BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any extraterrestrial life is likely to be very similar to life here on earth

I can't help but bring up the topic of the debate again. You said "any extraterrestrial" and "very similar". The idea that ALL life foreign to our planet would be very similar seems absurd. I agree that we aren't likely to run into aliens from Hollywood but there are too many variables of creation for every possibility to be considered "very similar" to Earth. I contend that Pro's instigating statement is too vague and broad to be accurate and I maintain my position that the topic is implausible
Any extraterrestrial life is likely to be very similar to life here on earth

I argue for similarity, not identicalness. Bodily features may vary. It is thought that 5 digits per limb advanced through evolution solely because animals with such digits fortuitously emerged on to land 1st. New discoveries abound, hinting at the possibility of totally different organisms. But, while basic bacterial life can emerge from harsh conditions, sentient life of high-level consciousness is more fastidious. I contend that we are unlikely to meet the fantastic aliens of movie fantasy
US or Them?The US Should Start Spending More Money Fixing Our Own Problems Before 3rd World Problems

It's too late for proof. You waited till the last round to post links, so the arguments remain invalid. Also, wikipedia is not a valid link. Also, the majority of your arguments are not mentioned in these articles. "World Trade Center not bombed?! If an airplane crashes into your house would you consider it a bombing? No wait, it's obviously a shooting... (sarcasm) Seriously! Get your facts straight before telling me mine aren't!" Lord have mercy. It's not a bombing unless a bomb is involved. Bomb- " An explosive weapon detonated by impact, proximity to an object, a timing mechanism, or other means." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I figured that was common sense, but here we are. "The reason our military budget is so high is because we send troops to 3rd world countries! And you admit the food stamps and welfare is broken, but say that it isn't destroying middle classs... Who is it destroying then? Either way it is destroying something. You also prepose EXTRA TAX! Who would agree to that? The logical solution would be to stop spending so much in foreign countries until we fix our problems first!" Just because something is broken, does't mean it's destroying our middle-class. It would be detrimental to a society to allow it's people to starve to death, simple solution, food stamps. Or at least some form of them. Also, you say I want to raise taxes, however I never said this. I proposed we cut spending somewhere else, like our outrageous military budget, and put that money to more civil issues. There are many "logical solutions", however you provide none. You simply state that I have none, when in fact, I have. "You say that: "There seems to be about one really bad group no one will shut up about, and that's about it." If you have one tumor and not 50, are you going to live? " Also, this made literally makes no sense. I'll assume your saying that 50 tumors are worse than one. I suppose that's true, however it's also irrelevant. Unless you can name 50 extremest organizations that pose imminent threat to America, your argument is invalid. "There is no real result from our quest in the War on Terror! As I have said before, as we spend more and more to other countries, we are losing what we give..." This is where you seem to have a big flop. You speak about how the military budget isn't that bad, yet in situations like the war on terror, you go against what you speak of. The war on terror is not foreign aid. It's pure American need to get even, which is somewhat justified, yet somewhat not. Also, you managed to drop most of my arguments, so for that reason, I urge voters to vote Pro. Thanks
US or Them?The US Should Start Spending More Money Fixing Our Own Problems Before 3rd World Problems

You want proof?http://www.globalissues.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.globalresearch.ca... World Trade Center not bombed?! If an airplane crashes into your house would you consider it a bombing? No wait, it's obviously a shooting... (sarcasm) Seriously! Get your facts straight before telling me mine arn't! Now you say: "Once again, every dollar is important. Let's cut spending somewhere else. Like our outrageous military budget.Also, food stamps and welfare aren't destroying our middle class. Granted both of these systems are remarkably broken. I can also tell you that flat taxing could eradicate any issue our taxes are having."The reason our military budget is so high is because we send troops to 3rd world countries! And you admit the food stamps and welfare is broken, but say that it isn't destroying middle classs... Who is it destroying then? Either way it is destroying something. You also prepose EXTRA TAX! Who would agree to that? The logical solution would be to stop spending so much in foreign countries until we fix our problems first! You say that: "There seems to be about one really bad group no one will shut up about, and that's about it." If you have one tumor and not 50, are you going to live? There is no real result from our quest in the War on Terror! As I have said before, as we spend more and more to other countries, we are losing what we give...
US or Them?The US Should Start Spending More Money Fixing Our Own Problems Before 3rd World Problems

You have stated a lot of things, however none of them have been cited, so none of them are valid. Also, in the entire first section, you talk about human lives. Human lives are not a feasible currency, and therefor this entire section is invalid. "The World Trade Center was bombed. But now, the new World Trade Center is standing tall in New York. The construction of the Trade Center costed $3.8 Billion. But we spent 6 TRILLION to get to where we are now?! And thousands of American lives? How much more are we going to spend and sacrifice to accomplish a task that isn't accomplished even today?! And right now, we are just moving out of the Middle East region, yet still more terrorist groups regin. " The world trade center was not bombed. Perhaps if we spent more on education we would know. Also, are there really more terrorist groups? There seems to be about one really bad group no one will shut up about, and that's about it. "1% may not seem like a lot compared to what we spend on an annual basis. But every dollar could be used to fix our own impending problems: Unemployment is at a high. And more and more are forced to live in the streets Debt is skyrocketing. Obama's policies are DESTROYING our country: Food stamps and welfare is killing middle class citizens Obama Care is making it harder to purchase and keep your health insurance. etc. etc. (just to name a few)" Once again, every dollar is important. Let's cut spending somewhere else. Like our outrageous military budget. Also, food stamps and welfare aren't destroying our middle class. Granted both of these systems are remarkably broken. I can also tell you that flat taxing could eradicate any issue our taxes are having. There are so many ridiculous things we spend money on, why should the one thing that we will see results from be eliminated? Thanks
US or Them?The US Should Start Spending More Money Fixing Our Own Problems Before 3rd World Problems

I understand where you are getting at. 1% of our budget is not a lot. And over time the amount we spend is an investment.But here is where the argument starts:How much more will we need to spend? As I have stated, we spent 6 trillion US dollars to fight the War on Terror. You may argue that, "We fight terrorism on our own terms". But what have we lost in return for fighting our own terms? 6,717 US military casualties and 57,614 injured. What have we accomplished in 13 long hard years? We have accomplised to declare a USELESS war and indirectly kill 900,000 innocent civillians in Iraq and Afganistan. It started as what we consider now 911. The World Trade Center was bombed. But now, the new World Trade Center is standing tall in New York. The construction of the Trade Center costed $3.8 Billion. But we spent 6 TRILLION to get to where we are now?! And thousands of American lives? How much more are we going to spend and sacrifice to accomplish a task that isn't accomplished even today?! And right now, we are just moving out of the Middle East region, yet still more terrorist groups regin. "Al Qaeda appears to have largely succeeded in its hopes of accelerating the decline of U.S. global power, if not bringing it to the brink of collapse."Why?1% may not seem like a lot compared to what we spend on an annual basis. But every dollar could be used to fix our own impending problems:Unemployment is at a high. And more and more are forced to live in the streetsDebt is skyrocketing.Obama's policies are DESTROYING our country: Food stamps and welfare is killing middle class citizens Obama Care is making it harder to purchase and keep your health insurance. etc. etc. (just to name a few)If we keep spending more and more on 3rd World problems that don't affect us directly, our own economic status will collapse. What then? Will the countries that we helped (Iraq, Afganistan), help us? No. They will laugh at own mistakes.Throwing 1% around the world like its not important is NOT WORKING. 1% is important; its billions and billions of US dollars that can be better spent.
US or Them?The US Should Start Spending More Money Fixing Our Own Problems Before 3rd World Problems

Alright, thanks. Now, I will lay out the facts. America is projected to earn $3.3 trillion in tex revenue. Americas GDP in 2013 was $16.8 trillion. In 2015, we are projected to spend $6.6 trillion. According to sources I have cited, you will see that $4.9 trillion out of $6.6 trillion is used for things like pension, health care, education, defense, and welfare. That means that $1.7 trillion is spent on other things. The majority of that money is spent on things like roads and services, which is what you really pay a tax for anyways, since a tax is just an exchange for service and protection. Now, in all reality, we only spend 1% of our budget on foreign aid. Since I understand this is difficult to comprehend, I will cite the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Also, i'd like to state that ISIS is not getting their weapons from America. The group is getting weapons from conquering other groups in Syria and Iraq. Also, for the most part, America would only spend spend money if it benefits us primarily. We are not fighting terrorism on behalf of someone else. We fight terrorism on our own terms. Now that all of my information has been cited, I can go through your argument. Our debt has little to nothing to do with foreign aid. We spend 1% of our budget. Of course the 1% is billions of dollars, but thats only because of proportion. If we cut spending in other areas, we can easily reduce the debt. The main thing I think you don't understand is that in order to make money, you have to spend money. If we spent a little bit of money in a third world country until it becomes productive, then we will have a powerful alliance, which can provide us recourses in a time of need. As we all know, there are new country's rising, which are becoming competitive with America. When a third world comes around, we may not be able to come out victorious. However, with the support of an entire continent, we could be unstoppable. It's an investment. Were not going to see results immediately. Also, you fail to see that the point of our existence is to fight, it should be to get a long. If we have to help a couple of nations out whose people are starving, then we are accomplishing what we were put here to do. Thank you https://www.google.com... http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
US or Them?The US Should Start Spending More Money Fixing Our Own Problems Before 3rd World Problems

Let me first just lay out the facts: We spend over 37 billion dollars in foreign aid every year. We have spent almost 13 years fighting the War on Terror and have spent close to 6 TRILLION US dollars. ISIS has OUR military equipment! Even if we help against terrorism in other countries, how do we know what we give them will be used for good? Now I will define 3rd World : A developing country. In our current country where we are in debt currently of 18 trillion dollars, expected to be 21 trillion by 2015, we can't afford to continue spending more and more in foreign support. Now I understand the argument that we need to make allies with 3rd world countries and develop them as a whole. But as we are spending more for their benefit, we are losing more for ourselves. Many countries are now taking our support for granted. They expect us to help them when we can't help ourselves.
it's more likely that God exists than not

Rebuttals The Kalam Cosmological Argument P1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence; P3: The universe has a cause of its existence. Refuting P1: The thing about this is that is uncomfirmed. We have no examples of things coming into existence that had a cause, only pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged that have a cause. Example: My laptop did not begin to exist, it was created by pre-existing material. Refuting P2: My opponent uses the Big Bang Theory as an example. While the universe as we know it did have a beginning, there is no evidenece that the universe began to exist. Refuting P3: Without P1 and P2, P3 is useless. The premises may be true, but it may not be. Either way, there is no way to tell and there is no way anyone can claim that the logic surrounding this premise is absolute. Sources http://biology.about.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://plato.stanford.edu... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.wisegeek.com...
it's more likely that God exists than not

I look forward to an insightful debate on this matter. (Ironically, my actual beliefs directly oppose the stance I am taking in this debate; hence, we are basing reversing roles. ) I will begin by presenting the standard Kalām cosmological argument [1]: 1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence; 3. The universe has a cause of its existence. A common response to this is "If everything that begins to exist has a cause, then what caused God to begin to exist? And if God does not need to be caused, then why must the universe be caused? " Well, my response is that God did not "begin to exist. " Moreover, God is immune to the rules of "cause and effect" that the anti-Kalām argument depends on. There was no "time" before the Big Bang [2], and hence, "cause and effect" does not apply to God's situation, since the concept of causality [3] is founded on the existence of time. --- Next, we will read through a variation of an argument for Moral Normativity, an abridged version of former Yale philosophy professor Robert Adams' argument. [4] 1. Moral facts exist. 2. Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural. 3. The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism. 4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true. 1 can be evidenced through testing. We have an innate disposition to make certain moral decisions, as can be evidenced through simple testing. [5] 2 is evidenced by the argument for Ethical non-naturalism [6]: (1. Ethical sentences express propositions. 2. Some such propositions are true. 3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of human opinion. 4. These moral features of the world are not reducible to any set of non-moral facts. ) 3 is true, because if these moral facts are unnatural, they must be artificial. If they are artificial, they are made through unnatural means. The most likely explanation for something being made through unnatural means (not in the sense of "manmade") is the existence of a God. --- Hence, theism is more justifiable than atheism, and God more likely exists than not. Thank you. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.nature.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] . http://discovermagazine.com... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Capital punishment in Texas is unjust

===Opening===== For a brief road map I will be address my opponents points made and further move on to rebuilding my case ===Arguments (Against pro)=== 1. Although a very good point, we also have to look at the studies my opponent offers, the state of Kansas? We HAVE to adhere to the Resolution, and clearly the resolution states IN TEXAS. Now with that being said the points and claims made in my opponents case can not be looked at for the simple fact that the studies do NOT pertain to Texas whatsoever. And if you don't buy that argument it cost $27,000 annually to keep a single inmate in a TEXAS prison, now with this stat given we can see that it still does cost a substantial amount of money to cover just one inmate in Texas. We also have to address that there are 160,000 inmates in Texas. 27,000 x 160,000 = 4320000000. That's a lot of money annually, so you can NOT say that keeping a inmate in a Texas prison would not be costly. 2. Again a very good claim but again, no credible evidence that PERTAINS to Texas, just an off the wall study that was done in Philadelphia. Again, if you do not buy that argument that my opponents claims do not pertain to Texas than we will further look into the study, this study was in Philadelphia, The time of my opponents study was a time where African American people outnumbered those of them in Texas, so we can clearly see that with the higher number of blacks it will obviously have a higher chance of error. But like we have to keep in mind, no program ever used in history has ever not had flaws. ===arguments (con)=== Sub-1. I would like to start off saying that my opponent uses personal instances in where he does not feel safe to warrant his claim, now clearly in a educated debate we can not claim something and turn around a warrant it with a personal belief? If we did anyone could claim anything. But like I said before, we need capital punishment in place to promote the well being for the maximum number of people. Sub-2. My opponent offers up an argument saying that I don't have proper evidence to support my said claim, but I offer up a very crucial stat showing how many people could have potentially caused more harm (based on convictions) in prison than others, and capital punishment allows for a those to excited, serving as the good for the people and serving them with justice. 2. My opponent says that promote the idea "rape for rape", but clearly I do not, capital punishment allows for the correct JUSTICE mean of any given situation (if severe enough) to be carried out. Although my offers a very crucial quote that I'm sure we will look towards further in the debate we can not adhere to this quote for the simple fact that, How would those who have cause SEVERE harm to others be punished? Life in prison? Why give the criminal the right to live? When he took one and if so, many other lives away, now allowing these criminals the right to live is as my opponent likes to say is "monstrous ideology". http://www.texastribune.org... http://quickfacts.census.gov... http://quickfacts.census.gov...
The Adam of the bible, was is God Himself. Not all of mankind.

The root of David is not Adam. Since Adam was present at least 3,000 years before King David, my opponent's argument falls apart. Who is the Alpha of the bible? Adam or all of mankind? The Alpha of the bible is Jesus not Adam. Adam never claimed the title of God. In fact, he just disappeared In Genesis chapter 4. Adam was just mere mortal man. He could sin,( as shown in the book of Genesis), He could die! Jesus died because It was God's plan. Adam was just a ordinary man. Luke 3:38, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Note that Luke does not say ' son of Adam who is God', Luke says that Adam was the son of God. From this, we can deduct that Adam was the first son of God. The ancient Israelites named God many things, Yahweh, Jehovah, and El Shaadah. Never Did they called God Adam. My opponent has just spewed out quotes without providing some context. For example, " Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them. " Adam named the animal/nations too. Notice did the Spirit of God offer Adam a animal as a help meet? No! A day with God is 1000 years to man. The gentiles were here at least 1000 years before Adam. How do you know that A day with God is 1000 years to man? Have you ever considered that God said " "Let us make man in our own image"? I rest my case
The Adam of the bible, was is God Himself. Not all of mankind.

My opponent has not refuted my quotes. He has not provided a convincing argument that Adam is God. Therefore I am just going to continue my argument. We know that Adam died according to Genesis chapter 5 verse 5. We also know that Cain and Abel were offsprings of Adam and Eve. Now if Adam was/is God, why would he die? Why would he have sexual intercourse? Now the Greek philosopher Plato described God as a spirit. Evidence in the Bible backs it up. In the book of exodus, God appears to Moses as a Burning Bush. Pretty weird right? Also Adam never claimed that He was God in the Flesh. Jesus did. In the Holy Gospel according to Luke , It says that Jesus is the son of Adam. After that, it says that He is the son of God. You might think that Adam is god. However, Luke is talking about the ancestry/family tree of Christ. Those quotes from the prophet Isaiah come from a PROPHET. Now God can not appear as a human when he wants to. Isaiah received the messages through visions and dreams. Eve is the mother of all human beings. It says so in Genesis when it says 'Adam[a] named his wife Eve,[b] because she would become the mother of all the living.' Genesis 3:20 I will hope my opponent will have his rebuttal and argument ready and I will wait for his response! P.S One more thing,' When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." John 8:7
The Adam of the bible, was is God Himself. Not all of mankind.

John 1:1 refers to the Trinity. 'Adam named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all human beings. And the Lord God made clothes out of animal skins for Adam and his wife, and he clothed them.' Genesis 3:20-21 In Genesis, chapter 5, verse 5 we read: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.