BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama's presidency has been successful so far

My opponent's second round argument is telling. He essentially blamed Obama's failures on Republicans who wouldn't cooperate. That admits Obama has not been successful. I think that effectively concedes the debate, which resolved Obama has been successful. I pointed out that there are Obama failures that have nothing to do with Republicans. President Obama promised a new era of openness in government. Republicans did not force Obama to make secret deals and shut down regular order in Congress. Regular order is the traditional process by which bills are introduced, Committees hold public hearings, the Bills are marked up in each house, and a conference committee produces a compromise to be voted upon. Under Obama, major legislation like Obamacare was introduced in final form and voted into law on a strictly partisan basis. Republicans did not prevent President Obama from keeping his promise to post legislation on the web before it became law. Republicans asked repeatedly to meet to discuss health care, and the President refused. Speaker Boehner accepted huge tax increases as part of a grand bargain on the budget, but after accepting, Obama changed his mind and killed the deal.Many of the President's failure were a result of plain incompetence. His supporters on the Left count passing Obamacare as a success, but the implementation has been what Sen. Baucus calls a "train wreck." From the viewpoint of the Left, government is supposed to provide good solutions to the problems that free markets cannot. His bungling has made market solutions look much better. The Stimulus was supposed to bring the economy back to normal quickly. It miserably failed every projection, and the country is still mired in economic problems.The Right is not happy either. Once the government takes over something, in modern times with mountains of regulations rather than seizing direct control, it's nearly impossible to undo the control. The country suffers for a very long time. President Obama has empowered an unchecked bureaucracy to control health care, banking, energy, construction, and other aspects of life. The bureaucracy will be around to tighten the noose long after Obama is gone.Among President Obama's foreign policy failures are allowing the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to fail. The scandals are inexcusable. Rather than the promised transparency, every scandal has been met with stonewalling.Pro challenged me personally to this debate. I think Pro loses conduct for forfeiting the last round. I think he loses arguments for failing to respond to nearly all my arguments and for implicitly acknowledging failure by blaming Republicans for the failure. Pro loses sources for providing none, while I use twenty-six sources to support my arguments.
Obama's presidency has been successful so far

On bipartisanship, the selfish, stubborn and irrational mentality of the Republican Party is the true cause of the lack of progress and bipartisanship throughout all forms of government. It has been clear throughout Obama's two terms, that the Republicans have refused to give any sort of review or chance to any of Obama's proposals nor have they made any effort to increase bipartisanship or cooperation. Their behavior is the true cause of damage, and is what has truly plagued and slowed the progress of policies. Regardless of this stubborn, child-like behavior, Obama has continued to strive to make a difference for America and has ultimately brought this country from the deepest depths of economic turmoil the nation has ever seen and is leading what may be a slow but undeniable comeback. He's promised to bring bipartisan policies to the table but didn't ever say he would back down on his beliefs and bow down when it is clear that he is not given the chance he deserves as president to make change happen. It's simply pathetic that the same party that drove us into one of the worst eras of command the country, has the audacity to act in such stubborn and ignorance because they cannot accept the facts that 1. Their policies have failed the American people 2. That a black man is in power. These reasons are no excuses for these men to refuse to try to cooperate and selfishly abandon their people in a great time of need. So yes, Obama has had to take extra lengths to emplace policies when the most pathetic party in recent memory has refused to cooperate and compromise, but not nearly to the extent of your descriptions which borderlines conspiracy theories that in no way have credibility. Obama may have not believed in gay marriage at the time of his first campaign, but has always been a firm believer in equal rights for homosexuals, and has proven so through multiple changes in policies and acts as President. This small shift in belief was nothing more than an evolution of his policies and a sad excuse that Republicans have used to justify their embarrassing loss as they remain in denial and oblivion in which they think the people actually support them. I don't have much time, because unlike you, I have a life. I will disprove your other statements in the final round.
Obama's presidency has been successful so far

Barack Obama entered office with one of the worst crises in American history. He has helped get America get back on track, and while recovery has been slow, it has been steady and will continue to get better. His many accomplishments include killing Osama Bin Laden, who was America's biggest threat in many years, ending the war in Iraq, which was a very unnecessary war, repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell allowing Gays in the military, and saving the banks AND the US auto industry. But his biggest accomplishment is definitely the Affordable Care Act, it will cover over 32 million uninsured Americans by 2014. The economy is slowly getting better, and while it's not where we all want it to be, unemployment has steadily decreased, the stock market has steadily increased to what are now record levels and businesses are continuing to grow.Obviously what you will bring up is debt. Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, had to pay for two wars he did not start, and had to put a lot of money saving the auto industry and the banks, and bear the cost of increased national security required to combat terrorism. This costs money but with interest rates at record low levels it was a good time to borrow to grow and the saved economy will allow us to reduce the debt over time.
I call upon the Beta-Cuck (Masterful) of DDO

BETA-CUCK OF DDO!!!!!!!!!!! As you may already know, the women of the modern age are utterly savage and unfit to be your equal (they truly do not need to be insulted by elevating your status to theirs). So I call upon you to embark upon an epic campaign to which I can ensure the complete and utter erasure of your dignity from this website. You've already started (congratulations!) And have led DDO into a new golden age of BETA-CUCK FREE DEBATES!!!!!!! (seriously, none of your debates can be accepted). It shall be under your Cuckship that you shall purge your dignity. Now bind up those cuck-shackles and follow this quest to fulfill your destiny. Any cuck-loser that stands before you shall meet his utter decimation in a wailing river of sympathy for what you have turned out to be. Beat back your dignity! Beat back your sense of shame! To you Masterful, the Beta-Cuck of DDO!!!
security is a greater need than love

Howdy Mufasa, Thanks for the topic This statement is subjective at best and leaves much up for interpretation. Where no clear definitions are made I'll do my best...Mufasa defines love as a temporary emotion and a tool to attain security. Mufasa's definition of security is "security encompasses those factors like food, water, shelter- without which we would not be able to survive" 1.The definition of sustenance: Something that provides support or nourishment.(wikipedia) The supporting of life. 1)security is essential for sustenance..love is a temporary emotion.... 2)love is only one of the the tools that we human beings use in order to attain security. 3) security encompasses those factors like food, water , shelter- without which we would not be able to survive Next, I moved Mufasa's statement around for clarity. 1.security encompasses those factors like food, water , shelter- without which we would not be able to survive 2.security is essential for sustenance..love is a temporary emotion.... 3.love is only one of the the tools that we human beings use in order to attain security. This makes the ideas more cohesive but they're still lacking the fundamental logic to prove this theory. Mufasa's mistake was assuming that love is a need in the first place. (this doesn't take into account love as a means of human reproduction in order to survive over time in which case love would be a need.) Humans need food, water, oxygen and shelter for survival. Mufasa defined security as food, water, and shelter. Essentially, Mufasa theorized that food, water and shelter are a greater need than love for the purpose of surviving. This theory could only be plausible if one can prove that love(in this context)is needed for human survival on earth.
security is a greater need than love

Oh Mufasa, what happened. This forfeit is confirmation of all my previous arguments. The whole topic was confusing but a forfeit didn't help. Maybe we will cross paths again Mufasa. Peace. Sincerely, Casiopia --------Below is my last argument before forfeit, it still applies---------- Pre forfeit "You stated in your last argument "Needs are necessities whereas wants are our desires.For example you might WANT coke but you NEED water. Similarly, we NEED security but we desire love.." You are defining love as a want by desiring it and not as a need which cancels out the original idea that "Security is a greater need than love" You have defeated yourself and confused everyone. My brain is bleeding, thanks Mufasa."
security is a greater need than love

Hello Mufasa, You just stated in your last argument "Needs are necessities whereas wants are our desires.For example you might WANT coke but you NEED water. Similarly, we NEED security but we desire love.." You are defining love as a want by desiring it and not as a need which cancels out the original idea that "Security is a greater need than love" You have defeated yourself and confused everyone. My brain is bleeding, thanks Mufasa.
security is a greater need than love

I find that I havent clearly defined the term security.Security by the Oxford dictionary refers to the state of being happy and the feeling of being safe.But when this motion states that security is a greater NEED than love, it takes security to another level,wherein it encompasses those factors like food,water shelter,without which we would not be able to survive.As animals,as homosapiens our most primary NEED is that of survival.Only when this need is fulfilled do the role of emotions like love comes into play. Moreover Casiopa we must clearly understand the difference between human needs and human desires.Needs are necessities whereas wants are our desires.For example you might WANT coke but you NEED water.Similarly,we NEED security but we desire love.. Take an another aspect to it..In todays world of cut throat compettition, the levels for complacency is absolutely minimized.such are the levels of compettitiveness that in order to survive in such a world a amn must consistantly give his 100%.but even then due to the levels of compettitiveness he is unsure whether his hard work will pay off or not.This world thus instills in him feelings of insecrity.Therefore we see that today in the world there is a lack of security.Following the law of nature of DEMAND and Supply- because there is a lack of it there arises a greater need for it. I hope i am being able to convince you on yhe validity of the topic.
The Christian God must be Evil. So Christianity must be false.

"Based on what I have already said, the Christian God is still Evil based on the definition of evil. Evil deeds are what I described."Yes, but the problem with that is morality is objective to Gods standards making my fallacious arguments a tad bit more plausible.Think about it, if God said it was kewl to eat babbies then he would change the definition of babby eating from morally wrong to morally acceptable.That's why he sent the shebears, because babbies taste good. MM Kay? "Wrong." Quoting Callen13, in his novel "God Cannot Be Both Evil and Good According to Scripture"Okay I have some more desperate arguments about this.Option1I take back the bible is inerrant.Why? Because if God is evil, he wants his image to be good and he will make many conflicting statements because he is a bad liar.Evidence to suggest this is the many contradictory statements in the bible.Option2That, or bible writers were good people who thought God was their father (and therefore wrote positively about his character) when he tried raising them as his personal evil henchmen. I have no evidence to support this other than the fact that God sent his chill bro son to be tortured by people, obviously he was just an unlucky pawn.Option3Satan is good and some of the scriptures about him got mixed up with Gods, making him seem like this.I have no evidence whatsoever."According to the bible, Humans have been speaking to God since the beginning of time and understanding Him." Quoting Callen13, in his best seller "God is Evil" True dat, One problem.According to the bible, God also mooned Moses...You can't explain that."If God cannot lie, he cannot be a hypocrite."Proof the bible was written by the pygmy centaurs on mars in the Gustonian era to DECIEVE MANKIND!!!!!And to think all this time I thought I was crazy..."You have provided no reasonable evidence that God is not Evil. You have provided no evidence that God can be Evil and the religion known as Christianity will still stand. I have in both cases. "We'll if you have done this for me in both cases, then I guess you have made the con side of the debate completely valid >:DEvidence God can be Evil (as you have proved God is pretty evil) and the religion known as Christianity will still stand:http://www.deviantart.com...How are there Christian institutions if Christianity is not standing the test of time to high scrutiny from skeptics everywhere?"You have provided no reasonable evidence that God is not Evil."True, I'll give you that.BUT, I have provided unreasonable evidence.Conclusion:You are wrong and I am right.You have made a total mockery of my fallacious, illogical, and baseless claims and arguments.You recently state that you provided evidence God can be evil and Christianity still survives. Therefore, my arguments are good. I wake my case.
The Christian God must be Evil. So Christianity must be false.

“I have analyzed your definition of evil, and chosen to use it in context under #1,” -Con Statement Well context number 1 says “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.” Based on what I have already said, the Christian God is still Evil based on the definition of evil. Evil deeds are what I described. 　 “Therefore based on this presupposition, (1)God's ways, which may be seen as evil, are perfectly evil, or (2) I can just say humans can't comprehend God because he works in nostalgically mystical ways.”-Con Statement 1)In this case, you are claiming that God is Evil, but because he is perfectly evil, Christianity still stands? Wrong. Psalms 107:1 - “Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is GOOD; for His loving kindness is everlasting” Galatians 5:22-23 - “22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.” The Spirit in this passage means God. Fruit meaning, the output. Matthew 7:18 - “A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, aand a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.” God cannot be both evil and good according to scripture. This is another reason why it is so important to Christianity that God be blameless and sinless and perfectly Good. 　2)I can just say humans can't comprehend God because he works in nostalgically mystical ways.” According to the bible, Humans have been speaking to God since the beginning of time and understanding Him. But here is some more evidence… Genesis 3:22 “And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Man understands good and evil. In this case weather or not God is good or evil is even irrelevant because man can understand both. Man knows if God has done wrong because we have that knowledge. 　 　 Other Stuff you said that I can disprove… 　 “also, I deny the bible says God is nothing but GOOD, or that he is love.” -Con Statement 1 John 4:8 - “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 　 　 　 “I say most civilly, there is biblical evidence to suggest god is not all knowing and therefore not aware of that.” -Con Statement 　 1 John 3:20 "For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things." 　 “I must surmount and say that, God can be a hypocrite.” -Con Statement Hebrews 6:18 “So God has given both his promise and his oath. These two things are unchangeable because it is impossible for God to lie. Therefore, we who have fled to him for refuge can have great confidence as we hold to the hope that lies before us.” If God cannot lie, he cannot be a hypocrite.In Conclusion You have provided no reasonable evidence that God is not Evil. You have provided no evidence that God can be Evil and the religion known as Christianity will still stand. I have in both cases.
The Christian God must be Evil. So Christianity must be false.

Hmm, I didn't think you would see past the stupidity of my arguments... "I do not know how much you know about Christianity, since you have stated on your profile to be secular but in Christianity there is Heaven and Hell."You got me, I practically know absolutely nothing about Christianity, the only thing I know about is something about Jesus having a beard.I am a ruthless heathen. I have analyzed your definition of evil, and chosen to use it in context under #1,"In conclusion, because God has done Evil, Christianity must be false." Now I am going to analyze this passage of the bible whilst ignoring the rest:Psalm 18:30 "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him." Okay I guess if you where to disprove this, my only possible come back would be that this isn't God's word or its a divine deception. That would mostly disprove Christianity.Netherworld-the-less I am stubborn and dogmatic and refuse to accept defeat! My argument is, based on the presupposition that Psalm 18:30 is a property of god, regardless if real, fake, or somewhere in between, that because GODS way is PERFECT,. Therefore based on this presupposition, God's ways, which may be seen as evil, are perfectly evil, or I can just say humans can't comprehend God because he works in nostalgically mystical ways.also, I deny the bible says God is nothing but GOOD, or that he is love. "It appears to me that God is the root of Harm, pain, injury, suffering, and eternal damnation of Billions and Billions of people. "Well you are most solemnly correct about that one.However, God is perfect so this means he can do that kind of stuff.Quoting you: "God created Lucifer knowing that he would rebel and become the father of lies. Because God is all knowing."I DISAGREE BECAUSE YOU ARE WRONG!!!!i say most civilly, there is biblical evidence to suggest god is not all knowing and therefore not aware of that.Acclaimed Evidence: Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8 / Gen 6:5-6 / and Jeremiah 32:35This evidence is irrefutable."If God has a Spot on his shiny clean slate, then that's bad for business. It would mean that your allowed to be unclean and still go to heaven because God is unclean. Hell would be of no need. "I must surmount and say that, God can be a hypocrite.Also, is it logical that we apply the deity to the restraints and freedoms of its creation, or vice versa?YES it is not.I do not rest my case
The Christian God must be Evil. So Christianity must be false.

I accept your challenge.First I will start off with a balant ad hominem attack and simply state:Your argument is wrong because you are against the holy one and I think you are wrong."1. If God is Perfect, good, and created everything, where did evil originate from?"-Callen13, from "The Christian God must be Evil".Based on the presumposition that God created everything, evil originated from God, because God created everything.I have just answered you with simple logic."God created Lucifer knowing that he would rebel and burn for eternity for it. God also created humans knowing that they would rebel and the majority would burn for eternity.Why did Humanity rebel? Human nature. Given to us by God. And now he says we are evil and no longer his children, but children of Lucifer, the father of Lies. But god created Lucifer? One who also rebelled? Why did he rebel? Because of something God created in him. And now him, his followers, and a majority of humans who don't "accept him into their hearts" will burn for eternity."-Callen13, from "The Christian God must be Evil".Your point? I'm afraid this is irrelevant and even an example of appeal to prejudice."Evil can be traced back to God anyway you look at it. So there is a crack in the foundation of Christianity and it all falls through the gap."-Quoting Callen13, from "The Christian God must be Evil"I disagree because I am stubborn, closemined, and think you are wrong about everything you are saying.But I have some logic behind my opposition.How has anything you've just said proved Christianity to be false?You haven't, I would say you even prove it correct. *That's just an opinion, do not quote me.*Throughout the bible, God is pretty malicious. BUT God is also, GOOD, and JUST, and ALL MERCIFUL, according to what you know about him, right?Well under the presumposition that the bible is inerrant, God is always perfect and never wrong, and that humans are not perfect, then I can conclude you are wrong.Why?Because, just because you think God is evil still doesn't disprove Christianity. Evil =/= Not RealI rest my case
The Christian God must be Evil. So Christianity must be false.

1. If God is Perfect, good, and created everything, where did evil originate from? Sin is defined as "An immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.". Divine law being the law of God. God created everything, Lucifer and people included. Both rebelled against God's rules and therefore were deserving of Hell (also something created by God) because "God is Just". God created Lucifer knowing that he would rebel and burn for eternity for it. God also created humans knowing that they would rebel and the majority would burn for eternity. Why did Humanity rebel? Human nature. Given to us by God. And now he says we are evil and no longer his children, but children of Lucifer, the father of Lies. But god created Lucifer? One who also rebelled? Why did he rebel? Because of something God created in him. And now him, his followers, and a majority of humans who don't "accept him into their hearts" will burn for eternity. Evil can be traced back to God anyway you look at it. So there is a crack in the foundation of Christianity and it all falls through the gap.
Gay people should be able to get married.

My CaseGay Marriage in Society and GovernmentHeterosexuals have a special value to society. This is because they can make children and continue the survival of society. If heterosexuals were not allowed to continue marry, they could not continue the survival of society. Homosexuals cannot produce children and thus cannot benefit society. To recognize gay marriage destroys this special value of heterosexual marriages. Because gay marriage cannot benefit society, the gov. does not legalize it.