BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.

I welcome the readers and my opponent. Resolved: Fluoride should not be added to drinking water. Even though society as a whole has been conditioned to accept that fluoride is "good for us", that is in fact not the case. Have you ever thought about how fluoride "protects" our teeth? Does it not do this by "killing" the bacteria that are on our teeth? So how does it "kill" these bacteria? Well, it must be "poisonous" to enable it to "kill"...and it is...and if fluoride is ingested it doesn't magically become "unpoisonous"...it is still poisonous, and is therefore harmful. That is why it should not purposefully be added to anyone's drinking water. Pro will attempt to affirm this resolution and offers the following points of consideration for the readers: 1. Fluoride is poisonous and harmful to the human body. Even on the side of a tube of toothpaste it says to "contact a poison control center immediately" if you swallow your toothpaste. 2. Fluoride has only been made to seem desirable through the use of propaganda. Originally this poisonous by-product (fluoride) involved those businesses manufacturing aluminium with the resulting waste usually being sodium fluoride. In Britain today, the most frequently used toxic waste product used for fluoridation comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry. However, the principles are the same and what happened in the first half of the 20th century is just as relevant as to what is happening today. Through the use of propaganda, fluoride has been made to seem to be desirable, rather than treated as the poisonous by-product that it is. http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f5] 3. A lack of fluoride does NOT lead to tooth decay. Tooth decay is caused by the action of cariogenic substances which release acids which then attack tooth enamel. http://www.fluoridationfacts.com... [f6] 4. Not only is adding fluoride to the drinking water poisonous to humans, it is actually COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY to have this fluoride added to their water. People are being forced to pay for poison to be added to their water! This is yet another reason that it should not be added to drinking water! 5. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, fluoridation is unnecessary since we're already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association's recommended daily amount. http://www.nofluoride.com... [2nd red triangle in points] I now look forward to my opponent's response.
Better Call Saul is better than Breaking Bad

I'm shocked to hear such blasphemy! Breaking Bad, although slightly predictable plot development, is far from the story of an evil man. It is about how a lovely kind father and husband (Hank from Malcolm in the Middle come to mind!) is driven through his impending death towards a life of crime and horror. It showcases his slow deterioration from thrill seeking to full blown control freak, and how by the end of it he makes even the worst fear him. The constant sneaking around trying to avoid Hank, and also hiding his double life is filled with suspense and excitement. All of this is said without taking into account the great performance of Aaron Paul as Jesse.I loved Better Call Saul, but I must say mainly for my Breaking Bad memories. I'm surprised they managed to turn a spin off series into such a great success, however I think it pales in comparison against the behemoth that is Breaking Bad. It contains moments of excitement and you do grow to like Saul, but I still felt a lot of the situations perhaps too closely resembled those in Breaking Bad with meetings with drug lords and getting into trouble with criminals. Although a great show, I still think Better Call Saul is simply inferior with what I think is one of the best shows ever made.
Better Call Saul is better than Breaking Bad

I believe that Better Call Saul is better than its predecessor, Breaking Bad, due to the far more complex character driven narrative. While Walter White will forever remain iconic, Jimmy McGill's trajectory is far less black and white than Walter's was. Walter was evil; no one could deny that. However, can we really say that about Jimmy? His moral failings are just as obvious, but can we condemn him in the same way?
Vermin Supreme would make an amazing President

My opponent makes some good points about Vermin Supreme's policies. However, this assumes Vermin Supreme will actually carry out the policies he has advocated. By his own admission, you cannot trust anything Vermin Supreme says regarding his policies as he will not implement them. http://www.youtube.com...Starting at 1:25 in the video:"My name is Vermin Supreme. I am a friendly fascist. I am a tyrant you should trust and you should let me run your life because I do know what is best for you. Yes I am a politician, I will promise you anything your little electoral heart desires because you are my constituents, you are the informed voting public and because I have no intention of keeping any promise I make."PRO could have made the case that Vermin Supreme was funny or honest in admitting something like this or any number of other things, traits that would still be relevant even if he didn't actually implement his policies. However PRO didn't make this case. Instead his argument hinges on the actual effects of Vermin Supreme's policies - that there actually would be a strong dental policy instituted or an actual pony economy.As per Vermin Supreme's statements, he has no plans to actually implement any of this and so PRO's argument can be disregarded.Additionally there is a strong likelihood that Vermin Supreme is actually Jeb Bush, as both have advocated strong time-travel baby Hitler killing policies [1][2]. This is uniquely strange position for a presidential candidate to hold and despite both being presidential candidates in the same year, JEB BUSH and VERMIN SUPREME have NEVER been photographed appearing in the same place at the same time!Even if the chance that Vermin Supreme is Jeb Bush is low, can we really take the risk of possible electing Jeb?Please vote CON.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com...
Vermin Supreme would make an amazing President

I see some very valid points put forth in the responding statement, but lets think this through, bribing voters with candy is great, and in my opinion, shows how much he cares about the well being of our nation. His pony dictatorship idea is also very great, knowing the endless benefits that come included. Also, Vermin's toothbrushing laws, police and dental rehabilitation centers are also for the better of the populous. Quoting Vermin: "This great nation is suffering a great moral, and oral decay" and his policies to stop this are 100% valid and frankly, quite revolutionary. In this world of danger, we need a leader who can unite the world, and the man for the job is clearly Mr. Supreme. Thanks for your time. Vote for the Verm.
Vermin Supreme would make an amazing President

Vermin Supreme is nother but another corporate stooge, beholden to moneyed interests. Pro makes mention of "toothbrushing nation", which is a reference to his supposedly strong dental hygeine policies which I have highlighted herewith. However, like too many politicians, the positions that Vermin Supreme claims to hold dearly are nothing but a front to gain votes and access power. He is as two faced as the worst stereotypical politician. In the second youtube video I've included with this post, you will see him clearly bribing voters with candy in an effort to make them vote for him. This not only flagrantly ignores basic ethics of conduct for a political candidate, but shows him as a hypocrite who is instantly willing to throw one of his main policies under the bus if it stands the chance of getting him into power. In this he is clearly not "amazing" but just another in a long line of politicians. No, if we want a politician who will truely amaze us, with the definition of amazing being, "causing great surprise or wonder"I counter with the proposal that the only potential candidate who would fulfill this is dread Cthulhu. How could a eternal sleeping monster that drives you insane as you gaze upon it becoming President of the USA NOT "Cause great surprise or wonder"?
Vermin Supreme would make an amazing President

Mr. Supreme is a proud defender of American reforms that will only help our great nation. When you enter workplace and your co-worker's breath is kicking, you will have wished you voted for Vermin. With the struggles of our modern day economy, one, united economy will most certainty help the greater good. Not only would the Pony economy establish fairness and equality, but an amazing way to cut down on all the hate circling the world. Everyone will be united under one, pony and toothbrushing nation. Thank You. Feel The Verm.
why is it that some religions don't believe in the trinity? Trinity is real

Space- The existence of things that have three components doesn't prove the trinityMatter- Lol, matter can also exist as plasmas, supersolids, superliquids and Bose-Einstein condensates. Time- The existence of things that have three components doesn't prove the trinity.Human- Humans consist of more than three things; http://en.wikipedia.org...Atom- Atoms consist of more than three things; http://en.wikipedia.org...Music- Music actually consists of melody, harmony, rhythm, tempo, meter, articulation, dynamics, timbre and texture.Tree- Trees actually consist of roots, a trunk, buds and leaves.
why is it that some religions don't believe in the trinity? Trinity is real

Genesis 1- God is talking about time, space, and matter. In the beginning=(time) God created heaven=(space) and the earth=(matter). What is Time-pass, present, future. What is Space-width,depth,height. What is Earth/Matter-solid,liquid,gas What are you a human- body,soul,spirit. Or mind,body,soul. See the understanding of trinity is all around us. Read Roman 1:20 (in my own word Romans 1:20 says that God say if you can't understand the trinity look at what I made. Atom- protons,neutrons,electrons. Tree-root,trunk,leaves. Music-melody,harmony,rhythm. The understanding is all around us
Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

The morality is, that capitalism can be,if utterly dominated, a heavily immoral economics system due to the fact that if one person was to basically own the system, the remainder of people would be so poor they would just basically die of starvation or some way or another. In that case, it is more moral. Capitalism may have improved the overall economics, but it leaves the remaining people basically with nothing. Going back to dictators, that is the reason for the deaths. Earlier in the debate, you said it had nothing to do with it. But, even so, if the leader was more responsible, more people would live, and much better. I decline that statement. If someone were to continue building up wealth rapidly, They could continue to destroy all who stand in their way, until they dominate the sector, and then the market. Even if they don't earn it, everyone gets their fair share and all are equal. Done.
Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

Many socialists oppose capitalism on the basis of it "not being practical." They say that perhaps freedom is "okay in theory, but not in practice." This is completely contradicted by all real-world evidence. First, note that capitalism's definition implies the complete separation of state and economy. Now, recognize that capitalism led to the: -greatest increase in the quality of life we have ever witnessed (simply look at the transition over the past several centuries) -the longest period of total peace we have ever witnessed (approx. 1815-1914) Some say that corporations are responsible for "all the evil" in the modern world. Simply note that under communism, 100 million people died, and there were no corporations. On the other hand, capitalism created the greatest living conditions ever. Response to point 2: He would need money and consent to buy that land. If he also overpriced his product, then he would be appealing to a much smaller market. He would eventually be forced to cave in to public pressure and appeal to a much larger market. Response to point 4: If everyone earns equal amounts, that does not mean they are earning what they truly deserve. That means that everyone gave away what they rightfully earned to a "common pot" of sorts, and ended up with less then or more than they actually deserved. Essentially, what they earn is disproportionate to the value they produce. Also, the very concept of a "common pot" is based on the idea that theft is moral. It is not.
Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

The truth for #1 is that the socialist system is the more sensitive system to inequality because it puts limits on how much weal a single person can accumulate. Even though it is stealing, it can help reduce the amount of wealth inequality. And in a socialist society, people must depend on the higher-ups, and if they get a fair, livable share, everything works out fine in a financial point of view. 2) Your response here is a little odd, because if a capitalist mining business lets say, bought all the rich mining land and earned millions, the company's owner would dominate. leaving the rest in ruins as he buys all other companies that stand in their way, In socialism, all the miners would have their rations. 3) True, capitalism is a social system, but not a political system which is what I have said. 4) It is fair in the form that all people earn their "fair share" in which is their split of the community's work. 5) My point is how socialism's many leaders throughout history have turned corrupt, which has lead to more of a "slavery" feeling. Great debate so far!
Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

I will refute your points, one by one. 1.) "Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality." This is, to start, a highly vague and unsupported statement. Wealth inequality is most certainly fair; those who produce more value receive more value. One most certainly deserves proportionate returns on the work that he does. Socialist "equality" laws steal from the successful and only make the mediocre more complacent and reliant on those above them. 2.)"Stops economy from being dominated by the few, but by the people." Capitalism has neither. Capitalism is a system of voluntary, free trade. If anyone "dominates" the economy it is because they have provided more value to people than anyone else. This is anything but unfair. 3.) "Capitalism is not a political system, but an economic one." False. Capitalism is a social system, derived from the basic concept of a political right (i.e., freedom). 4.) "There must be a system of either risk-pooling and income distribution. Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality. Although its prescriptions for the problem " things like raising the minimum wage, universal health care and shared ownership of productive assets " are trickier to deliver than they assume, socialism is far superior to capitalism in telling us that a member of the electorate is being left behind and that a gap in the wealth distribution is widening." This is based on the idea that equal distribution of wealth is somehow fair. It is most certainly not. You simply state that there 'must' be such a system, yet you provide no background. A member of the electorate is "left behind" only if he does not provide value to people. If someone is paralyzed or truly in desperate need of help, this help (e.g., health care, housing) should be accomplished through private, voluntary charity. Need does not give one a license to steal. 5.) "Thought history, socialism hasn't been given it's chance. People like Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Il have dominated it, but what if socialism had a more responsible leader? Somebody like that could really change the international view on the party." Socialism is based on the use of force and on legalized slave labor. Here, the leader is irrelevant. Socialism is completely flawed in theory, and therefore completely flawed in practice. Good luck!
Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

Even though I don't agree with the side I will be debating for, I will be accepting the challenge for the fun. Key Points: Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality. Stops economy from being dominated by the few, but by the people. First off, capitalism is not a political system, but an economic system. The problem is "free-market" advocates think capitalism is a political system and through rationalizations and justifications for the single-variable profit pursuit. There must be a system of either risk-pooling and income distribution. Socialism is more sensitive to signals of wealth inequality. Although its prescriptions for the problem " things like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and shared ownership of productive assets " are trickier to deliver than they assume, socialism is far superior to capitalism in telling us that a member of the electorate is being left behind and that a gap in the wealth distribution is widening. Thought history, socialism hasn't been given it's chance. People like Hitler, Stalin and Kim Jong Il have dominated it, but what if socialism had a more responsible leader? Somebody like that could really change the international view on the party.
Theism is more rational than Atheism.

"I'm not claiming what God is based on, I'm claiming the BELIEF in God is more logical than not believing in God (Or Gods, any kind should do)." Very well, then. Just need that to be clear. To address: "Not at all. Only 1/3 of my argument is based on the safety of belief, and that's not really my main argument. My main argument is that God/Gods is possible and, since it is safer to believe, it's logical." Technically, you're last two arguments state that there is possibility that god exists, which is useless because there must also be a possibility that the big bang happened and etc. Unless you apply Pascal's Wager, these arguments are useless and therefore irrelevant. And for: "Now, I just want to say that at SOME point, The Universe- Or it's origin, The Big Bang/Bounce/etc.. Whatever caused the first piece of anything to exist, made it out of nothing. Now, it might be a bit hard to wrap our heads around creation without creator/creation device, But there comes my second point, in which the Universe might be Eternal as well- Meaning God can come either of those ways, meaning he is possible." It is very true that our natural biological process naturally see cause and effect and would deny anything without a beginning. Right there you have just in a way disproved your own second point. But as I have stated before, "The last two arguments state that there is possibility that god exists, which is useless because there must also be a possibility that the big bang happened and etc. Unless you apply Pascal's Wager, these arguments are useless and therefore irrelevant." To address your last rebuttal, "Theists have the same chance, but they also have a 1/W34; chance of getting divine reward. Back to Pascal's Wager, you really have nothing to lose. Being a Theist only adds to your chances of survival. If you're Atheist and right, then you'll just NOT get divine punishment. if you're theist and wrong, it's the same as being Atheist and wrong- Divine Punishment. But, if you're Theist and RIGHT, you get divine reward." Using the same logic I have used before, I would like to remind you that through the infinite amount of gods, there is an infinite possibility of any type of god. If fact, there might be a chance for many gods to simply hate theists that believed in a false god and gives a harsher punishment, if that makes any sense to you. There might even be gods that reward atheists for all I know. This may seem illogical at first, but this is one of the consequences of infinite possibilities (Which you agreed on in your rebuttal) . Using this logic, any argument relating to Pascal's Wager is flawed due to the Infinite Possibility Argument. I would suggest you present another point. Sticking with this argument won't get you anywhere. I await your response...
Theism is more rational than Atheism.

The topic in which we are debating is if theism is more rational than atheism. I would assume by this you mean that the belief is god/s is more based on logic and reason than the lack of. By the burden of proof, it is up to you to make points, and for me to disprove them, as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not making a claim that atheism is more rational here) To address your first point: "1-Pascal's Wager. It proves it is safer to believe in God. Don't ask "Which God?" because you're just contrasting the safety of believing in God to 100% Safety, when Atheism is 0%." It would appear to be that you're main arguments strictly rely on Pascal's Wager, and I will address it rebutting the second and third points. You're second point: "2- The Universe, at one point was created. If something can, at one point, be created out of nothing, then God can be created out of nothing as well, Making him possible." It is true that the Universe was created at one point, but not actually from nothing. By created from nothing, I would assume you are referring to the big bang. There are many theories addressing this point such as the big bounce (In which the Universe is constantly expanding and then contracting back to singularity) or the theory that the universe was spawned from a large black hole or maybe created by membranes of a higher dimension. If you want to learn more you'll have to search it up, in respects to your 'no too big arguments' rule. But anyhow, if you are this following this notion with this new information, it would mean that god was created from a higher power, and therefore not the ultimate creator. This also rebuts your third point: "3- If #2 is wrong, then the Universe must be Eternal- Meaning God can be eternal as well, making him possible. " Back to your main argument, "So if Atheism is 0% Safety, since it doesn't really make your chances of burning in hell or any other divine punisment any lower or divine reward any higher, And Theism DOES make your chances of reward higher and punishment lower, then that means that it is logical to believe in something possible that's safer than not doing so. In other words, Theism is more rational than Atheism because you have a better chance with Theism, and Atheism is really not safe at all. You're exposed to any kind of possibility, and have no chance." Generally, you can only believe in one type of religion (Because of contradictions and etc), and there is also an infinite amount of possible 'gods', as well as a chance of no god. A percentage of this infinite amount of gods would have a punishment for non-believers (or as you say it 'divine punishment'). Naturally, any percent of infinity is infinity as well. Any atheist would have a 1/infinity chance of not have some type divine punishment, which is equal to infinity. Any type of theist would have 1/infinity-1 chance (The -1 being atheism), however, this is infinity as well meaning they have equal chances as 1/infinity=1/infinity-1 I await your response...