BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We are far worse off now as tax payers than we were before the American Revolution

I started reflecting upon this countries independence from Great Britain back in 1776 and decided to do a little research on what were the reasons that lead to it. Taxes were not at the top of the list. It was the refusal of self governance by Britain that was the main reason. None the less if we were going to have a revolution to over through our current gov't there are endless reasons to, in addition to just crippling endless taxes. There were very few taxes imposed by Britain before the revolution. The people alive in those days heads would be spinning and would be chopping heads off in public squares if they had seen such taxation as we see today. They would also be stupefied by the level of Govt interference imposed by our current Govt with regards to states rights. Our current gov't is a tyrannical oppressive dictatorship compared to great Britain before 1776. Taxes levied on the colonies before the American Revolution: 1764 Sugar Act: Parliament, desiring revenue from its North American colonies, passed the first law specifically aimed at raising colonial money for the Crown. The act increased duties on non-British goods shipped to the colonies. 1765 Stamp Act: Parliament's first direct tax on the American colonies, this act, like those passed in 1764, was enacted to raise money for Britain. It taxed newspapers, almanacs, pamphlets, broadsides, legal documents, dice, and playing cards. Issued by Britain, the stamps were affixed to documents or packages to show that the tax had been paid. As far as i can tell that's it. Taxes under our current Govt: Here is a list of all gov't agencies that our current govt imposes taxes to pay for: http://www.usa.gov... Each of these agencies act as independent taxing agencies by way of budget increasers. These agencies never reduce spending and are never eliminated. If one takes the time to look at this endless list, nearly 3/4 of them could be completely eliminated as they have nothing to do with the "Public Welfare" what so ever. We are being taxed to death by the never ending creation of federal agencies. No less than 12 new federal agencies have already been created by the current gov't in the last 6 months. There are 12 new CZAR's, each with its own unlimited budget. Good luck to my opponent in arguing we are better off now as tax payers than before the revolution. Sources: http://open.salon.com... http://townhall.com... http://informpeople.blogspot.com...
We Shouldn't Make the United States more Socialistic

Pro argues that capitalistic measures are a better means of solving USA's wealth disparity than socialistic ones, and he claims that "human history" proves his point, but he hasn't cited even a single example to back that up. Anyways, that is obviously false, as up until now, we have been a mostly capitalist society, and the bottom 40% of our population owns a mere 0.2% of the national wealth! I have shown through example that capitalism only breeds wealth disparity; it doesn't fix it at all.
We Shouldn't Make the United States more Socialistic

Be careful to not mistake me as a conservative talk show demagogue. Welfare programs and their recipients are not evil,or immoral, etc. There is very real distress or difficulty faced by the impoverished or underprivileged receiving help from government programs. They certainly have good intentions, but the most effective poverty eradication mechanism in human history has been through capitalism, because innovation is driven by individuals whom are rewarded by efficiently allocating traded value
Theological fatalism demonstrates the Christian god is a sinner, a liar or a fiction.

Unfortunately I forfeited Round 2. But life burns fierce, what can one do. Also I'm exhausted, so there won't be much flare in my argument. But c'est la vie. First, I take issue with the claim that to understand A, you must first experience B. In the case of the metaphor what if one experienced bright, and then brighter? One could infer from the experience of two degrees of brightness, less bright, and from that the absence of brightness. Now, if god is limited by his nature, he is not omnipotent. His own nature is an excess he is powerless to overcome. Similarly, our free will is an excess he cannot overcome because he is to good to overcome it. This argument seems to put god in a weak light, a being who is powerless to do anything but produce this exact world. He can't help but produce evil in order to forge good, because a dichotomy between evil and good is necessary beyond god's will. God could not create, let's say, a totally good humanity and angelic body. He must make satan, he must plant the tree, Adam and Eve must sin, Bill Clinton must have an affair, and I must be an atheist. Which all goes against he doctrines of free will. If god knew I'd be an atheist, then god knew I'd go to hell. God could presumably make a universe without me, but instead with another person who'd elect to be christian. But he doesn't. Because he designs the world according to his scheme. But things can't exit outside his scheme; if a choice was made which ran contrary to gods knowledge, then god wouldn't be omnipotent. I'm sorry man, but your arguments just don't seem to wrap up the logic gaps. Somehow "God's too nice a guy to interfere with our free will, but eternal torment is part of his repertoire." just doesn't stack up. It's not very heart-wrenching to think that an omnipotent being is powerless before himself, like a whirlpool which is always pulling itself in a circle, great in force but powerless to move in anything but one direction. It seems contradictory that an omnipotent being is impotent, or that beings free of will may only fulfill their destiny.
Theological fatalism demonstrates the Christian god is a sinner, a liar or a fiction.

Claims for god - God is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and transcendent of time. God hates sins. Claims for man - Humanity inherited sin from the original sin. Men choose to sin because they have free will. Step 1 - If earth doesn't exist god still knows what choices Adam and Eve will make on any given earth. Step 2- If earth doesn't exist god still knows what sins will follow Adam and Eve's children. Step 3 - If earth doesn't exist god still knows Bill Clinton will have an affair. Step 4 - God made this exact earth and (presumably) no other earth and knows wholly what will happen on it. Step 5 - Free will is predicated on no external constrain causing the "choice" to be determined for the chooser. Step 6 - Predetermined events are established or decided in advance. Step 7 - God must create a reality predetermined by his knowledge of it. Step 8 - Predetermination is an external constrain which comes from the past to determine the future. Step 9 - Bill Clinton's affair was predetermined by god. Step 10 - Bill Clinton doesn't have free will. Step 11 - The religion claims people have free will and god is omniscient. Conclusion - The religion is illogical. Either god knowingly causes all sin, or god lies about his omniscience, or god is flawed fiction of man. Responses to common rebuttals... Rebuttal Type 1 - God gave use free will and sin because otherwise we would be robots. My Response - An argument from gods motivation does not fix the logic break. If the bible said "And god made all things to be red." and I pointed out the sky was blue you would not reply "God made all things to be red for a reason." That would not resolve my problem with the blue sky. Rebuttal Type 2 - Knowledge of the future does not limit free will. My Response - This doesn't seem to be logical. Free will is defined as the ability to make a choice without external constraints. You can decide between multiple options, and until you make your decision, what you decide upon is not predestined. But if god made us with foreknowledge of what we would do, he made specifically a universe in which we would commit specific sins. We cannot escape our fate if god knows our fate. Therefore when we sin, god is the cause. "Naa-aa" is not a rebuttal. You have to explain how Bill Clinton could choose not to have an affair if god knew for certain he would have an affair.
The United States was founded on Christianity

Yes. For future references, I would like to point out a few flaws in my case: the failure to provide direct evidence without similarities between Christian and Enlightenment thought, the failure to at least perhaps provide the basis as to whether the American Enlightenment can be considered a parallel to European Enlightenment (since the discussion focused on the latter), and so forth. I would also like to point out that Con didn't, at least at the point of this debate, note that influence=/=actual foundation based on the trickle or path of the influence, but if he did, I'd have a bit of a tough time to respond to that.:)
The United States was founded on Christianity

I also hope that I will not disappoint my opponent and in the process of debating--in perhaps what could be called my first real debate in a while--uphold a solid case. I will like to add some clarifications and definitions since my opponent did my provide them. Christianity: The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christiansbelieve that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam, and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God. [1]Found: vt. to setup or establish on a firm basis or for enduring existence [2]The definition of the United States is largely self-explanatory. The debate will be very interesting indeed especially in the borders between history and religion here, that often mesh in analysis. I oppose the resolution but will argue of the factors that influenced the formation of the United States. I hope I won't disappoint my opponent. :)And lastly--and patently, I accept the debate. [1] from the Cultural definition provided by The American Heritage, , Third Edition[2] extracted from www. dictionary. com
The Problem of Evil (PoE)

In order to adequately judge the actions of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being, you would need all of those qualities as well. In other words, a being like this may know something you do not or can not know, and it might be something that is relevant to his overall judgment. So it could easily be the case that the God we are speaking of IS actually providing adequately compensating goods, perhaps in an afterlife, or perhaps something that you are not aware of. Also, requiring God to abide by the rules of logic is a mistake. Logic is a language based on human perception, something that is limited. If God existed, he wouldn't be following those same rules, so what is "logically necessary" is irrelevant when speaking of something greater than ourselves.
Dinosaurs Still Exist

I will be arguing that there are modern dinosaur species and I accept the full burden of proof. My whole case will be based on showing that Birds (Aves), a class of animals with many currently living species, are dinosaurs. I will make use of this syllogism: P1: All Animals of the Dinosauria clade are Dinosaurs P2: Birds belong to the Dinosauria clade C: Therefore, Birds are Dinosaurs If P1 and P2 are true, then C necessarily follows from those two premises. P1 is true by definition (see Round 1), but P2 is not obvious and has to be shown to be true, using evidence. Before I start, I feel the need to explain what a clade is, since I realized that I forgot to put the definition in Round 1: Clade - A group of organisms believed to comprise all the evolutionary descendants of a common ancestor [1] Thus, to show that Birds belong to the Dinosauria clade, I would have to show that birds share a common ancestor with other Dinosaurs. This can be done by demonstrating that Birds have sufficiently many anatomical similarities with other Dinosaurs. Not wasting too much space, I'll write out my main points, which I will expand on in further rounds. A) Birds, like some other dinosaurs, have feathers and scales. [2] B) Birds, like other dinosaurs, lay eggs. C) Birds share major skeletal similarities with some dinosaurs, especially those from the Coelurosauria clade. [3] D) The Archaeopteryx specimen is an example of a transitional fossil, showing a direct evolutionary lineage between non-Avian Reptiles and Modern Birds. [4] It has features of both Reptiles (e.g. teeth) and modern Birds (e.g. feathered wings) Taken together, this evidence suggest that Birds are Dinosaurs. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... [4] http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...;
Dinosaurs Still Exist

I have discovered that a lot of people refer to dinosaurs as being extinct animals that are only a thing of the past. I'd like to challenge that belief and I would invite any such person to come forward and defend their opinion that dinosaurs are indeed extinct.This will be a short debate (2000 characters max for each argument) on a pretty simple topic, so we should finish this quite quickly.Full ResolutionSome species of dinosaurs still exist even today.DefinitionsSpecies - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.Dinosaurs - animals of the clade Dinosauria. It should be recognized that due to the massive variety of dinosaur species, the term would take a long time to describe fully, but here are a few examples of dinosaurs, so that you would get the idea of what I am talking about: Brachiosaurus altithorax, Triceratops horridus, Stegosaurus stenops etc.Exist - (in this particular case) to be alive; to have living individuals.StructureRound 1: Acceptance only. No arguments allowed.Round 2: Constructive case by Pro. Constructive case by Con.Round 3: Rebuttals by Pro and Con.Round 4: Counter-rebuttals and summary by Pro and Con.Rules1. The resolution, definitions and structure stated above must be accepted unconditionally.2. Any further definitions, if needed, shall be defined in a reasonable manner, using the most common meanings that apply to the given context.3. No trolling, swearing or personal attacks.4. No kritiks or semantics.5. Please retain a friendly and civil atmosphere.
America's decision to drop the atomic bomb was (sadly)necessary

America's Decision to drop the Atomic bomb was completely unnecessary because it did not have a major influence in Japan's decision to surrender. First of all, the destruction that the nuclear bombs weren't that much more destructive than traditional bombing raids with conventional bombs and firebombs. Compared to the other 68 bombing raids that the US carried out in the summer of 1945, Hiroshima ranked 2nd in terms of civilian casualties and 17th in the percentage of a city destroyed which puts the bomb in the same parameters as a conventional bombing raid. To a Japanese government official, the nukes were no different from normal bombing raids and considering how even with 68 massive bombing raids with comparable destruction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not convince them to surrender, it makes no sense why 2 more cities destroyed with a new weapon would be any different. Also the highest levels of the Japanese government didn't seem to care too mcuh about the fact that their cities were being completely destroyed. Retired Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijuro once written to a friend that "the people would gradually get used to being bombed daily. In time their unity and resolve would grow stronger" and "even if hundreds of thousands of noncombatants are killed, injured, or starved, even if millions of buildings are destroyed or burned," additional time was needed for diplomacy. Keep in mind, Shidehara was a moderate so many other Japanese government officials were far more radical. This is not to mention that the Highest Level of the Japanese government, The Supreme Council, during their August 9th meeting, 3 days after the bombing of Nagasaki, did not talk the impact of bombing raids that much. They only mentioned it twice, once in passing and another during wide-ranging discussion. Instead their discussion focused mainly on the Soviet Union and the necessity of its continued neutrality. The real reason why Japan Surrender was because of Soviet involvement in the war against Japan. Before the Soviets got involved, it was hoped by Japanese officials could use Stalin as a mediator or that they could inflict so many causalities on the invading american troops that the Americans would offer better surrender terms. However, when the soviets invaded all those options disappeared. The majority of the Japanese army and their best men were on the south preparing for an invasion by the Americans so there was only a skeleton army defending the north of Japan where the Soviets were invading from. So with the knowledge that Japan had no hope for at very least a surrender with good terms, Japan surrendered unconditionally Source: http://foreignpolicy.com...
Norwegian Whaling

You're welcome. You say that whaling mostly benefits small town fishermen, because the cod have all gone during the spring and summer. Although cod are a significant part of Norway's fishing business, they aren't the only type of fish that can be hunted. There are many types of fish that can be hunted during the winter and fall seasons, such as the angler, which is admittedly less popular yet still beneficial. Whale meat isn't necessary, nor is it bought often. Most of it goes to waste, or has trouble getting in supermarkets, as stated here: http://us.whales.org... Simply because the demand has increased, doesn't mean that it is successful. If the minke whales are small, as soon as they are hit directly, they will die faster. But the smaller they are, the harder the target they are. And even if 80% die instantly, that's not all of them. That doesn't guarantee a completely smooth death for all whales. Their deaths may be fast, but the chase is still exhausting for them. And what if they have offspring that need to be taken care of, or are not born yet? I know that it's fully grown minke whales that are caught, but certainly the younger ones certainly deserve to live more. Whales are known for their abilities as parents. Once again, I will say that whale meat is not necessary. There are abundant fish year round, as well as other game. It's much easier for farmers to raise lambs or pigs, and have them breed, to get humans the necessary nutrients that they need. I only bring up the blood to emphasize the point of how gruesome the killing can be (along with a number of other animals, depends on the slaughterhouse.). Even if it is legal in Norway among other countries, it can encourage illegal whaling as well which can be very harmful.
Norwegian Whaling

Firstly, he stated that while a species may be abundant, it can still be hunted destructively. This is certainly true, but the quota for hunting is widely understood to be sustainable, at approximately 1% of the accessible portion of the North Atlantic stock[1]. In addition, due to the whales' small size, hunting them is not very easy because they are hard to find, particularly in rough weather. [2] My opponent stated that whaling is very cruel. However, part of his source is written from 1946, when harpoon grenades were rudimentary black powder bombs, that killed slowly by lacerating wounds. These days, in Norway, only small minke whales are killed, which makes it easier to kill them quickly, and they use penthrite grenades which kill very quickly with a shock wave which tends to destroy the nervous system and kill instantly. My source in fact states that even whales which do not appear to have died instantly are in fact unconscious or dead and simply exhibit post-mortem movements. [3] And of course whenever an animal is killed there is blood, but in a slaughterhouse it all goes down a drain and no one sees it. My opponent states that the whaling industry is uneconomical, but the past 2 years have been very successful with increased catches and increased demand. [4][5] [1] . http://www.fisheries.no... [2] . https://vimeo.com... (18:00) [3] . http://www.nammco.no... [4] . http://www.thelocal.no... [5] . http://www.norwaytoday.info...
Norwegian Whaling

I accept :) Okay, so first of all: Just because the minke whales aren't endangered, doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt the species. There are many records of animals that used to be abundant, but then they slowly died out due to humans hunting them: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... One of the most famous of these animals is the passenger pigeon. Billions of the birds used to be around, until humans hunted them to extinction. And from many articles I've read, and everything I've heard as well, whaling is known as unquestionably cruel. The whales don't die "instantly" all the time. Even if it's 80%, there are still a significant number that suffer. Whales are able to slow their breathing and heart rate, so sometimes they can appear dead or unconscious, but instead they are feeling intense pain. They are often chased until exhausted, before they are harpooned a few, and they sometimes don't even die then. There's blood absolutely everywhere. http://www.ifaw.org... Actually, the whaling is quite unnecessary and uneconomical as well. The quota is 1286. But the years leading up to 2014 have had an increasingly less amount of whales caught. This could signal that the species is at the very beginning of running out, or, it's not quite as important. Eating whale meat is quite uncommon, even if it meets the standards of mercury levels. It's way expensive, and most people see it as controversial. And by the way, most of your sources are good, but I would advise against using Wikipedia as one of them. (I'm not being rude, I'm just pointing that out)
Norwegian Whaling

I will be arguing in FAVOR of the whale hunt in Norway. To start off, the minke whales that are targeted by the hunt are NOT endangered. [1] Secondly, the kill is generally very humane, with 80% of whales dying instantly. [2] Thirdly, whaling is important to fishermen in remote villages, who have not much income from fishing in the spring and summer, because the cod are away for this time. [3] And lastly, minke whale meat is not as mercury-laced as people like to think, because they eat mainly plankton and small fish. It in fact meets the standards of both Norway and USA for mercury levels. (This concerns meat. Not blubber or liver, rarely eaten.) [4] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.nammco.no... [3]http://www.fisheries.no... [4]http://www.prowildlife.de...