BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Two Party System is Best for America

You have several misconceptions in your argument. I will address these. "There is a sense of who's who and what's what." This is a bad thing. Politicians might vote with their own party instead of what they said in their campaign just because of pressures from their fellow party members. Efforts to get politicians from supposedly opposite viewpoints to think alike creates more prejudices and disagreements. People have more conflict with each other because of these labels. A libertarian who votes Republican might not be able to find common ground with a Democrat who shares a non-interventionist view on foreign policy because this libertarian (with a lower case "L" due to him voting for a Republican) is a Republican voter. Placing people into certain categories and labeling people is a problem in Washington. "They can connect better to the one that sounds the best, or that fits their ideology as well. " I can tell from experience that this is not true. I don't like the Republicans or the Democrats. I want someone from the Libertarian Party. This is very unlikely because of the system that is set up, and therefore, I have to choose between the better of two evils. I don't want to choose from the better of two evils. I want a candidate for President and a candidate for the Senator and House member of my area that represents me. I don't want a pro-war Republican versus a socialist-leaning Democrat. "Organization is the key to success!" This is very false. Having a government that properly represents the will of its people is the key to success. It's called "Representative Government" for a reason. The American revolution was fought because the colonials did not feel properly represented by the English government and king. Now we are improperly represented with a major disconnect with what the people want and what Washington is doing. It all is because of the two party system. If there were no parties, and if it took longer to get stuff done, I'd be fine with it. At least the more accurate decisions would be made. Under this current two party system with the "organization" you speak of hasn't gotten anything substantial done in years. They have such a low amount of pride and necessity for credibility that they often don't read their own laws (1). That's a result of two party politics. They just vote with their party. (1) http://ivn.us...
The Two Party System is Best for America

I apologize for my misunderstanding of the rules. I shall restate my argument. First, I would like to thank my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate on such a topic. I also thank the viewers for taking their time out to review the debate and I would appreciate their votes, no matter which side they choose. To begin, I would like to define a political party. A political party is a group of individuals who share the same ideologies, meaning that they agree on the issue of Abortion or Gay Marriage, vice versa. Now, we have implemented that into the American Government. The Two Party System shows a sense of organization in the American Politics, and we all know that American Politics can be very complexed. With the two political parties, American citizens have a better sense of the different issues that the two candidates differ on. They can connect better to the one that sounds the best, or that fits their ideology as well. Recently in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party was for less Regulations in the EPA because it confuses the consumers, it slows down the refining process, etc. The Democrats, however, says otherwise. You see, there is a sense of organization in politics. There is a sense of who's who and what's what. Organization is the key to success! America survived great times because of the two party system. In reference, American Politics has been organized and stayed organized since the Two Party System was founded. Thank you.
The Two Party System is Best for America

I also thank the viewers for taking their time out to review the debate and I would appreciate their votes, no matter which side they choose. To begin, I would like to define a political party. A political party is a group of individuals who share the same ideologies, meaning that they agree on the issue of Abortion or Gay Marriage, vice versa. Now, we have implemented that into the American Government. The Two Party System shows a sense of organization in the American Politics, and we all know that American Politics can be very complexed. With the two political parties, American citizens have a better sense of the different issues that the two candidates differ on. They can connect better to the one that sounds the best, or that fits their ideology as well. Recently in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party was for less Regulations in the EPA because it confuses the consumers, it slows down the refining process, etc. The Democrats, however, says otherwise. You see, there is a sense of organization in politics. There is a sense of who's who and what's what. Organization is the key to success! America survived great times because of the two party system. In reference, American Politics has been organized and stayed organized since the Two Party System was founded. Thank you.
The Two Party System is Best for America

The current two party system in America of the Democrats and Republicans will be debated. Con will be trying to prove that the current two party system is not the best for America. Con will state why this system doesn't work, and they will give alternatives to it.Pro will be trying to prove that this system is more effective for America compared to alternative options. First round is acceptance and clarification of the rules and positions.Second round is the opening arguments.Third round is for rebuttals.Fourth round is for closing arguments and/or more rebuttals. Let's have a good debate!
The Two Party System is Best for America

Before I yield the remainder of my time, I would first like to point out a few key things that was said during the debate. My opponent only took what he could from what I said, and leave out the importance before and after the sentence. When I said that the Founding Fathers knew for a fact that wanted this, but couldn't support it because of the times they were in. He excluded the fact that I said that the Fathers would have done something more than just speak to avoid this, so hypothetically speaking, they wanted this like we have. My opponent speaks about giving other parties a turn, but we still have homeless people waiting on their turn. America is not the place for giving people a turn. If other parties wants to gain control, they'll have to fight for it like the GOP and DNC had done. Also, we are not in the right mind to change what has been going on for a dozen decades. If the Libertarians want their turn in office, they have to fight. That's why we have a two party system. That's why we are doing well in Washington. The Two Party System is like a business. You have the General Manager and the Manager. They both fought to get to the General Manager position, but only one had got it. They have the same duties and that is to make a profit. Now, the employees under them are there for the consumers. The consumers are there for the product. That's how the Government is. The Republicans and Democrats fight to gain control of Washigton, but only one wins. The Libertarian Party, Social, etc. are there to help the two parties from falling apart, or it would help the consumer. The citizens are here to feed into our laws and enforce and follow what we put out. That's our government. That's what we need. That's how it needs to be ran. That's our way of living. We can't change everything like my opponent wants. We can't have a Government Reform after hundreds of years of existence. That will harm our citizens. Let's do the right thing and vote Pro Two Party System. Thank you for a great debate.
Rap Battle

My opponent's arguments really stinkDon't even need a cannonball to sinkHe still got a lot to learnA good reputation to earnHe only got six linesAll terrible rhymesNo insults whatsoeverHe's stuck writin' compliments forever Why it's an honor to be beaten by batman-- such a heroYou can't even beat me up yourself, powerlevel equalin' zeroYou gotta try harder to even dare face meFor I am the one and only Rapper King.
Rap Battle

My opponent thinks 8 lines is enough?His rap is worth as much as pillow fluff Can't harm me in the very leastI still stand tall like a beastGonna slash and bash until you're a blobIt will be such an easy jobYou can't do nothin' bout meKneelin' down on your kneesYou bow down to your kingYou got nothin' to bringSuckin' your thumb in a corner Yo mamma gonna be a mournerYou're dead right now, just give upBetter lay down in your death cupI suggest you concede while you still canMaybe I'll go easy on you and just give a temporary ban
Are God and Satan the same or the Bible has been corrupted? Can't you answer my question? Is it hard

Unfortunately, I am neither Christian nor Muslim. I can prove that God and Satan are the same to a Christian using Biblical verses. Unfortunately I am not familiar enough with the Quran to prove the same regarding Allah and the Devil. I will say this. If God or Allah are Omnipresent, then in the Garden of Eden when the snake convinced Eve to eat the fruit of the tree, God was there. If he knows all, then he knew what the snake would do. He placed the tree there knowing that man would eat of it. He knew that man would disobey him, so in placing the tree there, God was acting against God. Satan in Hebrew means adversary. God in placing the tree there was his own adversary. If god or Allah is all powerful, and they created the world, and they are everywhere and know everything, and they are good and loving, then the evil they created is against themselves, which makes them their own adversary, which makes them Satan. This is true of ANY deity that claims to know everything, be everywhere, be the source of everything, and have no limits on their power, and be good. Evil exists, and therefore by necessity the god that created the mechanism for evil must be their own opponent.
Are God and Satan the same or the Bible has been corrupted? Can't you answer my question? Is it hard

Hi. Thanks for accepting my challenge. I was bored because no-one gave me a rational and satisfactory answer. I don't understand what you mean. But I think you believe Satan and God are the same. I am Muslim. They are many Christians who say Allah is satanic. They just lie and I can prove it. But I want to show the Christians that their Lord is Satan. And I quote their Scriptures to prove it. Are you a Christian? If so, I have some questions for you: If God and Satan are the same. So why don't we use the word "Satan" instead of Lord? Is Jesus the son of Satan? If God and Satan are the same, does it mean that Christians are worshipping Satan? What about Salvation? Christians believe God has chosen them. They believes God will save them through Jesus. They also believe Satan misguides and deceives people with temptation. If Satan and God are the same, how can God be a deceitful and Saviour at the same time? If God wants to save Christians, so why does He deceive them? If God wants to deceive Christians, why does He save them? You may say that God deceives to test his servants. But it is nonsense. Why should God deceive Christians while he will save them anyway? There are many Christians who commit sin and ask forgiveness on Sundays. They believe God will forgive and save them. We all know that Satan makes us commit sin. So what God/Satan does, is completely aimless. Why should he deceive people when he forgives all the Christians at the end? And if the Bible is corrupted, why don't Christians admit it?
Are God and Satan the same or the Bible has been corrupted? Can't you answer my question? Is it hard

In 2 Samuel 24:1, we read that: " 24 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." But it is written in 1 Chronicles 21:1 that: " 21 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. How it it possible? Are God and The Satan the same? If not, which one should we believe? Can it be a contradiction in Bible?
Are God and Satan the same or the Bible has been corrupted? Can't you answer my question? Is it hard

I concede that God is only definable by how he is described in his holy books. I argue that we can however know the world through our study and observation of it. I will also argue that through our understanding of the world, we should gain a better understanding of the nature of a creator as described in his holy books. Allah claims to be the light. He claimed that Satan is the companion of fire. We know that fire emits light. The Quran claims Satan was created from fire. Therefore I state that God is Satan. Satan is another face of God. He is part of God's creation, therefore he is part of what is possible with God. Therefore God is capable of evil, therefore God has evil in him. That aspect of God's nature that is evil is what we call Satan. That is why Satan did not bow to man. Man is God's creation, why would he bow? Are you aware of a condition called multiple personality? If we are created in God's own image, is it not possible that God himself divided himself into two aspects? You stated earlier that immortality is evil, yet God is immortal. Does God get special consideration? Do his own laws not apply to him? I say that they do, and that we can know God in his works, so we can know by the evil in the universe that God has evil in him. Who are you to deny God's creation? He was all powerful and all knowing, so he made it the way he intended. Why would God allow evil in his universe if it wasn't part of his plan? And why would a good god have evil in his plan when he was all powerful? The only logical answer is that God is evil. The evil one of Islam and Christianity is Satan. Therefore God must be Satan.
Are God and Satan the same or the Bible has been corrupted? Can't you answer my question? Is it hard

I will concede your point that the Bible is a lie and is not a worthy source of on the truth, and I will concede your point that God and Allah are the same, and that an entity known as Satan is against them. I agree with all these points myself. What do you call dark? The absence of visible light? Fire is an exothermic chemical reaction that emits energy in many forms. One of the primary ones is the form of light, both direct and infrared. As fire is just energy being released in a particular form, it is basically just light. That makes Satan the companion of light. I think that the Quran teaches Allah is the light. That makes Satan at the very least the companion of Allah. I postulate that a thing that Allah knew which his angels did not was that Allah is both the light and the darkness. He is all-knowing, and so he knew the nature of those he was creating as he created them. You say he created Satan so that man would have evil to better know good. But you state that 36:82 that when he says "be" about something he intends, it is. Could he not have then said "be" intending man know good and evil without the existence of Satan or capacity of evil? Why would he say "be" about a creature that he knew would act in defiance of him, unless it was part of his intent to have creatures who could and would act in defiance of him? I say that Allah did this because they are not in defiance of him. I say that Allah and Satan are two sides of the same coin. Did not God create man in his own image? Is not man capable of both good and evil acts? I argue that Iblees is just a servant of Allah's other aspect, the aspect which is a companion to fire. The evil that dwells within all creatures. He created the world thus because evil is part of his nature as much as good is. This is because he is both God and Satan, just as his creations have the potential for both good and evil in them. He says not to worship Satan because he wants us to focus on our better aspect, but he doesn't remove Satan from existence because to do so would eliminate part of himself.
Man probably has freewill

I believe Con's definition of determinism is compatible with mine, "Every event that happens, there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could have happened." I bold these words above since this will be paramount for our debate & any further discourse. Con's definition of Free Will also seems compatible with mine, but let's deliniate, There are three types of freedom, first is permissive or social/political freedom. The second concerns personal integrity namly the ability of fully deveoped, ideally functioning persons to act as unified selves in a responsile & mature way. Moral & rational responsibility is the third type of freedom and states that humans are the originator of ones own actions & is in control over ones own actions.So that I don't waste space with citations, this whole debate I'll draw from the book, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World-view" edited by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland, Free Will & Determinism Chapter. For those interested in the topic, I strongly recommend this book, it does a nice broad stroke of most things relevant to the ongoing discussion & gives a fair hearing of many different views so that when you take a college level class, you'll be adequately prepared. Thank you for the debate Con- let's reason together.
Jason Voorhees would completely murder Michael Myers

Pro claims that Michael's ability to show mercy would be a weak point in a fight against Jason, but I don't see how. Just because he can show mercy doesn't mean that he would against Jason. Someone can be merciful to a person they care about and absolutely none to someone else. As I stated in my previous argument, the only effect that would have in the fight is to show that he has more brain functionality than Jason. This is also shown by the fact that Michael can drive and especially when he crushed the paramedic's windpipe and put his mask on him so Laurie would kill him instead. Jason might have more creative killings, but it's not because he thinks of them, he just happens to use whatever is handy and when you have that kind of strength, anything is a potentially fatal weapon. Jason has a weak spot all his own in mommy and that has been used against him on more than one occasion. As smart as Michael has proven himself to be, he would find a way to use that to his advantage.
Jason Voorhees would completely murder Michael Myers

As my contender put "Michael Myers, unlike Jason, has been shown to have cognitive thought when he spares Dr. Loomis' life because Loomis was always decent to him in the asylum. While mercy might not help in a fight, it does display that he has a higher level of thought than Jason and intelligence does help in a fight." Michael showing mercy means that he would have a weak spot thus helping to prove my point because Jason has NO mercy for anything or anyone. So i would like to thank my contender for actually helping prove my point. The fact that Michael shows mercy for one person, even though he may not show mercy to others, means that there is some type of weak spot in him. We see this in many of the Halloween films, where he shows some compassion for his young niece Jaime Lloyd. and showing mercy to Loomis. There is not one scene i can think of where Jason shows any mercy or compassion (Except however when we see his mom, who is the original killer in Friday the 13th). That being said, I believe it has been proven that Michael Myers stands NO chance at all against Jason Voorhees.
Jason Voorhees would completely murder Michael Myers

First off, let me apologize for cutting it so close, but I've been busy. Michael Myers, unlike Jason, has been shown to have cognitive thought when he spares Dr. Loomis' life because Loomis was always decent to him in the asylum. While mercy might not help in a fight, it does display that he has a higher level of thought than Jason and intelligence does help in a fight. With their speed and strength being roughly equal, intelligence would be the next defining attribute. My opposition stated that Michael would die from beheading, but so would Jason. It might be true that he can come back in another body as in Final Friday, I doubt that it would help in that moment, since by the time it happens Michael would be long gone. Since they have roughly equal strength, speed, and endurance, it comes down to intelligence, and like I said, his ability to show mercy puts him above Jason in that regard.
Jason Voorhees would completely murder Michael Myers

As my contender put, Michael does have some creative killings, however Michael is mostly a conservative killer mostly using his hands and the kitchen knife. Jason on the other hand has used many different methods of killing people. Every time he kills is different than the other. Jason is the kind of killer who uses everything in his surroundings. He is brutal to the point where he will sometimes over kill. If Jason were to come across Michael, he wouldn't walk up to him and stab him. he would be creative about it and make sure that the guy was brutally torn apart. and yes even though they are both supernaturally strong they can still be killed. Look at Halloween H20 (Keep in mind i am not using Halloween Ressurrection at all. H20 was the perfect ending of the series and there is no way you can live from being be-headed, and the fact they tried to cover the fact that it wasn't Michael behind the mask is just insulting to Michael Myers' image all together), in H20 it is clearly seen that Michael was killed by be-heading. It is completely obvious that all Jason has to do is do what he always does in his movies and Michael wont stand a chance
Jason Voorhees would completely murder Michael Myers

First off, even though it has nothing to do with who would win in a fight, I feel I should defend Michael's backstory, as there is more to it than pro thinks. He's more than the personification of evil, a group of druids placed the curse of thorn on him, which causes him to kill anyone with blood relation to him, as well as anyone who gets in his way. The curse started as a boy and he killed his sister Judith. That being said, I will be defending the Michael Myers from John Carpenter's original films. I'm not a fan of Rob Zombie's remakes. When it comes to a fight between the two, they have both proven themselves to be supernaturally strong with the ability to come back from the dead almost infinitely. Therefore, to find out who would win, you have to look to other factors. I would ask pro, however, what other factors he wants to use. I say intelligence, creativity, speed, and physical endurance. As to creative killing, Michael has a few of his own, such as putting his niece Jaymie on a piece of farm equipment and then turned it on with it sticking out of her gut.