BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the Right Wing Better Than the Left Wing

Thanks for taking the debate. Yes, we need a little of both, but I believe that the government should not have a strong hold in it's citizens. 1. To understand this you must realize that The Obama administration is very Liberal. His administration's brainchild "ObamaCare"or "ACA"was a total disaster. The government should not have control over your health care. Obama and his administration have desperately failed in that regard. We all know too well of the stories of those negatively affected by ACA. I do not find it relevant to discuss each one with you, but about 1/3 of Americans had their plan canceled due to ObamaCare(1) At the beginning of the ACA's implementation Obama said,"You can keep your plan and doctor". This is just one of many half-truths created by the administration. You must understand that a government with mainly leftist ideology just cannot work. 2. Another resounding failure of the Liberal party is welfare. About 109,631,000 Americans received some benefits from the government as of 2012 (2). Yes, a lot of Americans do need some kind of benefit. However, there are many who simply hop on welfare because it's free cash. The amount of recipients of food stamps has been increased by 1/3 since 2007(3). It has become increasingly easy to receive welfare. About 1,000,000,000,000 dollars go to these programs annually! If we are ever going to get out if our national debt we must cut our welfare spending. Something Obama had obviously not done. 3. Although it's not controlled directly from Washington, minimum wage is yet another disaster in the making. Each state sets it's own minimum wage. I'll be taking my state, Pennsylvania, as an example. The current minimum wage in PA is $7.25/hour. The newly elected governor is Tom Wolf. Mr. Wolf happens to be a Democratic Liberal. He proposes that the state raise it's minimum wage from $7.25/hr. to $10.25/hr. If this happens, it could lead to disastrous consequences. Tina Tartaglione, a senator in PA,is very adamant in the increase in minimum wage. She says,"To the critics who say that increasing the minimum wage will hurt the economy; you are wrong! Studies and history point to an increase in minimum wage having little to no negative impact on the economy." Either Ms. Tartaglione is doing a fine job of Texas sharpshooting, or her information is completely false. A raise in minimum wage does affect the economy negatively. To sum it up put yourself in a business owner's shoes. You have a job opening that if filled could greatly benefit your business. Suddenly you are forced to pay your employees $10.25/hour rather than $8.50/hour. Suddenly, you cannot fill that job opening and you have to lay off some of your employees. This phenomenon is occurring now and will greatly increase with a raise in minimum wage. I have produced some major faults in leftist ideas. Your turn to take the floor. (1) http://obamacarefacts.com... (2) http://m.cnsnews.com... (3) http://www.thenewamerican.com...
feminism NEEDS to be stopped

I should rename the debate "Feminism is Bad" lets just consider that the title, ok. first off women have achieved equality in every way 1. equal pay https://www.eeoc.gov... and https://www.forbes.com... 2. feminists will bring up "catcalling" but catcallers are looked down upon. 3. more men die in war then women 4. we do not live in a rape culture, men who are even FALSELY accused of rape will have their reputation and lives ruined, and men who DID rape women go to prison and are looked down upon by society, and their fellow inmates (hope he doesnt drop the soap) 5. 38% of rape victims are men https://www.forbes.com... and men are less likely to report it 6. when a man says he was raped by a women everyone thinks it is ridiculous 7. if you really want gender equality then why cant a man hit a women back? men cant in our society, and if a man hits another man they will get the living sh*t beat out of him. give me some proof that women ARENT treated equaly (in america) also i know that you will most likely forfeit this debate, a feminist tactic, when feminists are proven wrong they just run away and are offended
feminism NEEDS to be stopped

The feminism is necessary, because the woman has always been despised by the society. It wouldn't be necessary if people stop belittling the figure of the woman, but this never happened, and It will never happened with closed mindsets. That's why you need one, two, three waves, it doesn't matter, It matters the message that woman isn't an object of the world. When we stop being treated as inferior people... we do not stop fighting, because It's many years treating us like this. And we want our place. The vocabulary, the culture, the history, the works... in many areas the woman is denigrated, in the XXI century, and that is rather worrying.
feminism NEEDS to be stopped

you said OMG, Really? Violence is bad in both cases, but look: https://www.huffingtonpost.com... The percentage are horrible." well a study found this out, "Roughly 40 percent of the victims of severe physical violence were men." https://www.yahoo.com... and https://www.theguardian.com... also other studies found that men are less likely to report it look at this other study that found "Only 10 per cent of male victims will tell the police Around 27 per cent of women will tell the police" http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk... 47% of the perpetrators are women aswell. http://www.slate.com... and the sad thing about this is most of the organisations to help people of sexual and physical abuse accept men way less than women , because people think men being raped is rare, but it isn't. you also said "More men died in war? Then don't go to war, I don't understand what does this have to do with feminist." well, men have been forced to be drafted for more than ONE-HUNDRED YEARS!!!! And catcalling?????? everyone hates that, cat-callers are looked down upon by society!
feminism NEEDS to be stopped

Yes, because to consider that feminist is bad will make the percentage of equality rise, of course ( sarcasm) The woman have achieved A PART of equality, but totally? No men. 1. Yes, equal pay... ". https://www.forbes.com... and https://www.aauw.org... 2. The thing is to know difference between a catcalling a compliment, they are two completely different things. 3. More men died in war? Then don't go to war, I don't understand what does this have to do with feminist. Sorry, but I will not argue about the violation, for me to violate either male or female is wrong, and it has have punishment .But the percentage of women is higher. And men do not denounce it, like many women who also do not report for fear of that or other situations. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... OMG, Really? Violence is bad in both cases, but look: https://www.huffingtonpost.com... The percentage are horrible. I do not hate men, I do not think they are inferior to women, but what is clear is that the classicist tendency to persuade that women are weak people has to end, because unfortunately that is still latent in society. And even if you find it exasperating, what you say does not offend me or make me want to run, it just makes me want to have the desire to fight even more.
Hillary clinton is an allien

Arguments:Con violates Rule 2, By Arguing. I already translated in a previous debate, That Rule 2 Says that con cannot argue, And Arguing is a 7 Point forfeit. Cin haa argued, Thus, Cin violates Rule 2 and forfeits on All seven fronts.Also, dear leader is too smart for you. Beloved North Korea,As we all know, is the leading Fundrasier of the UN With it's powerful economy, And Is The Example for world peace. You, Western , Clearly foes not meet the North Korean School standards. we all kbow North Korea has 90% Of the best schools on earth. TRUE KOREANS WOULD NEVER ARGUE THE WAY YOU DO. So Western, Please proceed to North Korea's Totally Very Fair Courts. You will have the most reasknable punisment, north Korea Is known world wide for Human rights. Source: http://www.debate.org...
The riches rule over the law

Riches don't rule over the law.They can rule over the officers that enforce law but once the culprit is caught and is displayed before the law courts.No one can save him if proper rules and evidences are put into application and shown respectively.For example,fundamental rights or human rights remain same for everyone whether rich or poor.Riches cannot control law.The richest of persons can be punished under the law.rule meaning- Verb: Exercise ultimate power or authority over (an area and its people): "Latin America today is ruled by elected politicians". or simply put the meaning of rule is to govern - reign - dominate - administer - direct - controlBut this does not happen.Wealth cannot control law.Even if one tries to do so,one can easily be punished if the person who accuses one has proper evidence .Also,a practical example of that riches cannot rule over the law would be the tax collection system,the rich people are also taxed and they are helpless-They cannot say 'no' to tax.If they escape tax and are brought to court,they will be punished.Their riches won't save them.If the evidence provided is solid,and there is a law that says a person is guilty and should be punished,then he would be punished , no matter how rich a person is.There are many examples of this.Generally, a person who is suspected to be a criminal, and proved that he or she is guilty is punished by law.It is basically judgment in standard of society.
The riches rule over the law

There have always been a different law for 'haves' and 'have not'. Rich as being the 'haves' and the poor as being the 'have not'. This discrimination leads to a society in which the poor are severely punished for their low riches and the rich enjoy the custody of law in their hands. The poor are thrown into jails for a minor crime. On the other hand the rich are not punished even for the biggest crime. In that way a rule of jungle is observed in the country where only the fittest (the rich) can survive. This sorry state of affairs prevail in every department of the society. The poor are marginalized by the rich forces and every rule and law is established for the privilege of the rich class. The 'haves' determine the fate of the have not.
The 2nd Amendment is not compatible with today's times

Due to the fact that I did not see the notification of the acceptance of my previous debate, I am opening up this debate again. I will pay closer attention this time Round 1. Acceptance Round 2. Claim Round 3. Rebuttal Round 4. Conclusion Any rebuttal in round 2 made by con will be ignored. Round 2 is strictly for the claim. I look forward to debating this topic.
Solving the obesity problem - my method

The only rule regarding this debate is that a sense of humour is required Obesity = a condition in which the natural energy reserve, stored in the fatty tissue of humans and other mammals, exceeds healthy limits. It is commonly defined as a body mass index (weight divided by height squared) of 30 kg/m2 or higher. Obesity is a growing concern (pun not intended). I have a few suggestions on how to solve this problem, if you disagree, well you know what to do! 1) The overweight people are simply "slagged out of it", i.e. full permission would be given for people to mock or ridicule the unfortunate fatties. Suggested methods of slagging are as follows: a) verbal abuse b) a rubber stamp with "fattie" or "please don't eat me" engraved on it would be made available to all healthy people (i.e. people a healthy weight). They could use this stamp as they pleased on the nearest obese person c) hanging posters of healthy people on the walls as a constant reminder of what they have to achieve The obese person would become so ashamed that they would eventually be pressured into losing the weight 2) If that didn't work, then the obese people would be forced to work on a reality TV program, named "Fat Camp" or something along the lines of that. In the show the obese people would be put through various army style exercises, while they all lived in a house together or a compound. The camp would be run by a very extreme ex army officer. Not only would this make great TV (it would be big brother fatty style!) it would be providing the facilities for weight loss free of charge. To make the camp more unbearable, if you didn't lose a certain amount of weight every week you would be made run about in a circle after an ice cream van driven by some beautiful thin person. Now if that aint great TV, I don't know what is!
Solving the obesity problem - my method

1. Burning people to death with sunburn is no less wrong then burning them with gasoline and wood. In fact, it is more wrong, as the agony is prolonged. AND you didn't address my point about my method being more environmentally friendly. Also its waaaay more fun to ridicule then to kill. So I win this point. 2. I do NOT conciede that your method is more humane. In fact it is less humane - it is more humane to be ridiculed then to be killed off. Thus I urge the voters to vote PRO as MY method is more humane. 3. Your still using wood - which we should be saving, not using. And the meat would not be bought, as you have offered no proof as to why dogs need less nutrients then humans. I now state that they require the same balance of nutrients that humans do. Rich people arnt as dumb as you think they are. They'de see through your scam! 4. Yup, I'de atually hand each person 1000 dollars. I'de be in severe debt, but I'll do anything to win a debate. So I claim this advantage :D 5. "The large people now become a food source for OUR population" if you did not mean humans, are you claiming to be a DOG? Your did refer to OUR population. But I will now claim by "our" you do not mean me and you, you are refering to your imaginary friend. Vote PRO, the drooling beast clearly has lost it's mind, now having an imaginary friend, and it can only bark. Sit, down boy! 6. There are very small dog hunger issues. And as you are a dog yourself you cant say there is, you can only bark. Woof woof, good boy! 7. Your plan will simply encourage overpopulation in dogs (they now suddenly have enough food to have 18 puppies each). So your plan is hypocritical, killing off one group and creating overpopulation in another. 8. My method will make people laugh alot more, cos its absalutly hilarious. Laughing exercises the stomach muscles, which burns off fat. So my method will encourage fitness more ANYWAY, because people will be laughing so much they'll get fit from it 11. I have previously proven that my method is more humane. So the obese will be more happy with my method
Homosexual civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are harmful to society

Sadly, I do not have time to work on this debate at the current time, so I will finish it with some closing ideas. The logic that a male/female relationship would do the same harm as a m/m f/f relationship is illogical. M/F relationships have been accepted by the religious and the atheistic alike since the beginning of time, where the rise of homosexuality started in the 1920s, and is currently not accepted. Male/female relationships cause no harm because of this eternal acceptance where the homosexual relationships will be forever acknowledged as a sin by three of the five major religions. The harm to society is obvious under the definition I have of society, which has been accepted, as it is an extended social group. Where the extended social group of America with a distinct culture is against homosexual marriages/civil unions, any change by force to this culture is harmful. This goes under my opponents definition of harmful. It is harmful as the culture has been damaged, so these legislation have obviously been hurtful, injurious, and if anything mischievous.
Homosexual civil unions and/or domestic partnerships are harmful to society

I would argue that one's sexual orientation cannot and should not be considered inherently harmful in any situation. Therefore, if one chooses a partner based on their orientation, then that partnership cannot be considered harmful to society either depending on the respective genders of the couple. If a male/female couple cannot harm society solely based on their combination of gender, than neither can male/male couples or female/female couples. I would argue that the real harm to society cannot be determined by one's gender or sexual orientation. If pro happens to have any examples of how one's gender or orientation can harm society, I'm all ears.
Prayer is not effective

Many people do believe that God answers their prayers. For those who are not wealthy prayer provides peace of mind that a higher being is listening and has a plan to relieve them of their suffering. Also, making a claim that all people pray for wealth is completely unfounded. Pro has no proof that everyone prays for wealth, and take for example Pope Francis, a man who lives a spartan lifestyle. Obviously Pope Francis is someone who would not pray for wealth if he and all those who know him are to be believed. No one really knows for sure because it is impossible to read his mind, which further proves that there is no way to prove that all people pray for wealth. If someone was to go to a Christian Church and ask around, many would tell of an experience they have had where they believe God has answered their prayer. Many Christians believe prayer works, that they are truly communicating with their God and that their prayers are answered. No one has yet proven that God does not exist, and while no one has proven God does exist, it has no relevancy to this argument. When a person with strong faith prays, it can give them peace of mind and help them make up their mind about a tough and serious issue they are dealing with. For those reasons alone, prayer is effective, whether God answers the prayers or not.
Prayer is not effective

If my opponent wanted a debate on the teachings of mainstream Christianity on prayer then my opponent should have specified what type of prayer instead of leaving it a generalized "prayer is not effective" which leaves the debate open to non-mainstream Christian views, along with those of other religions entirely. My arguments have been based on prayer being effective based on the proven results as opposed to changing the debate from prayer to the existence of God and miracles. The debate topic was prayer's effectiveness. My arguments were that prayer is effective because of its health benefits and the peace of mind it gives believers. My opponent argued that prayer is not effective because God does not grant the requests made in prayer. It was not argued that there was no divine intervention to disprove but simply that divine intervention is irrelevant to this debate because it can be neither proved nor disproved and that prayer can be effective without the proven existence of a divine being because it provides other benefits.
Prayer is not effective

"Elijah prayed, and God sent fire from Heaven to consume the offering on the altar he had built in the presence of God"s enemies. Elisha prayed, and the son of the Shunammite woman was raised from the dead. Jesus prayed at the door of the tomb of Lazarus, and the one who had been dead for four days came forth. The thief on the cross prayed, and Jesus assured him that he would be with Him in Paradise. Paul prayed, and churches were born in Asia Minor and in Europe. Peter prayed, and Dorcas was raised to life to have added years of service for Jesus Christ." -Billy Graham[1] "We are caught up in a stream of history that is beyond our ability to control. There is only one power available to change the course of history, and that is the power of prayer"the prayer of God-fearing, Christ-believing men and women." -Billy Graham[1] My opponent has taken this argument far into left field by stating that there is no divine intervention to disprove. This outside the teachings of mainstream Christianity. [1] http://www.billygraham.org...
Prayer is not effective

WealthThe point has been made that God does not provide wealth to those who ask for it.I will extend this argument baseball and war.BaseballOn a small scale, it is plain that it is the power of the players on the baseball field that controls the outcome of the game. If you have 100 Christians praying for one team and 100 Muslims praying for the other side, which side wins.WarThe logical extension of this is war. If the military is atheist like Marxist Russia, does this mean that the Christian prayers of America won the war? No, it does not. It is a simple matter of logistics. The infrastructure of Russia cannot match that of the United States. The output of the Russian economy, the people, is still quite limited even today. Compare the GDP Per Capita.Russia, 13,089 per person per year.United States, 48,112 per person per year.[1]Since my opponent agrees that wealth is not tied to prayer, the productivity of America is due to the strength of the players on the field. The capitalist economy.Disjointed Argument from ConI have presented a very strong case that there is no supernatural element to prayer.My opponent states that many people believe that God answers prayer. My opponent presents anecdotal evidence for the power of prayer. The he evades, by saying it is not relevant.My opponent states that the power of prayer has no relevancy to this argument. I would contend that it is the CORE of the argument, as stated in Round 1.Prayer is distinct from meditationThe American Journal of Cardiology reports in its May 2, 2005, issue that the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique, a non-drug stress-reduction method, reduces death rates by 23 percent and extends lifespan.[2]TM is one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched meditation techniques.[3]There is no value of Christian prayer over TM.Sources:[1] http://data.worldbank.org...[2] http://www.sheknows.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
4k blu ray disks

With how fast technology is advancing, everything 4k is going to be cheaper. By the time next gen consoles come out after xbox one and ps4, 4k will probably be much more affordable and will be the standard in tvs like 1080p is now and everyone will have a 4k tv. And by the time the next gen consoles come out, games will be a lot more massive then they re now. They will probably be over 100gb which regualr blu ray just cant handle right now.
Abortion

"But saying that by aborting the fetus you are depriving it of the future of life is like saying , that for example we have a woman in a car, at the junction she is lost so she just picks a direction if she turns right she gets lost, then asks a man for instructions yada yada yada, marries him and has a child is that murder.... No because she did not know the outcome but she can see the man and would like to ask him for directions and his number, but she thinks... I don't really want to date so I will go the other way, she knows that by not dating that she won't have a child so but.. You may say hang on a minute relationships don't always work so she might have ended up alone anyway, well pregnancies don't always work either." You still have not debunked my arguments and my arguments still stand true. Your argument is also very confusing and I don't know what you are trying to say.
Abortion

But saying that by aborting the fetus you are depriving it of the future of life is like saying , that for example we have a woman in a car, at the junction she is lost so she just picks a direction if she turns right she gets lost, then asks a man for instructions yada yada yada, marries him and has a child is that murder.... No because she did not know the outcome but she can see the man and would like to ask him for directions and his number, but she thinks... I don't really want to date so I will go the other way, she knows that by not dating that she won't have a child so but.. You may say hang on a minute relationships don't always work so she might have ended up alone anyway, well pregnancies don't always work either. Oh and I'm sorry I couldn't reply sooner, I was away for 3 days and I did not have Internet