BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dave Cameron

I will try and keep my response relatively short for this round. I would argue David Cameron is not a weak leader. This is a man that took leadership of the Conservative party at a young age, going on to become the youngest PM since Lord Liverpool (1812) Despite polls throughout 2015 expecting him to lose the election, Cameron delivered a robust performance and ended up with a majority snatched from the jaws of defeat. Cameron has made major changes to the welfare state and implemented his austerity policies despite being in coalition government. Since then, he has continued to do this despite divisions over the EU within his own party. Unlike John Major who had a very slim majority in parliament when he was PM, Cameron has actually instituted major policies (academisation, austerity) and has suffered only one major commons defeat since becoming PM. This says much about his leadership capabilities and his ability to make government work. About the current position of Cameron. He is pro-EU and his party are very divided over Europe. He however he can't control the political motivations of some of his peers, (Boris Johnson, IDS etc.) who are motivated to gain politically once David Cameron stops being leader in 2019. Cameron is a man who has dealt and survived with good outcomes a number of political problems. He campaigned successfully in the Scottish Independence referendum and survived it, he won the 2015 general election despite polls indicating otherwise, and he is still running domestic affairs despite the party being bitterly divided over the EU. The fact the party are feuding says more about the party than Cameron's leadership, he has used the cards he has been dealt with (Recession,coalition, Scottish independence movement, Party divisions, slim majority etc.) and has made positive outcomes from them. A united UK, the fastest growing economy in the West, a lower unemployment rate and a 2015 shock election win. From this evidence I can certainly say David Cameron is not a weak leader. I look forward to your response (I am not actually a fan of Cameron and don't particularly support his policies, however I do believe he is a strong leader, given his circumstances. You can read this article by professor Kevin Theakson on his leadership, it is quite interesting and gives some insider perspective on his leadership. http://www.britpolitics.co.uk... ) -Economy,http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.thisismoney.co.uk...
movie versus debate opponent choses

Thanks for opening this debate, Pro. Although they have both become epic war movies, I will demonstrate that "Apocalypse Now" (denoted AN) is clearly a better movie than "Full Metal Jacket" (denoted FMJ) by providing the following evidence in Round 3: 1. AN received better reviews from movie critics. 2. AN had better sound, cinematography and better acting. 3. Unlike other Vietnam movies, AN uses surrealistic cinematic sequences so that the viewer FEELS rather than sees the chaos and horrors of war.
movie versus debate opponent choses

OK so for the voters round 2 will be me and my opponent type a list of points as to why the movie we are debating for is better. I would first like to thank my opponent for picking two great movies it should be a great debate. I choose the movie full metal jacket as the film I will debate is better. Some of my points include. 1. It is in my opinion more fun to watch 2. It is easier to watch 3 the acting is better 4 one performance in particular is extremely iconic 5. Apocalypse now is in my opinion an extreme bore to watch in one session 6 Kubrick masterpiece
movie versus debate opponent choses

Hello everyone this will be the second of my opponent choes the debate debates. In this debate I challenge ZenoCitium to a which movie is better debate in which he will pick two movies in round 1 and we will have a debate about which is better. 1. The movies have to be of similar or equal quality. 2. As con gets to pick the two films I get to pick which of the two I think is better. 3. This debate will obviously include some form of opinion, so the argument that since it's an opinion it shouldn't be considered a point is banned from this debate. 4.seeing as last time was a flop because of me not seeing the films they have to have been releases any time from 1980 to 2015, and must have been nominated for an oscar or golden globe.
The Bible Has No Contradictions

Father of Joseph: My opponent does not refute my point. As BibleTruth.org says, "On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Saviour was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised Messiah, the "Seed of the woman who would bruise the head of Satan (serpent)." Order of Creation: As ApologeticsPress explains, "While it is true that such expressions are found in chapter 2, what the critics have failed to notice is that anthropomorphic terminology also is employed in Genesis 1:1-2:4. In that section, God "called," "saw," "rested," etc. (1:8,12; 2:1). There is no validity in this argument, and one is not surprised that serious scholars have labeled it "illusory"." Again, my opponent has not gotten to my point. Jesus's Death: Just because Matthew and Luke include Jesus giving up the ghost, yet John does not, doesn't mean it is a contradiction. The gospels did not include the same thing, otherwise, there'd be no purpose in having the 4 books. Yet again, no refutation. Date of Jesus's Birth: Finally, my opponent has a serious refutation. However, it is logiclly flawed. As I previously said (and sourced), many scholars say that Quirinius was probably governor on two separate occasions. And since my side of the argument is written in ancient text and widely accepted, unless you can prove that it's impossible that Quirinius was governor twice, once during Herod's death, and from a reliable, unbiased source (not an atheistic website), then my argument holds. God. Peaceful?: Again, God can do whatever he wants, and he works in mysterious ways. None of that is a contradiction, but an out of context examination of a few broken Bible verses that do not logically show a contradiction. Conclusion: But it has also brought more comfort than any other book. So there may be a little scholarly discrepancy. This doesn't take away from the fact that the Bible is has comforted billions in need. http://bible-truth.org... http://www.apologeticspress.org...
The Bible Has No Contradictions

Father of Joseph: It clearly says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Notice the use of the word "son". Unless pro can show that his unlikely theory is true, his objection here means nothing. Just look at the Bible verse. Order of Creation: Again, another unsubstantiated theory. Genesis 2:18-19 says, "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof." There's nothing about man's "perspective". Jesus's Death: But each claim that he gave up the ghost at different statements. Only John agrees with your claim. Matthew and Luke both have Jesus giving up the ghost before he said, "It is finished." My opponent is basically trying to salvage the point here. Date of Jesus' Birth: Luke 2:2 - This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. "Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.""Quirinius became governer of Syria in 6 CE, nine years after king Herod's death."(SAB) A SecularWeb page says, "Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death." So, the two accounts are nine years apart. This is a contradiction. God. Peaceful?: Let's take a look at barebones contradictions: "I will not pity..."[Jeremiah 13:14]; "The Lord is very pitiful..."[James 5:11] "...nor have mercy..."[Same Jeremiah]; "For his mercy endureth forever."[1 Chronicles 16:34] "The Lord is good to all..."[Psalms 145:9]; Clearly this is not true. My opponent has not effectively refuted this. His last claim is not right. He's simply posted some theological mumbo jumbo. Conclusion: How has the Bible created confusion? How has the Bible not created confusion? There's a Roman Catholic Bible, an Eastern Orthodox Bible, and all different kinds of Protestant Bibles, each with different translations. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... http://www.infidels.org...
The Bible Has No Contradictions

Father of Joseph: As AnswersinGenesis says: "Luke is being very precise. Jesus was thought to be the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. Notice that Luke never said that Joseph was the son of Heli in the Greek. This reduces the alleged contradiction to nothing and shows that Luke"s genealogy is Mary"s"with Joseph"s name listed due to inheritance laws"and Matthew"s genealogy is Joseph"s." Order of Creation: Creation.com replies: "Chapter 1 may be understood as creation from God"s perspective; it is "the big picture", an overview of the whole. Chapter 2 views the more important aspects from man"s perspective." Jesus's Death: John was close to the cross at the time of Jesus's death. Luke was much further in the back. John hears the words that Jesus had said softly, when he is referring to the ones close to him. Luke refers to the words Jesus had "cried with a loud voice" to the crowd. They hear different last words because they are in different positions. You cannot prove that all three are claimed to be the very last words of Jesus before his resurrection. Date of Jesus's Birth: That is not the right translation. It is normally translated as this: "This was the census that took place before the first census of Quirinius." Further, many historians believe that Quirinius was governor of Syria twice, as a found inscription in Antioch says just that. They also believe that Quirinius could have EASILY done a census at the time. This being at the same time of Herod the Great. God. Peaceful?: God is infinitely peaceful to those who worship him, but there is no excuse for someone who knows the word of God to not accept his teachings. So, answering your concern, God is merciful and loving, but to those who reject his love, they shall receive His judgment. That's all it's saying. Also, how has the Bible created confusion? http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://creation.com...
UN must be dissolved.

You seem to have wrongly defined the term 'united' itself. Is manipulation of something equivalent to it not being united? Well, then no parliament, no international organization, not even our families are united, frankly speaking. Just because something is manipulated, is it worthy of being dissolved altogether? I humbly disagree. Every body has its pros and cons. Reforms are made to deal with them. I also don't understand your cherry-picking of Russia and China, if other member have not tried to utilize UN for their interest. The fact is that the current world order is based on Realism, and realism demands pursuance of national interest. That interest can get brutal too. Therefore, one of the reason why I want UN to stay is for it being a platform of negotiation and diplomacy and a kind of instant diplomacy in the time of crisis when diplomacy is stalled altogether. Secondly, UN and EU are not similar bodies. EU is a regional body based in Europe and having 27 member states. UN, on the other hand, is multinational institution with a membership of 193 countries. EU's interests are regional. UN's interests are global. I agree, USA should not be burdened with funding a huge chunk of budget. But that has to do with reforming UN not dissolving it once and for all. When a scientific theory fails, Science is not dumped. A new theoretical model within science is prepared. Conclusion: At least have better reasons for demanding dissolution, friend.
UN must be dissolved.

My argument is that the United Nations is simply, not 'united'. Russia and China are easily manipulating the system and are using it to their advantage. They play a role in the Climate Change Scan, and the oil for scan scam, and the United Nations is doing nothing about it. With the European Union beginning to crumble the need for the United Nations does the same. Why should the United States fund something that is corrupt and ineffective towards countries?
UN must be dissolved.

United - "joined together politically, for a common purpose, or by common feelings" which is what the United Nations are. The United Nations is joined together, politically with 193 nations, which is similar to the European Union as they are joined politically with common purpose and that is to ensure better economic trade. However, I will get back to the point. My "cherry-picking" of Russia and China are more specifically directed to the Cold War, they both have good relations between each other. The realism is that with China slowly falling, their economic crisis is nearing, and with that it will bring a major problem to the United Nations, because China is basically connected to the whole world. The United Nations have proved to be both bias and corrupt. There are countries in the world where one bans religion and the other doesn't and is causing internal conflict between the organization (Such as Syria and Iraq who are both member states of the United Nations). The UN also has not done much good either. They haven't contributed, or barely have to the 5 million Congonese slaughtered, the torturing in North Korea and the rights of everyone around the world. Conclusion: The United Nations is not only bias and corrupt it doesn't do much good either. The way you are comparing the EU to the UN is incorrect.
The United States Congress Repeal the 16th Amendment

I accept! Im only too glad to debate on the intricacies of the tax code. Its very exciting. So I'll get right to it.1. Income Taxes provide a substancial source of revenue As the graph indicates, income taxes make up 41% of Federal Revenue. However, the constitution prevents a head tax, which the 16th amendment authorizes. The 16th amendment also allows for the payroll tax to exist. Compare the above graph to graph below and it will become apparent very quickly that the revenue doesnt exist currently to match our spending by 1.45 Trillion dollars. If we were to wipe out income taxes and payroll taxes, the deficit would be about 3.2 Trillion.If we wipe out the 16th amendment as my opponent suggests our fiscal policy becomes impossible to carry out. Even if we wiped out ALL medicare/medicaid/social security/defense and ALL discretionary spending, we would still be operating at a 300 Billion dollar deficit every year. I suspect my opponent knows all of these statistics, and has an alternative system. As a result, I dont have much more of a case until its presented. Thanks again! http://upload.wikimedia.org... www.gpoaccess.gov
The United States Congress Repeal the 16th Amendment

This debate will focus on the Sixteenth Amendment passed in 1913, giving Congress the explicit power to tax an individual's income. The creation of the IRS, income taxes, and the U.S. Tax Code were all subsidiaries of this Amendment. The con side of this argument will argue against the repeal of the Amendment, showing their support for taxing income in the United States. The debate will consist of three rounds. 1. Opening Arguments/Debating Points 2. Arguments/Debating Points/Rebuttals, etc. 3. Closing Rebuttals/Debating Points Debaters will not be able to introduce new points during the Closing part of the debate (Round 3). Good luck to con side of debate.
The United States should cut funding to Israel

So, while markusabernathy1998 forfeited the last round, I'm going to continue to reinforce my three main premises, and they are that first, we should cut funding to Israel because of human rights violations, second, because its costly, and third, because we serve to gain nothing. Now, its not just markusabernathy1998 who has been trying to refute my human rights arguments, but there have been many comments saying that the US is a hypocrite who took lives and thus have no right to blame Israel. The US of A has always stood for freedom and justice. After the attack on the world trade center, we avenged every one of those lost lives. the United States has fought many wars, and have thus killed many people over our nation's history. But we fought for freedom, we fought for country, and we fought for justice. Let's not forget that, and refer back to Israel. Recently, a UN report showed that North Korea had human rights violation and torture methods similar to that of Mr. Adolf Hitler. Everyone was off and scolding North Korea. These are people like markusabernathy1998 who ignore the crimes of Israel, and point their finger at nations like North Korea. It might seem like North Korea is more inherently evil, and that is most likely case. But a crime is a crime, and saying one murderer is better or cleaner than another is unacceptable. That's american law and principle. So,let's stick to our principles of freedom, justice, and liberty and work to put an end to ISrael's crimes! What better way to do so than to withold aid. By doing so, Israel will be pressured into stopping their abuses. Enough about ideology, lets just talk as human beings. Israel's former prime minister the late Ariel Sharon allegdly killed more than 200 innocent women, children, and men (palestinian) at a refugee camp during the war with Lebanon. That's 200 innocent lives lost for no reason. Ariel Sharon paid no real punishment for his crimes, and was quietly let go. You see, folks, it's because of moments like these that we have Palestinians crying out and begging for the US to help. But like most of the human rights abuses and crimes, these pleas for help never reach America's shores. But let's move on to the next important topic, which is our economy. 3 billion dollars. That is 1/5 of our foreign aid budget in itself, and it's being sent to Israel. When we talk about our economy, we should imagine the frugal man. If we continue spending lavishly just because we want to, we will never fix this nation's economic crisis. With debt over 17 trillion, unemployment just under 7%, and a stock market that has had its worst days since 2011, we are in no position to be wasting 3 billion dollars. I say waste, to mean that we don't gain any real inherent benefits.
The United States should cut funding to Israel

To start, I would like to say I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with what you have to say here. The State of Israel is a nation of about eight million people, who come from a variety of walks of life. They include Jews, Christians, and Arabs. Israel is entirely surrounded by nations which either are passive (do not help it) or enemies (which attack it). History has shown in several wars in just the past seventy some years, that a lack of providing sufficient protection to Israel will result in it being attacked. To the north, Russia demonstrates a lack of respect for Israel by aligning itself with Syria and other Muslim nations. Egypt is no friend to Israel (just look at the wars that the two of them have fought), Iran is developing nuclear weapons with intent to wipe Israel off the map...and it seems like Israel is under attack from all sides. For you to label the Jews as a 'Fourth Reich' I find to be completely out of line. Claiming the Jews are in any way practicing neo-Nazi (or Nazi-like) practices of any kind (which is the idea I get when you say 'Fourth Reich') is completely outrageous. The Jews were given a homeland by God and others have attempted to uproot this from them. Some have taken it to extremes. Don't forget that $3 billion a year represents a very small fraction of the United States federal deficit, which is for this year, I believe, to be over $750 billion! For us not to be defending American interests in the Middle East (Israel being the only major stronghold for capitalism, American-values, etc) by a comparatively small investment of $3 billion would be disastrous. If you feel we should withdraw funds from Israel in terms of foreign aid, we should not discriminate as to exclude the Jews alone from foreign aid would be 'racist'. Thus we should also, by your argument restrict all foreign aid altogether, which, as you should know, probably would not pan out well in our favor. In conclusion, to put an end to funding towards Israel would be disastrous.
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible

I thank Con for willing to participate in this debate. Full Resolution: { Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) Is Infallible As Per The Islamic Doctrine Of Ismah } * Ismah: the doctrine that all prophets of God are infallible in conveying the message of God & acting upon it. Rules: - No forfeit, no disrespect, no bare assertions & no shotgun argumentation. - The burden of proof is on Pro. - Scripture must be authentic (unsound hadiths are inadmissible). - All sources on the Islamic Tradition must be authentic & authoritative. Thus, non-Islamic sources shall be wholly inadmissible, as they evidently don't speak for the Islamic Tradition. - Sources on other than the Islamic Tradition should be reliable as well. Structure: - 8,000 characters, 4 rounds, 72h of argumentation time. - 1st round: acceptance. - 2nd & 3rd round: arguments/rebuttals for Pro & Con. - 4th round: arguments/rebuttals for Pro, only rebuttals for Con.Good luck.