BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
5 options

Because of the awkward pacing of this debate, we'll make it so that I do my opening statements, you'll do your opening statements, and I'll waive the last round. It'll be a more persuasive debate with no rebuttals. Sounds good? Anyway, I decided to create a Google Document for this because of the limited character space. Here's the link: https://docs.google.com...If it's defective or I got an unshareable link, let me know in the comments and I'll give you a copy. I don't want to waste a round because of a possible mistake on my part. Thank you.
a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

It's simple, necessary services such as roads and police can and should simply be supplied by the market. This is the inescapable logical conclusion to accepting that it is wrong to use aggressive violence to get what you want. If you denounce aggressive violence (and you should), and if you subscribe to the principle of universality [(that if it is wrong for one to act, it is wrong for all to act)and you should], then you must oppose also oppose taxation and the state. It is a crime to tax people. You are saying to them 'give us your money, or we will hurt you'. This is quite literally the crime of extortion. This is the business model of the mafia. Pay your protection money or we will break your legs. Pay your taxes or you will rot in a cage surrendered by criminals. I agree, a personal loan of $100 to buy drugs (or to do anything) should be repaid. Drug buying may be 'malum prohibitum' but it is not 'malum in se'. But if I loan you $100, on the understanding that you will pay me back $125, which you will obtain by stealing the purses of old ladies, then I am scum for making this deal and deserve to get stiffed. Similarly, if I loan the government money with the understanding that they will threaten people with incarceration in order to take their hard earned income, then I deserve to get stiffed. Do the responsible thing. Cut or better yet eliminate the taxes.
a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

con says no taxes are justifiable. this just puts him in the category of a loon. a radical to say the least. how else are basic government functions suppose to be paid for? even the most ardent libertarians i know think there's some basic governance that's justifiable and hence a ittle tax is okay. his view more puts him into the category of an anarchist. con says the people that loan to the government are in on the governments crimes. again almost no one thinks it's a crime to tax people... high taxes, maybe. but aside from that, even if i loan you a hundred dollars to buy drugs you still should pay me back. i dont know if a court would enforce it, but it's still the moral thing to do. con is just trading on questionably moral thing for another questionably moral thing. id say he's going to a worse morality at that. again con offers no real solutions. at least to the common man and no extremist fringe politics that he pushes.
a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

Let me be clear : I am completely opposed to taxation. There is no such thing as a good tax, and if I could press a button today to shut down the government and end taxation immediately, I would push such a button. Let's look at the difference between private debt. You lend me $200. Maybe I need to get my car fixed so I can go to work. I then go to my job, work for a while, and save up the money to pay you back. Here this is a healthy process. The debt is voluntary and constructive, so far no problem. But what happens with public debt? An organization loans the government money, which is spent on war, giving to some favoured group or on interventions which stifle economic growth at home, with the understanding that the state will use it's power of taxation to mulct some unsuspecting sap of their money and pay them back. This is quite a different thing indeed. Instead of a healthy, voluntary activity this is a criminal conspiracy. The creditor knows full well that the government will use coercion to repay them. They're in on it; so if they get stiffed because the debt is repudiated, then that's what they deserve.
a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

con gives no real solutions. but as to repudiation. is that moral? no. con lambasts taxes because it is theft he says, but he's okay with some just not a lot apparently? if a little is okay, a little more isn't necessarily so bad either. and repudiation is just as bad as theft cause it's not paying back what you owe... sure there's no taxes forcibly being collected, but it's still wrong.
a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

Balancing the budget by raising taxes is like curing the disease by killing the patient. There is actually a much simpler solution to this problem; repudiation. While to renege on a debt which is owed privately is in fact tantamount to theft, this is not the case with public debt. After all, the primary revenue stream for the state is taxation. Taxes are collected under penalty of incarceration. Since it is a violent act to take a man against his will and lock him up in a prison, it is only through the use of coercion that the public debt will be repaid and it is wrong to raise money through threat of violence. We all condemn the mugger for threatening to beat someone up if they do not hand over their wallet but if we are to be consistent in our moral principles then we must also condemn the government for using this same business model. Raising taxes will only funnel more money into endless war, government bureaucracy and interest groups. The responsible thing to do is to cut taxes and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. This would create political pressure on politicians to cut spending and without such confiscatory tax rates the economy would have more room to grow.
a responsible thing 2 do for the USA is to increase taxes

we spend 3.5 trillion a year. our deficit is like half a trillion. we can only find insufficient things to cut. you can rail against things like the department of education or depart of housing etc, but you will find you are talking about small fries. we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance. to oversimplify s the proportions aren't quite that and mroe could be added to say healthcare. that means cutting those departments is cutting a fraction of the budget. you could cut general governance in half, and it'd only be like ten percent of our budget. paying for the poor as the major problem is a myth as hte feds only spend not much beyond ten percent on them. reputable sources say our debt is manageable.... but it won't be forever. we need to balance the budget. cutting entitlements ain't gonna work politically. cutting general governance will only take you so far. the poor as the problem is a myth. we've been borrowinng against our future so long that it's starting to catch up with us. it isn't all that politically feasible, but increasing taxes is the most politically feasible thing to do. and it's not like this is without precedent. our tax rates have been much hghe on a regular basis in the past.
Atheism vs Islam

Con touches my first argument, misses my second argument completely, and then starts rambling on about what the Qu'ran says.KingDebater's argument from desire and reasonable Non-beliefCon's main objection to this argument is that Allah wouldn't force anyone to believe in him. There are lots of people that die never being a Muslim in their life. Allah knows what people are going to be muslims and which people are not going to be muslims (by choice). Couldn't Allah just make lots of people that would be Muslim by choice?His rejection to the first premise is kind of pathetic. He knows perefectly what I mean, but he just takes what I said word for word. Hopefully this version of my first premise won't cause confusion:P1. Every living thing tries to do what it wants all the time.Con gave three examples where you do not do what you want all the time.1 I want to become king but I could not. I want to live forever I could not. I want to become alive after death I could not until he wants.2 We don't do all the time what we want. Like easing your self.( pie and poop) if you don't do you will end up in hospital .3 The sex desire is not controllable (we cant stop it) it is becasue of hormones.1. Read the first bit of this paragraph.2. Read the first bit of this paragraph.3. In that case, the person then wants to have sex or whatever his sexual desire causes him/her to want to do.Next, his rejections to my second premise. I suppose that it's my fault for not establishing my definition of living and non-living. What I mean is really anything that can do something and not need any other thing to make it do that. Every plant, for example, needs the sun and water to survive. If we water a non-plant, it will not grow in the way a plant does. A chair cannot do anything as it is not a living thing. Chairs never move. Chairs are unable to think.Allah, however, can do things. He can create and destroy things. I hope you now know what I mean by living and non-living.The argument from incoherenceThis argument remains untouched.Makhdoom5's argumentsI can't comprehend anything. The spelling is horrible, the grammar is horrible and the presentation is horrible. He provided sources, but I doubt a Muslim's assertions prove anything. If I missed anything significant, then please clearly let me know.Conclusion-Makhdoom5 has left my second argument untouched.-Makhdoom5 needs to improve his spelling, grammar and presentation. One tip I'd give is to not write like this,:Potatoes areyummy and everyone whogays are tricky. bearspoo like braggers.and start writing like this:Potatoes are yummy and everyone who gays are tricky. Bears poo like braggers.
Atheism vs Islam

i am accepting. but i wanted to make it clear. 1 no spelling and grammar jargon. 2 the voting would be only for arguments and evidence. all outer sourced evidences must be read. and also be replied, if necessary. 3 No philosophy eg. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 4 i will use Quranic verses without philosophy or any Hades ( saying of our prophet saww) 5 you must also do not use philosophy or mathematics ( only if relevant like infinity). 6 As you are atheist so what atheist means or who are they you must also explain. so i do explain Muslim. no accusation with out evidence. 7 the most relevant is science and history. which should be presented from both sides. and all contribution from atheist and Muslims also need to be consider to the practical knowledge or science. 8 the final and important the debate must be in series. like not only one debate but series of debate to come to some conclusion. 9 No slag and disrespect to our believes. ( ALLAH swat and prophet MUHAMMAD SAWW) or Qur'an.
Atheism vs Islam

First of allMy opponent disapproved only 3,4 and 5 clause. All other were accepted, including spelling and grammar clause.The syllogism clause was also taken under consideration by me.still in the conclusion the opponent remain complaining about spell and grammar.but i personally did not found any problem where there was little problem i am correcting in this round.you can see in correction how minor was the problems. but using capital with initial i do not put that.one more thing is burden of proof must be shared. i rebutted all is presumption but what about mines. he never rebutted and not evn tried.he never come up with rebuttul other wise i would be refutting his rebuttal.correcrions1 See we cant detect them directly ( not can).2Than the thing comes out. (not our).3 ask help from fire creature than waisting. ( not waiting).3rd round.1So we must go to him to see him as we can't go beyond the dark matter ( its can't).2Because the proton was not losing its positive energy but only electron. ( not was missing).Conclusion-Makhdoom5 has left my second argument untouched.-Makhdoom5 needs to improve his spelling, grammar and presentation. One tip I'd give is to not write like this,:the above is the conclusion of my opponent. In conclusion not refuting not rebutting.but what he was talking about my argument.He provided sources, but I doubt a Muslim's assertions prove anything. If I missed anything significant, then please clearly let me know.i think he missed every thing and knowing is knowledge. he need a lot of knowledge of science.he is doubtfull which means he did not understand a bit.i wrote very short and precise sentences. which i did with the intention so that i might not end up in grammer mistakes.It seems very clear that it was not languastic problem but opponent was not having the knowledge of science.conclusion.i think he might have foud ALLAH. i think so he deleted his account. and left the whole debate with little insult of my language skills. which i dont mind.but i pray for him may ALLAH show him right path. and all of us too.i will do all other parts with other guys. but not now after a long break.my next topic would be evolution.may be this topic i will do with any time.its important. we are not monkey blessed.
I should be allowed to marry my toaster

It seems that, at a very unfortunate time, someone has managed to find TGambit as the owner of the appliance removals company, and he might've been arrested for the infringing of rights of senior toasters and refrigerators as well as many other poor, poor devices. In short, his account has been de-activated, probably by DDO Operators. TGambit, if you're still alive and on the loose, please comment with a different account so that the police have an easier time tracking you down. (No offense meant)Meanwhile, let me continue my attempts to upload but a simple picture from my computer that can be used as proof during the trial. It didn't work last time, I'll have to try something novel. For all those who are reading, copy and paste simply doesn't work unless it's directly from the Internet.Here are my pictures of me and my toaster, the first dating back to 7/14/14. Almost one year ago. http://i.share.pho.to...Me and my Toaster cruising it out on the canals in Venice. This is the sight of our first kiss as well! Sorry for the blur, it was done by a passerby. http://i.share.pho.to...Done about a week ago. Me and my toaster went to the movies to see 'Inside Out', which she really seemed to enjoy. http://i.share.pho.to... I contacted the secretary of TGambit's business, and I recieved this crude plan as well as a confirmation for everything I've said. At the top left we have a toaster disposal area, which, according to the secretary, is almost full. The company also has a thing against refrigerators as well, proven by the existence of a designated Fridge disposal area. In between, we have a miscellaneous appliance disposal area, and on the bottom left there is a futer expansion zone for the toaster dumping place. On the bottom right is perhaps the most relevant part, titled "Torture Chamber for Mfigurski80's Toaster". No further explenation neeeded. (Analysed by toaster experts (Me)) HA, I DID IT. you have to upload the pictures online, using a site like the one in the links. And THEN you can copy and paste it over. Whew. Jeez. Way too much work.Anyway, if anybody sees TGambit, don't hesitate to comment. It's kind of odd that he'd quit, or even get banned, so I really don't know what happened.And if you liked this debate, well, there's a button for that.P.S. Yes, I meant for them to be that big and go over into the sidebar. I find that messing with the weak html code of DDO is... very entertaining
I should be allowed to marry my toaster

Today ladies and gentelment I am going to prove to you why this "jester" Is truly a fool and does not deserve to marry this beautiful Toaster. And in addition, why I am the rightfull groom to this splinded kitchen appliance.Lets first talk about the toaster This Team Two-slice toaster is a beautiful sleek 900 watt kitchen appliance perfectly toasts bread at 155 degrees Celsius in 216 seconds.A simple yet elegant design, this lady never lets you down. Speaking of letting you down. Lets discuss mfigurski the king of all let downs, much like his jokes, and debates.. He leave you hanging. Let me show you why he is not only not meant for this toaster, but really any appliance in holy matromonyExhibit #1 This image was taken in the backyard of mfigurski. As you can plainly see, When the appliance has no more use for him, he casts it aside into he back. Why bother fixing an applicance when you can toss it aside and get a new one. There is no loyalty with this man. Until death do us part? for shame... little do you know, he is the one who causes the death:Exhibit #2 This image disgusts me! Look at him stab his own companion with a fork! what kind of sick man would do this to his spouce to be? He does not give a FORK about her! This man is just plain wrong, this is why his backyard is a graveyard for appliances caused be his own murder!Evidence #3 http://ak1.ostkcdn.com...; />infidelity is mfigurski's middle name. the second some new, better, more advanced toaster comes around He snoops around looking for other toasters. This toaster is going to testify that mfigurski stuck toast in her, multiple times. and pushed all her buttons. He is well known in the appliance communty picking up whatever suits his needs for that night. The second they make new better toasters you know he will be right there. As a simple man, all I ever wanted was a simple toaster. When I wake up, I make eggs, cook some bacon and have a golden delcious toast. This beauty is the kind of toaster that will always make breakfast for me in the morning. In return I keep her clean and healthy. I never shove my toast in or pusher her buttons hard. I respect her wishes to not stare at her as she toasts my bread. We are a perfect match.
I should be allowed to marry my toaster

Resolution - I should be allowed to marry my toaster. This debate is impossible to accept. If you accept without my consent, you automatically forfeit. Please apply in comments. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Points Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Finalization Rules 1 No trolling 2 No deconstructional statements that insult or offend a debator in either the debate posts or the comments. 3 No changing the debate structure or definitions without public consent from both debators If any of these rules is broken the offender forfeits this debate, unless a middleground is agreed upon by both debators. Definitions: I - myself marry - engage in a formally recognized union toaster - an object that toasts stuff All definitions influenced either by logic or by Google. Good luck to my partner, and thanks to all who applied! If you haven't noticed, this is not a serious debate. It's meaning should be quite obvious when one takes into account recent news.
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

The resolution, given the manner in which my opponent has defined it, indeed suggests the status quo. The Pro is free to advocate whatever position they desire, however, a defense of the status quo, as my opponent's case constitutes, necessarily defaults to a Con vote, as the status quo is Con ground. Given the definitions, the resolution my opponent has presented leaves him in defense of the status quo. China: I never stated that the United States had placed a blanket embargo upon China, to do so would be economic suicide. However, the United States has imposed sanctions, placing restrictions upon military trade with China. Note that embargoes are a form of sanction, thus, United States policy in regards to sanctions can be largely applied to that in regards to embargoes. Venezuela: True, we currently have no sanctions against Venezuela. However, we have historically imposed sanctions in response to human rights abuses. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com... Russia: The United States has imposed sanctions upon Russia in the past. http://www.rferl.org... Sanctions are indeed normal in regards to nations such as Cuba. We are discussing whether or not the sanctions upon Cuba mesh with United States foreign policy. Clearly, they do. Hence, my opponent espouses the status quo, and his contentions support my case.
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

I hope it will be a good one. My opponents sole argument seems to consist of a definitional argument, stating that "normal" relations with countries such as Cuba are the current relations. However, there are several flaws here. The first is that normalize is a verb. As such, the resolution inherently implies that something is being changed from the status quo. Therefore, the pro cannot be supporting the status quo, because the resolution advocates changing it. Second, he argues that we have sanctions against other countries with similar systems to Cuba. His first example is China. We have no embargo against China. China is one of our biggest trading partners. We do have an embargo against Iran. We do have restrictions on trade with Burma. However I would like to point out that we do not have embargoes or sanctions on Venezuela, Russia, or several other countries with poor human rights records. As such, embargoes can hardly be considered "normal". Furthermore, the United States is one of the only countries in the world which refuses to trade with Cuba. So, this is neither "normal" U. S behavior, nor "normal" world behavior. Since my opponent has ignored the fact that there is a verb in the resolution, and further loses that an embargo is normal behavior at all, while providing no rebuttal of my primary case, Pro is clearly winning.
The United States should normalize relations with Cuba.

"normal"-conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern-M.W. 1. The United States consistently follows a pattern of sanctions against nations with which it harbors strong political disagreements, e.g. China, Burma, and Iran. Therefore, sanctions against Cuba are in line with this policy, and hence, "normal." As my opponent favors normalization, I propose the abnormal cessation of economic and diplomatic sanctions against Cuba. My opponents two contentions defend my own argument. Thus, the United States ought to make an exception in its foreign policy in order to generate both economic benefit, and improved Latin-American relations. Thanks for posting.