BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is The Illinois Lottery really a game of Chance

Can you cite any actual evidence that the lottery is rigged or is this just an opinion? Of course the odds are slim to none that you'll win, But that's the nature of the game. Is the Illinois Lottery, Or any other Lottery if not rigged, Really a game of chance. The government which runs lotteries, Hires computer program experts, To run the Lottery game computers. " In politics, Nothing happens by accident. If it happens, You can bet it was planned that way. " Franklin D. Roosevelt Read more at: https://www. Brainyquote. Com/quotes/franklin_d_roosevelt_164126
The Negative Income Tax

Thank you Olark for accepting, and as you said: may the best win. One of the main reasons why I support a negative income tax is that it's a very cheap and yet effective way to end poverty. My alibi is the "Mincome" project that was conducted back in the 70's in the 2 towns in Manitoba, Canada; the town of Dauphin and Winnipeg: http://america.aljazeera.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://basicincome.org.uk... Those below the fixed poverty line received a monthly cheque that allowed them to survive. In the beginning, the researchers predicted that this would encourage people to be lazy and that it would cost a lot of money. But in the end, none of the above turned out to be true. From those who benefited from this project, only pregnant mothers and students worked substantially less. This by the way, resulted in a higher number of students graduating. Also hospitalization and domestic abuse went down. The project started in 1975 but was ended in 1979, when a centre-right government came to power. For many years the results of this project have been forgotten, until a few years ago it caught the attention of Prof. Evelyn Forget of the University of Manitoba. Now you might say that that these were small towns and that such a project couldn't work on a nation-wide level and that the people of Winnipeg and Dauphin feared that this project would end some day. Well for the nation-wide thing, I don't know to be honest. It has never been tested on such a large scale. But "I don"t find the "temporary program" argument very compelling. If people are irresponsible, will they really project four years into the future to decide how to behave?" (quote from Prof. Evelyn Forget) Contrary to most basic income models, the negative income tax, would only give the amounted of money needed to the people who need it. That's why it would be a cheap way to de facto implement a basic income. There have also been other basic income (BI) experiments, like in Otjivero, Namibia and in Uganda, India and even In the US: http://www.spiegel.de... http://usbig.net... https://www.opendemocracy.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... The Namibian project also caught my attention for the following reasons: In 2 years, -the percentage of people living below the poverty line went from 76 to 36% -the percentage of under-nourished children went from +50% to less than 10% -the percentage of young adults graduating went from 60 to 90% -crime went down significantly Another interesting project is "Bolsa familia" in Brazil. Basically it's a negative income tax for poor families IF they send their kids to School: http://web.worldbank.org... As for the BI initiative in Switzerland, I'm crossing my fingers since I live there ;) It would be really useful for me since in a few years I will be going to University.
The Negative Income Tax

I accept your challenge over this very interesting subject.I've been following with interest the Swiss debate over introducing a guaranteed minimum revenue. To be honest I'm still undecided myself over this issue. However I do have a bunch of rational arguments against it. Furthermore, as I currently live in a country, Belgium, where there is already a huge welfare coverage (guaranteed income for everyone (about 400 € pm), Generous child benefits or the state topping up revenue as an incentive for employment) I will not just list arguments why a country should not apply "Negative Income Tax". I will also try to analyze factual negative results of it being enforced (Socially and Economically) Having said that, good luck and may the best win
Religion Agnostic

I'd be happy to debate this topic with you again if you're interested. For now, I'll go ahead and follow your lead with regard to the structure of the debate (even though it's the last round).#1 Position and IntroductionI believe that there is a God. I think belief in God is a properly basic belief, and as such requires no empirical justification. That being said, I think there is ample evidence of God's existence which outweighs the evidence in favor of atheism. As for my religion, I am a member of the Catholic Church. I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God and that He was resurrected from the dead.#2 MyselfI'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences with Christianity in the past with your family. It's a great shame that so many "Christians" don't follow the teachings of Christ, and so end up setting a bad example for others. As for me, I was born and raised in a Protestant Christian family. I converted to Catholicism a little over 3 years ago after a great deal of soul-searching, research, and prayer. I'm very happy with my religion and I believe that the Catholic Church is the ultimate pillar of truth on Earth.#3 HomosexualityMy view on this subject is that those with a homosexual orientation are just as able to live a Christian life as those with a heterosexual orientation. That being said, I think that homosexual acts are sinful only because these are acts that take place outside of marriage. In other words, homosexual acts are no more or less sinful than premarital sex, extramarital sex, divorce, etc. I find it a bit annoying that so many people are opposed to homosexuality yet have nothing to say about these equally sinful acts. Anyway, the point remains that I believe an individual with homosexual orientation, who lives a life of chastity, is able to be just as good a Christian as any individual with a heterosexual orientation.#4 Time The Bible gives no specific age to the Earth. It is biased interpretations of the Bible that put out beliefs such as the Earth being less than 10,000 years old, evolution not occuring, etc. The Bible itself doesn't say anything about the age of the Earth or how life came to be the way it is today. It is open for interpretation. This puts the Christian in a nice position. Whereas the atheist is stuck to believing in purely natural theories, the Christian is able to follow the evidence where it leads. Because of this, I feel I am justified in believing that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and believing that evolution is the best explanation for how life came to be the way it is today. None of the beliefs I hold contradict the Bible and none of the beliefs I hold contradict mainstream science. Conclusion Unfortunately, we weren't able to have much of a debate. As I stated earlier, I'd be happy to debate again if you're interested. Or if you have any more questions you can always shoot me a message. Thanks for the debate!
Religion Agnostic

It's a common belief among Christians that their god is a perfect being only capable of love. However in the bible is jealous, cruel, condones slavery, condones genocide, promotes misogyny, and is altogether an unreasonable person. Christians like to claim that the bible holds absolute morality, however in the ten commandments it is only the second half that actually addresses morality whereas the first half only addresses on how to worship god. Morality isn't absolute and should be reasoned and changed the more we progress as human beings. For instance, the bible makes an absolute claim that lying is wrong and that it is a sin, however there are situations where lying can be justified. If we look at WW2 for instance, all the people in Europe that went to great lengths to hide the Jews from the Nazis technically were liars, but through that lie they were able to save people from death and torture. In the bible it tells slaves to obey their masters, so by the bible's standards Harriet Tubman's escape from slavery is nothing more than a sin. The bible is filled with contradictions within its own texts, it's also filled with contradictions with historical and archaeological findings, but most importantly contradicts science. I've heard the argument before that the reason why we see trees that are older than 6,000 years old, which is the chronology of the bible, however it is inconsistent with the fact that all those trees wouldn't have been able to survive the flood. I'll end it here, because I'm looking forward to hearing your side.
This country was formed on a lie

Thank you for that enlightening speech for all you said was true and your sources are very credible but it does not change the fact that even though Jefferson was anti slavery it still happened and he could not change the southern colonies/states representatives point of view that slavery is natural and a good way to bring in money. Though the deceleration was not fully hypocritical in American men's endeavor to gain the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" they (particularly the representatives from the south) were either to blind, ignorant, or just to lazy to abolish slavery then and there even though that was the opposite of Jeffersons intentions. And ps. That age is wrong I'm thirteen and yes I too hope this is an enjoyable debate
This country was formed on a lie

Thank you for starting this debate. I hope that it can be a civil and productive exchange.First of all, the Declaration was written by Thomas Jefferson. Read the following except from the article "Thomas Jefferson and Slavery" [1]" Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. These views were radical in a world where unfree labor was the norm.At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slavery’s abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves."Therefore, Jefferson was not "lieing" when he wrote those famous words. This was infact his hope for the future of the country. Sadly, Jefferson did not live to see the abolition of slavery, but he certainly attempted to bring it about.The following is from the "I have a Dream" Speech by Martin Luther King [2]"In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the 'unalienable Rights' of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' "This shows that when Jefferson wrote those words, he was in fact writing his hopes for the future, hopes that would eventually be fulfilled. The words of our founders were not lies, but hopes.You also misquote the Gettysburg Address. This is what you said-"four score and seven years ago my forefathers founded this country on hypocrisy"Which is at odds with the actual speech, which says- [3]"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."This further enforces my point. The author of the Declaration was anti-slavery, however, he was not able to push his agenda because the Union could not stay in tact without compromise. Back to you Pro.[1]http://www.monticello.org...[2]http://www.americanrhetoric.com...[3]http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...
This country was formed on a lie

This county was formed on the declaration of independence with basically said Britain we are done with you however, one of the main arguments was that all men were created equal and had a god given right to govern themselves, however that left out all the women and negroes in the country. Negroes are men too right. This mistake was almost settled when in the relatively new continental congress thought of abolishing slavery then and there however the southern states in particular disagreed. if they hadn't disagreed there would have been no civil war however no Abe Lincoln but back to the point my "four score and seven years ago my forefathers founded this country on hypocrisy so what do you think.
This country was formed on a lie

Rebuttal Your example of comparing a presidential election to the abolition of slavery is not correct for modern day, but it is correct historically. "I mean we all vote for our presidents correct, and just because some people voted for the losing one and the vote wasn't unanimous that doesn't change the fact that we are united as one in the states. People might be a little angry but our country doesn't break into chaos because the vote wasn't unanimous. "Being that you are debating a historical topic, I assume you have some historical knowledge, and so you know, that is essentially what happened (With many other factors at play as well of course)Read the following except- "With the election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln, who ran on a message of containing slavery to where it currently existed, and the success of the Republican Party to which he belonged – the first entirely regional party in US history – in that election, South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, the first state to ever officially secede from the United States. Four months later, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Louisiana seceded as well. Later Virginia (except for its northwestern counties, which broke away and formed the Union-loyal state of West Virginia), Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee joined them. The people of the seceded states elected Jefferson Davis as president of the newly formed Southern Confederacy. " [1]ConclusionI have already proved that the Declaration of Independence is not a lie. I will not deny the injustices committed against minorities in this country, but I will say that the Declaration was always sending us towards a goal of equality, a goal, which with the help of the American people and some leaders (Some of whom I quoted in my round one argument), I can say that we have accomplished, and therefore, fulfilled the promises of our founding fathers. Please, vote Con. [1]. http://www.historynet.com...
This country was formed on a lie

You have valiantly opposed me with your well researched points and you have swayed my mind minutely but my mind is a stubborn thing and what kind of opponent would I be if I just agreed with you but I do agree that this war made us stronger however this was a little off topic and I still believe the fact that the document that basically formed our country was contraversial. The document served it's purpose but as a young negroe I believe my race was cheated and treated like animals more than men but the document clearly said in the third and fourth line it is men's unailiable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness. Only one of these rights were granted to negroes, women and Native Americans. Although I am a happy American citizen I dispize the fact that our country was about to grant all the people in America freedom but they changed their mind to make the vote unanimous. I mean we all vote for our presidents correct, and just because some people voted for the losing one and the vote wasn't unanimous that doesn't change the fact that we are united as one in the states. People migh be a little angry but our country doesn't break into chaos because the vote wasn't unanimous. I have enjoyed this debate, it tought me many things and you have been a challenging adversary I hope to do this again.
This country was formed on a lie

Even with your responses, my points still stand. The words written in the Declaration were promises for the future, promises that have now been fulfilled. "either to blind, ignorant, or just to lazy to abolish slavery then and there"This is offensive to our founding fathers. The reason that slavery was not abolished at the start was that America needed to be united in order to beat the British, as well as getting through are turbulant time as a young nation. The Civil War, while being an awful war, stregnthened us in the long term, and fulfilled the promises made in the Declaration.I am not positive about this, but do you now agree with me that the Declaration of Independance was not in fact a lie?
Australia are going to win the world cup

Thankyou very much Yoshi33 for inviting me to particapate in this debate. First of all, I would like to describe the recent form of the South African team. South Africa were thrashed 40 to 7 by New Zealeand and lost 36 - 26 to Australia. With the inclusion of Quade Cooper, Will Genia, Scott Higginbotham, Digby Ioane and the 2 Faingaii brothers, the Wallabies have become a world class side. They should fair out well against New Zealand and will definately flog South Africa. Thankyou! Go The Wallabies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In Skyrim on legendary difficulty, the theives guild is all in all better for campeign than C.O.W.

I accept, And being an Avid Skyrim player I feel I can justify my opinion. Having Completed the Main Quests, many Side quests, and Maxing out positions in All guilds, it is for to assert that The C.O.W. is Superior to All other Guilds. Major Point- You gain Access to ALL Master spells Every individual at the C.O.W. is a Master or adept at some form of Magic, and has Items of Mastery which are all available. Major point-you gain Access to ALL Master Robes. Get that Alteration Mastery Cloak from Tolfdir, Get that Destruction Mastery cloak from Faralda, It all be there. Major point-Master and Expert Level Trainers in All Magic Forms Dats Right son, you got Cash, Max out that skill. Once you have completed the last Quest, you become the New Archmage, and Receive the Wicked Robes, which get you 15% less Magicka cost, 100% Magicka regen, and 50 more Magic points. Plus it looks sick(1)(http://www.google.ca...) There is More I would like to address, but I would allow my opponent to continue.
In Skyrim on legendary difficulty, the theives guild is all in all better for campeign than C.O.W.

When completing the game of Skyrim on the legendary difficulty, the Theives guild is all in all better than the C.O.W. (College of winterhold) for the campeign because; the Guild is versatile in hand to hand through projectile magic, including heal spells. Compared to the college which is only adept in the schools of Magic.
Dirty song debate.

This won't be hard.http://www.youtube.com...Shamelessly stolen from Danielle's dirty rap battle, here are some sample lyrics..."You ain't got sh!t till you've fvcked a pregnant hoe"Note the use of THREE curse words (sh!t, fvck and hoe) and the obvious sex craze."Fvcking a b!tch while her baby sucks your d!ck" Child abuse and three more curses.Etc.I think I've won this.
Dirty song debate.

In this debate, you will argue why the song you chosen is more dirty than mine. Any song can be chosen for this short debate. It's also my 1'st ever debate. So its a free win for whoever wants to debate. definition of dirty for this debate: When something that is said or done degrates someone in a funny manner. http://www.youtube.com... some lyrics from the song: "Women are stupid, and I don't respect them, That's right, I just have sex with them," "I can't have sex with your personality, And I can't put my penis in your college degree, And I can't shove my fist in your childhood dreams, So why're you sharing all this information with me?" *watch the video 1'st* The lyrics are dirty because it clearly pokes at the whole idea of women sharing personal info in a relationship It also suggests that women are only sex tools at the intro lyrics of the song . With the sexy dance moves and the "bad rap skills"(definition:not being able to rhyme properly with the beat), it makes the video funny and offensive.
Jesus Existed

SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS My opponent has pretty much dropped my arguments showing a scholarly consensus. An appeal to authority is an error unless referring to something which is virtually a scholarly consensus or established historical fact such as the existence of Jesus or the holocaust. Scholarly consensus can be wrong but when referring to a crap load of people covering a wide range of disciplines, extremely good reasons need to be given in order to dismiss the consensus. My opponent has failed to show why this wide range of experts with no ulterior motives (wide array of atheist and Jewish people as well as Christians) should be dismissed. MYTH THEORY My opponent has presupposed a type of myth theory claiming Jesus is some sort of myth created by his followers. he has failed to back up that theory with much evidence, while I've given good reason to believe in a historical Jesus. A look at the evidence shows it supports my theory better than my opponents. Looking at this evidence when not in reference to a controversial religious figure everyone would agree he existed just as they do with Pythagoras. However for my opponents theory to work you pretty much have to presuppose that Jesus is a mythical figure. ORAL/WRITTEN HISTORY My opponent claims that me providing proof of how good the Jews were with their written record doesn't matter but go back to his opening arguments and take a look at his criticisms of the historical Jesus. Half of his argument is attacking the reliability of how the Jews passed on their written record. JESUS'S FAMILY My opponents only objection is that Paul referred to his fellow Christians as brothers and sisters but it misses the point. Context when using the word is important and it's one thing to say somebody is your brother and have that misinterpreted, but you're not misinterpreting something when you say that James was the brother of Jesus. If he meant it in a loving way similar to how Hawaiians use the word he would have called James his own brother instead of saying Jesus is Jame's brother or visa versa. CONCLUSION Me and my opponent both rushed a few things because of life circumstances at different points. I urge voters to judge this by who's arguments have more solid grounding and are deeper.