BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jews run the World

Most of Media, Diamond, Internet (Google, Facebook) and many many more Industries are mostly owned or run by Jewish People.. They claimed land from another country - and created a country of their own called Israel - in other words had the power make every other country in the world look the other way. Less than 20 million Jews live in the world and they own assets and companies worth More than entire assets owned by 2 billion Christians or 1.5bilion Muslims.
Any government attempts to bail out homeowners in foreclosure are wrong and unfair to tax payers.

Again, you are making an emotional appeal in favor of the positive outcome you feel government intervention will produce. You have in no way refuted my claim a government bailout is wrong and unfair to the taxpayers. Even if you are making an unclear attempt to claim that the ends of such intervention justify the means, you are making no reference to rightness or fairness. I may be posting this debate again, because I don't think we've given the readers anything to chew on with regard to whether tax payers should be financially responsible for the economic misjudgments of their fellow citizens.
Any government attempts to bail out homeowners in foreclosure are wrong and unfair to tax payers.

Okay, well look at it this way then if you don't bail out this people who go into debt which by the way is a huge portion of AMerica, then it affects those taxpayers who are paying to fix this problem. It all really is for the greater good and by the way, THe Great Depression was caused by a free markey and goveenment intervention is good. If we had a good system it would be beneficial to everyone.
Any government attempts to bail out homeowners in foreclosure are wrong and unfair to tax payers.

My debate has nothing to do with whether government attempts to bail out homeowners will produce a positive or negative outcome. That's a debate for another time, and I would argue that government intervention contributed greately to the great depression. My debate resolution states only that it is wrong and unfair for the government to make tax payers bail out people and businesses which have made bad investments or bad financial decisions-- regardless of whether ignorance, deception, bad market timing or gross negligence is to blame.
Any government attempts to bail out homeowners in foreclosure are wrong and unfair to tax payers.

The finger has been pointed in just about every direction when it comes to who's to blame for our current mortgage "crisis." Many think government should step in and right the "wrongs" which brought about said crisis, whether they be on the part of predatory lenders or prevaricating borrowers. I say hands off! Let the market handle this one. Not only will government intervention impede a recovery in the housing market, it is simply wrong to have innocent tax payers bear the cost of bad judgement on the parts of lenders and borrowers. By "government attempts" I am obviously referring only to those that would require tax-payer funding.
"Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is more educational than any video game designed to be educational.

Foremost, I would like to point out that we both forfieted a round, so that should not be a factor in voting. I will now move to rebuttals. 1) Health Bar Contention- You said " I simply cried and waited for my mother to return with a band-aid" I remember something similar my mother did to my "boo-boo's". She kissed them to make the pain go away, and I believed her. Children of that age are impressionable to unrealistic ideologies. So no matter how illogical it sounds to us, children may believe it. I may have only provided one example, but I provided a universal example as well. This also proves that children, while food may not provide relief from pain or health damage, kisses will and if they believe that, should they not have mothers? 2) Heh, I have no comment on that and I'll take your word for it =) 3) (It offend me a bit, rofl...excuse the slang) Oh, well I didn't know that either. Still, it's not very realistic. 4) Well if they are just suggestions, why was I asked when I wanted to buy a GTA game, to bring a parent or else I couldn't buy it? Why do I have to bring a parent to R rated movies? These are self-explanatory questions... 5) No, but you are forced to DESTROY cars. And you can't blame the parents! 6) Ah, not a very good one... 7) Still, the game map is quiet different from real maps and will provide hardly any real experience 8) Even if you're right, I've still made my point. Good luck! I'm late for class!
Socialism and Fascism are ideological brothers.

Pro Position: The ideologies of Socialism and Fascism are essentially the same. Con Position: The ideologies Socialism and Fascism are essentially different. (1) Essential "absolutely necessary; indispensable: Discipline is essential in an army." To put in another form. That which makes Socialism what it is, is the same for Fascism. Structure 1. Acceptance 2. Arguments 3. Rebuttals, Defending Case 4, Conclusion Rules: Be Rational.
Do we have good reason to think god exists

That still doesn't answer if we have good reason to believe. You've only established different ways of approaching the truth but not how those lead to god. Forensic evidence still relies on evidence to indirectly confirm something. Empirical evidence can prove things to higher degrees of certainty. Any personal God knows this and withholds this form of evidence or simply doesn't care enough to prove it. For an impersonal god that doesn't manifest itself in anyway isn't a god that could be rationally justified. Also, the first paragraph is completely unrelated. You don't have to prove feelings because they're just feelings. You can prove that you feel a certain way.
Do we have good reason to think god exists

We all know and believe many things about ourselves, our world, and the people around us. Many of these things can't be "demonstrated by logical, controlled, and repeatable methods." You can know, for instance, that your mother loves you, and that a particular Beethoven symphony lifts your spirits. But you may not be able to "prove" any of this objectively. That's just the way life is. You should realize this if you're a "hard-headed realist." The kind of "proof" you're talking about belongs almost exclusively to the realm of hard science. We call it empirical proof. It's the kind of proof that depends upon verifiable and repeatable experiment. By way of contrast, the evidence for historical events such as the life of Jesus Christ is forensic in nature. It's the same kind of evidence that lawyers use to build a case in a court of law. Even the "softer" sciences, such as psychology and sociology, are heavily dependent upon evidence of this nature. You need to keep these two different kinds of "proof" separate in your mind if you want to think clearly and carefully about the world in which we live. You're right. We can't prove empirically that Christ lived, died, and rose again. But then we can't prove empirically that George Washington was the first President of the United States either. In other words, we can't devise a repeatable experiment capable of demonstrating these facts in a controlled laboratory environment. But that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of forensic and historical evidence to support them. Far from it.
Do we have good reason to think god exists

Well that all depends on what you mean by any of those terms. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and History is just the past events that occurred. In the pursuit of truth I haven't found evidence to believe in a God(defined as an actual entity outside of our minds.) Where have I confused Science with history? And what reliable ways of apprehending the truth are there that can lead you to a God? All I was saying was that there's yet to be a compelling argument to be able to remain agnostic about the issue yet meaning not that because he hasn't been proven that he doesn't exist but he has to be proven with evidence that hasn't been presented.
Disney Princesses are Bad Role Models

Lets get straight into itMy adversary is trying to break down princesses on a per princess basis. I am not going to bother to do that, but give an overall outlook on them.PerspectiveThe first Thing I want to touch on is that "what is bad", is a matter of perspective. What my adversary may see as a bad role model, others may not. She will have to show that they are objectively bad role models and provide facts to support this. Traits they exhibit. (1) Strong Will(2) A strong sense of love ( staying with someone no matter what)(3) Sense of adventure(4) Loyalty(5) Respect(6) HumilityIf we look anywhere from Jasmine to Ariel, they all show a strong sense of love and devotion. They are with one person and generally stay with that person, and it is often portrayed with a happy ever after ending. This shows young girls to not be promiscuous and sleep around, but encourages them to find someone they care about and stay with them. Even in the case of jasmine who turned down a family marriage, and married a street rat, she shows that love is more than wealth. They have a strong sense of respect and dignity for those around them, and most of them also show a strong sense of will. They do what they feel is right and act according to what they believe. This is a lesson anyone can learn from. All in all they are good role modelsRefutations looksMy adversary is bringing up remarks about looks, and saying the images the princesses are given is promoting a bad outlook for young girls. My adversary is taking a basic "model" argument and applying it to this debate. She is essentially saying that because these princesses are portrayed like models, it will make girls want to try and obtain their figure. She is basically comparingthis to this This entire contention is faulty. For this to stand up, she must (a) Show there are negative consequences for portraying Disney princesses in a model like way (skinny hour glass shape as she described it(b) Must actually show what is wrong with portraying them in this way(c) Show that there is something something wrong with striving for a skinny hour glass shapeShe has failed to do all of this, so this contention does not hold up. ConclusionI have shown how these princesses have some strong characteristics and how they could be good role models. My adversary has just cited certain situations that occur throughout the movies, and claim they are bad role models because of them. I have provided a guideline for their character and why they are good role modelsHer resolution does not stand.
Disney Princesses are Bad Role Models

Cinderella might have worked hard but she sat around doing nothing to improve her life while her stepmother bullied her. She is the sort of pushover female everyone should avoid being. The only time she took charge of her own lifea dn put her foot down was when she snuck to the ball ... but that was only because she dreamt of catching the eye of a handsome prince - and in true Disney fashion, they let her. The poor girl who did nothing for herself ended up with the perfect life. Sleeping Beauty might have been graced with good looks and a pretty voice but she was also brilliant at playing up the 'damsel and distress' part. It turned out she slept for most of the movie and the only part we did see her say something was when she whined and whinged about being hidden away all her life without meeting up with her future-husband. Seriously, the most eventful part in the whole movie was when we were all watching the prince fight to get to his prize female. Disney portrays its female lead as chattle, as a trophey for the man. A bit ironic when we consider that it's young girls and not young boys who watch Disney princesses daydream their way to happiness. When young children love something, they strive to be like their idol. The next thing you know, four year olds are dressed up in glittering dresses and high heels and blowing kisses at any young man who passes by. This is the sort of thing we should not see nowadays. We want to see independent young women studyings and taking up the books, going to university and working their own way to success. If people in real life do not stare and faint at the sight of the male lead's perfectly toned arms, why on earth should it be portrayed in movies. It's positively disgraceful to women. The official 'Which Disney Princess are you' quiz on Disney's site asked this: 'What says "Princess" More?' The listed answers set a boring and wrong outline of what the perfect female should be concerned about, including 'being rescued', 'true love's kiss', 'a fairytale wedding', 'enchanted objects' and 'living happily ever after'. This is where feminists gag. One particular feminist even wrote a book titled 'Cinderella ate my Daughter'. I am not saying Disney princess movies are unwatchable or even that all Disney princesses are abhorrable role models but that the majority are. The examples they set for young girls are absolutely ridiculous - and does nothing to help young girls learn that they have to fly on their own in a world where they cannot expect to fly on the backs of their own handsome princes.
Disney Princesses are Bad Role Models

Disney princesses, I say, are money cows for the movie makers and they will continue to milk the money at the expense of negatively influencing young minds. The Disney princesses all sport impossibly thin waists and beautiful faces. They all behave in the same 'lovely', feminine manner that implies if a young girl defies the gender stereotype, she is no long a worthwhile female. The main problems with Disney princesses is that aside from looking pretty, they are all very, very similar to one another. Sleeping beauty has the same ambitions as snow white and Ariel; they all want to meet the perfect man and live with him happily ever after. This cannot be a good influence on today's girls. They should be encouraged to speak their opinions, to be independent and carve their way in the world - not to be told that their only chance at happiness is by finding the perfect man. Since many people insist that Ariel rebels against her parents, she is a 'strong female character', let us use her as an example. She fights her well-intentioned parents and eventually abandons them, not caring whether they worry after her, to seek the handsome prince she has only seen once. She does not know whether he is kind or an acceptable human being except from the fact that he has a gorgeous face. She sacrificed her voice for a man she does not know, without any sense of self-preservation. In the end, despite finding her happiness, I think we can all draw a conclusion that deserting your parents to pursue the man you think you will love is not the way we want the young girls in this world to go.
What can humanity to offer a better life.

Hello there. I'm new to this website an giving it a fair try. I think of myself as a deep thinker. I'm a ADHD 24 year old southern college kid, (If that sound right? :p) with a mind that never stops trying to figure out problems. Well, after class today I spoke to a intellectual elder about how there is so many simple minded people in the U.S.A. ( a worker at a MC Donald are a person to collect government checks) who either don't care about there life nor there offspring's further. Lets not just attack them. There are other people, middle to upper class people who are the same, in a way. They may have the same thoughts as I mention before about he simple minded people. So, with whats going on in the world and with the history an the knowledge we have as humans collected in our years, how can we make the U.S. a better place, an the further more promising. Please don't "vet" an simple answer. I'm looking for deep, clear answers.
Space Exploration is more important than Global Affairs.

This being my first debate, I'd like to start out with an issue that is the most pertinent to me, Space Exploration. I define Space Exploration to be: "The exploration of the cosmos for organic and sentient life, and for the prospecting of future planets and miscellaneous masses containing valuable minerals and future areas of habitat." My points for the importance of Space Exploration over Job Creation are as follows: - The process of job creation is run on the foundations of innovation and ideas, two things that NASA has excelled at. Here are 10 things developed due to Space Exploration Foundations. Invisible Braces Scratch Resistant Lenses Memory Foam The Ear Thermometer Shoe Insoles Satellite Technology and Ultra-Accurate Cartography Smoke Detector Wireless Tools Water Filters Synthetic Materials Innovations like Synthetic Materials, Satellite Technology, Water Filters, and in addition Velcro have lengthened the lifespan of the human being and contributed the further technological advancement of humankind. In addition, Space Exploration (due to NASA) has contributed to the realization of Climate Change. This movement has spurred the search for clean renewable resources that venture beyond the gasoline pump. The irony of this is that steam technology ran from approximately the 1820's to the late 1890's, followed by the combustion engine founded in the turn of the 20th century. Gasoline tank engines have consumed trillions of gallons of gasoline and have been around for over 150 years. It originated in 1860 by the inventor by the name of Lenoir. Once again another sign that we need to progress in technology and Space Exploration has proven to be a well invested effort in the advancement in techology. To tackle the prospect of the more importance of job creation, I have one thng to say. How would YOU have liked it if we lived in a time where we used glass for nearly every container, run the risk of water pollution due to mistreated contaminated water, and where it would take days to receive word or communication from relatives or business clients, and risk hundreds of infections in hospitals all because your ancestors wanted to work on the farm or office rather than to focus on prospects that were deemed unimportant and a waste of time and money? With this, I present my thesis that with the encouragement of Space Exploration we can vastly further our technology and relations as a species, in addition to creating ideas or inventions that can in turn spur new lines of work, lengthen the life of a human being, and could in turn introduce humanity to new cultures, lifeforms, and foreign minerals. The floor is open, and I welcome the opposing argument.
A country always acts in it's own self interests

"Regarding your first argument, your"best example", I would like to point out that the UN's participation in the conflict in Rwanda was a complete failure" The debate is not about whether the acts of countries are successful or end in failure. I thought this was debate about whether countries act in their self interest or not. "America's Cold war polices were very much in there own interest. " I would disagree with that statement. Clearly some of the countries where the United States intervened or aided , it was not in their self interest. But let us not get entangled in the Cold War. "I know that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stabilize the region and prevent potentially dangerous radical groups from obtaining power." So in essence you refute your own claim that a country always acts in it's own self interest. As you said the NATO intervention was there to stop "dangerous radical groups." There are many other examples where countries do not act on their own self interest.
A country always acts in it's own self interests

Although the examples of countries acting in their own interest are far more numerous and important than the contrary, I see your point in the examples you listed. Even though it may seem like the countries are not acting in their own interest in these situations, they really are acting in this way underneath the surface. Regarding your first argument, your"best example", I would like to point out that the UN's participation in the conflict in Rwanda was a complete failure. Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN said "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret." The fact that the UN "intervention" in Rwanda failed to stop or even resist the genocide shows that this is not a strong piece of evidence. America's Cold war polices were very much in there own interest. America wanted to stop the spread of Communism at all costs out of fear that they would be left alone to fight the Communists. As for America's cold war policies, such as espionage, were in place to protect themselves from the Communists and Russia. Although I know little about Kosovo, I know that the NATO intervention in Kosovo was to stabilize the region and prevent potentially dangerous radical groups from obtaining power.
A country always acts in it's own self interests

I accept. I thank the Pro side for hosting this debate. I assume due to the question at hand, the burden of proof is on the Pro's side. Admittedly, it sounds from the question you posed that you subscribe to realpolitik. Here is the definition. Realpolitik:a system of politics based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on ideas about what is morally right and wrong I will point to several examples of countries acting on the interests of others rather than their own. 1. The best example of a group of countries acting on the interests of others would be the 1994 United Nations intervention in Rwanda. It was not in the interest of the participating countries interest to stop the genocide. Canada, Belgium, and others would not receive anything for the amount they risked. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. I would argue many of America's Cold War policies was not in her self interest. After all, the United States was picking up where France and the United Kingdom left their former colonies in disarray when they were rushing to leave them. Those former colonial powers acted in their own self interest to recede their foreign policies. http://vi.uh.edu... 3. The NATO intervention in Kosovo was not in the interest of the participating countries. There was only a moral reason for the intervention rather than a logical one. http://en.wikipedia.org...