Once again, you presented your controversial opinion that religion is false. Why is religion "false by default"? Now, don't answer that, because that's not the debate. I'm just pointing out that your position is opinionated, at least on that standpoint. And then you go on to state that a theist "by default doesn't know" about religion? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Who better to debate about a religion then it's follower? Your entire argument can be summarized as "Theists shouldn't debate, because religion is false by default, therefore Theists are wrong, thus I do not have to prove that theists are wrong."
Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that the US should never have started

"First off, we lied about the reasons we went to war in Iraq. We were told it was because of Al Queda and WMDs in Iraq. These reasons were lies"That wasnt the only reason we invaded Iraq though. Iraq was also invaded because Saddam Hussein had committed terrible violations of human rights, had a history of using chemical weapons both against his enemies and his own people, he had an extensive history of starting wars in the Middle East (a very unstable region to begin with), was a tremendous enemy of Israel, and was a constant security threat to oil supplies that come out of the Middle East. The claim that he had weapons of mass destruction didnt pan out sure, but we still had plenty of other reasons to invade Iraq other then just the belief that he had WMD's. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www2.gwu.edu...http://news.bbc.co.uk...http://www.history.com...http://www.deseretnews.com..."The war in Afghanistan was fought for money reasons not cause Al Queda was a legitimate threat to us"Um, they kind of were dude. Al-Qaeda demonstrated its potential with the 9/11 attacks, and even before that they had an extensive history of attacking US forces and blowing up US embassies. http://www.nbcnews.com..."We were involved in these wars because America is run by corporations and these corporations profit from war."Thats just a stupid excuse that idiots use to justify their conspiracy theories.
Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that the US should never have started

These wars have costs us hundreds of billions of dollars and there was nothing accomplished by them. First off, we lied about the reasons we went to war in Iraq. We were told it was because of Al Queda and WMDs in Iraq. These reasons were lies. The war in Afghanistan was fought for money reasons not cause Al Queda was a legitimate threat to us. If we really wanted to beat a terrorist group in Afghanistan we could destroy them. We were involved in these wars because America is run by corporations and these corporations profit from war.
Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that the US should never have started

"About the war in Iraq and chemical weapons- We did drop bombs on a city. We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 200,000 civilians"Ok, now please point out on a US map where the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are. Once you figure out you cant do that, then you will see why its beyond stupid to claim that the US bombed its own people like Saddam did in Iraq by bringing up stuff that happened in WWII"The big reason we went to war with Iraq was because Hussein used chemical weapons. "So you concede it can be justified to go to war in Iraq, thank you. "About the war in Afghanistan- I think the government played a part in 9/11 happening. "And thats because you have the intelligence of a dead raccoon. " If you look into 9/11 and discover the information the government and mainstream media don't want you to see, it becomes very obvious this was a conspiracy. " Except it isnt, you and every other dumb conspiracy theorist simply pretend that its information that is trying to be covered up and assume a conspiracy is afoot because youre a complete idiot. "Most wars are fought because of corporations"Corporations have been around for maybe 100-150 years tops, if most wars were fought because of corporations then there would have been very few cases of wars being fought prior to the 1800's, which is a horrendously false assumption to make since prior to 1800, there was ALWAYS wars going on. "I posted a factual story about Tesla Motors, an electric car company on the rise, not being able to sell in all 50 states without restrictions"I know that the 6 brain cells you do have must be working as hard as they can to try to make sense of the world, but the fact is that ALL CAR COMPANIES FACE RESTRICTIONS IDIOT. Seatbelt laws, mpg mandates, fuel efficiency mandates, safety requirements, these are things that ALL car companies have to comply with to be able to seel cars in the US, its not just Tesla Motors you imbecile.
Iraq and Afghanistan were wars that the US should never have started

"All over the world human rights are violated and the U. S. does little or nothing to stop this"Cause we've learned pretty quick we dont have the resources to do so. "You even said it yourself a reason we invaded Iraq was because of oil. "Yeah it was A reason though, not the only reason though. "By the way we use chemical weapons on our own people and enemies too. Just read this article- . http://www.policymic.com...;Firing Tear Gas on Occupy Wall Street protestors in 2011 isnt the equivalent of dropping chemical warfare bombs on a city genius. .. .. "So as you can see we do the things Hussein did, we just hardly hear about because it is covered up by the media, which is basically the government's propaganda machine. "Ah, I didnt realize you were a complete moron. "About the war in Afghanistan- 9/11 was an inside job done by the U. S government"Ok now I dont even think the words 'complete moron' adequately describes you at this point. "One more example is Tesla Motors, a growing electric car company that can't sell without restrictions in all 50 states. This seems like communism not capitalism to me. The reason we did this is because Tesla would hurt the big oil and car companies. "Ok youve made it abundantly clear now that you have literally no idea what youre talking about.
Social Networking is Causing More Harm than Good

It is proven that as social media becomes the latest branding strategy, networking technique, job seeking tool and recruitment method, it's becoming the latest way for people to get job offers rescinded, reprimanded at work and even fired. CNN has written a headline story back in 2009, regarding the dangers of social media in workplaces and how what a person posts, can in fact effect their job. In this case Twitter, a major social networking website was how an employee for Cisco was reprimanded, after he posted, "Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work". Cisco is clearly a web developed company, advertising everywhere, so not computer-illiterate. A partner advocate for Cisco saw the tweet and responded with "Who is the hiring manger, I'm sure they would love to know that you will hate the work. We here at Cisco are versed in the Web." - While it isn't clear what the outcome was of this conversation, you can obviously see that the employer of the hiring company had noticed. In the same CNN report, it focuses on Facebook, where even more companies are advertising and open to the public. " Kimberly Swann, a former employee for Ivell Marketing and Logistics of Clacton, U.K., thought her job was boring -- and she said so on her Facebook page, according to an article in The Daily Telegraph. Swann was called into her manager's office and handed a letter that cited her Facebook comments as the reason for dismissal: It stated ... "Following your comments made on Facebook about your job and the company we feel it is better that, as you are not happy and do not enjoy your work we end your employment with Ivell Marketing & Logistics with immediate effect." While she was communicating with her friends, posting her frustration with her boredom, the company looks for their best interest in letting her go. This all in 2009 (or so), which is almost 4 years later and the social media flow is only increasing. Lastly, education as a result of social networking has negative effects. Go to Yahoo Answers and see how many people use networking to try and answer their math homework or the science equation they need to balance. Thousands, if not millions of students immediately turn to social networking to be able to complete their homework (for them). For students today, they forget the need to filter the information they post. Many colleges and potential employers take a look at an applicant"s social networking profiles before granting acceptance or interviews. Most students don"t constantly evaluate the content they"re publishing online, which can bring about negative consequences months or years down the road. References (1) - CNN Article - http://www.cnn.com... (2) - Edudemic Article - http://edudemic.com...