BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John McCain should receive the Republican nomination instead of Mitt Romney.

I am deeply sorry for going unresponsive in the last round. I will only hope you shall let me proceed with the rebuttal. I shall start with the statement you made about the state department, and how that is not how we choose a candidate. Yes this is true, but you still need foreign policy experience. Mitt Romney has EXPERIENCE, while John McCain has EXPERIENCE and foreign policy experience. You need both, and I absolutely agree. We should not just pick someone from the state department. Moving on, you stated that bipartisanship is sometimes bad and John McCain sides with the democrats too much. You asked arent we talking about conservatives. Yes John McCain sides with the democrats on certain issues, but on the major issues he is truly conservative. These issues include Healthcare, the war in iraq, and immigration reform. Look at the government today. Nothing can be done because the lack of bipartisanship! Mitt Romney can say he can do and promise all these things, but unless the democrats agree with him, it shall never happen. John McCain is one of the most bipartisan republicans there are, and he can truly do something when preident. You made a point on the McCain-Reingold bill, I would like you to please ellaborate on that in the round. So far it has no impact in the round because of it is too vague. Hence why I shall not refute it because it is irrelevent in the round. On to the flip-flopping arguement. You stated he did not flip flop on key issues. The point is he still flip flopped. How can you trust to not flip flop on other issues. Also some of these issues can be considered "key issues" to other people. You later said that McCain critized the war, then changed his mind. He critized how Bush handled the war, not the war itself. He staunchly supports the warm almost more then any candidate. Im clearly showing you here that McCain truly sticks to his values, and is trustworthy and reliable. Hence why John McCain, should recieve the nomination. You briefly stated how John McCain was using negative tactics. I a little confused by this. I have a feeling you have your facts wrong. Mitt Romney has had some most negative tactics through this entire election. (i.e. his TV ads) Finally you praised Romney on his outstanding education. How he is fit for president. John McCain yes went to an army college, but this doesnt make John McCain unfit for the nomination. Ronald Reagan never attended BYU or an Ivy League university. He was the alma mater at Eureka College, a small liberal arts college is Illinois. Was Reagan unfit for the nomination? I think not. Once again, I apologize for going unresponsive.
It is moral to kill one human being to save the one million human beings.

I negate resolve: it is moral to kill one human being to save one-million human beings. Since my opponent doesn't give much of an argument, I'll just be quick and easy. My vp will be Morality. My vc will be supporting maximum life. First, my contention. C1 It is never moral to kill. Even killing one person is wrong because killing isn't moral. The neg does not kill, but it only opposes the act and states that it is unmoral, therefore being moral and supporting maximum life. My opponents case: She says she supports life, but she contradicts herself by killing that one person. My side of the argument is far more supportive of life than hers. I would also like to mention that my opponent has no warrant for her claim. What this round will be weighed on is the vp and vc's of the debate. since my opponent has none, I win on those terms. Also this will be weighed on by morality, since we are now looking to my vp, and vc, and supporting maximum life. I wish you luck and look forward to your argument..ha ha ha ha ha (evil laugh...sorry couldn't help myself)
Can something be so "awesome" that it's good

I Accept In the eyes of a diehard (not the movie) flaws can be ignored just out of pure denial, declaring that the movie is the best movie of all time. In the eyes of a critic this will never happen. The critics must point out every flaw and every good thing about it. Unless there is literally no flaws ( which is very unlikely) they will find a way to make this movie sound so or so average.
God to be proven real.

Well in conclusion Con seems to have given up this argument. My arguments were basically that God is Energy, and I have proven the case with supernatural experiences experienced by Prophet Muhammad may peace and blessings of God be upon him and of the Promised Messiah and his Khalifas, may peace be upon the all, and I also used the cutting edge of quantum physics called quantum entanglement to prove that the universe is an illusion and that we are all one energy or one God. I also used the double slit experiment to prove that consciousness is all that exists, and that the material world is an illusion created by consciousness/God and I have used Shaolin Monks and how they use chi energy to do impossible things to prove that God exists, because God is the chi energy that Shaolin Monks use, So in conclusion God does exist, because Con was unable to even touch a single point I made, amen
God to be proven real.

It is quite nice that Con gave up on this round, due to the overwhelming evidence that God does exist. I would like to take this time to clarify some points. My God isn't the Christian god, or the Muslim god, or the Greek god, my God is infinite energy. We are all made up of energy so we know that it exists, now the question is that is this energy intelligent or can we use this energy to control things. I have already proven that this is the case because this energy chose to create us therefore it has a Will, and is intelligent. We can also interact with this energy and do impossible things as the Shaolin monks have demonstrated for years, and as I have already proven. This energy also controls the universe objectively without compassion, and therefore there is no problem of evil. This energy is not omnibenevolent, it doesn't care about us anymore than we care about ants. We are made up of cells, our cells die, but we don't care about each individual cell, we care about the whole. The same with this energy, it does not care about every single human being on this tiny dust of a planet, it cares about the universe as a whole because we are a part of this energy and the energy is the whole. This energy has also been called Chi which the shaolin monks use, but I call it God, because it is the supreme force of the universe, it is similar to the force in star wars If Con wishes to continue this debate, he must disprove all the arguments I posted on my last argument, and all the evidence I provided, he must watch all the videos, and read all the links, and address every argument whether he agrees with it or not. I hope Con finds the courage to do that, if not may all praise belong to God who created us and is alone eternal, amen
God to be proven real.

God is proven to be real, there are several reasons why God is real 1. The Kalam Cosmological argument, everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist therefore it has a cause some people try to use quantum fluctuations to suggest that something can come without a cause, but quantum fluctuations are probably coming from something rather than nothing, for instance my hand isn't empty it is full of air, the quantum vacuum isn't empty either, it is full of energy, zero point energy Also quantum fluctuations are created in matter and antimatter pairs, where is the antimatter? 2. The transcendental argument, the laws of logic exist, (the law of identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of excluded middle), these laws are immaterial and universal, atheism can't account for them, but theism can, because the universe reflects the mind of God, therefore God exists. 3. Quantum entanglement, the particles that make up the universe are interconnected, they are therefore one since , and that one unified force is God http://www.youtube.com... 4. Shaolin monks and chi, spears won't go through the shoulin monk's throat, even soft parts of their body are immune, they use chi to do this, there is an invisible energy field around us which we can use, that is God http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... 5. Double slit experiment, particles only exist as particles when they are observed, therefore there has to be a universal mind, and that is God http://www.youtube.com... 6. UFOs, they exist, according to John Keel and others they are the work of Satan, if the devil exists then God exists the best of these is the tinley park lights skip to 39 on the video and you will be convinced ufos exist http://www.youtube.com... 7. The Holy Quran, it talks about the Big Bang and black holes, how did an unlettered person of the desert come up with these ideas? http://www.alislam.org... 8. The Promised Messiah, He predicted the death of lekram, he was killed by the angel of death, people witnessed the angel of death come into the house of lekram kill him by stabbing him in the belly and then disappear, therefore it couldn't be a man it had to be the angel of death, therefore God exists source- Ahmad the guided one the Promised Messiah also predicted the death of John Alexander Dowie, when Dowie was younger than him and lived in a better country, the Promised Messiah won the prayer duel http://www.themuslimtimes.org... 9. Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad ra, He escaped Pakistan and was confused with Hazrat Mirza Nasir Ahmad ra, and his enemy, Zaolhuck's plane blew up mysteriously, Who is behind all these things God, 10. Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, he was prophesied in a poem of the Promised Messiah may peace be upon him, who told the Promised Messiah as about him, it Was God 11. Biogenesis, we have yet to create a single cell or even a single speck of life, therefore nature couldn't have done it, something superior to us and nature must have done it and He is God. all these reasons prove God exists.
God to be proven real.

You all refer to this being as "God" what really is god a god is someone of strong supernatural power is it not? But it is illogical to call such a being "God". The idea of God is more of a fallacy because no religion has been shown to be the correct religion. After all, when Jesus Chrsit died, the original religion was lost and apostles ceased to exsisit. What are the chances you and I believe in the same God. Surely you can find bibles that date back even before Christ was a thought, but howdo you know they saw the same being you believe in today. I'm not saying there isn't a god out there I'm just saying not to get your hopes up. And if thequaran was created by God was the catholic, christian, and islamic bible created by God as well? They seem to bump heads all the time...im not going against you or advocating for you by the way i kinda had to chose in orde to post
Congress and the white house should be devoid of politicians.

As I read through your argument, I saw that you are for change in the American government that would help the American people. I completely agree, but this is not the means that we can achieve that. How would you like college drop-out down the street to be the next President of the United States or even Senate Majority Leader? Now, I know that President Bush isn't the smartest man ever, but he has grown up in an environment that has properly prepared him for the job and I believe that he was dealt a "bad hand" after he got into office. Now, I don't want people to vote on my stance on President Bush, but he's able to do the job, not some random man/woman right off the street. People need education to run the government. I'm a senior in high school in South Dakota that is taking a government class right now. I would consider myself to be a fairly bright person in comparison to my peers, but even I get confused sometimes with all of the information that I'm given. Just think about if you have to make the decision to go to war or not. Take 9/11 for example. If you were in President Bush's spot, would you have gone to war with Afghanistan? You must consider the lives of the troops, the allies we may lose, the success of winning, the process of getting it approved by Congress, etc. The line of thoughts just goes on forever! I'm not sure if you've ever seen the movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but it's about a regular guy that goes to Washington DC as a Senator. He was getting destroyed by the whole process and, if it weren't for the help of the good politicians, he wouldn't have gotten anything done. The same would happen if politicians were gone completely. Those "high-class" people need the higher level education in order to properly run the government. Furthermore, you contest that people would bring a good change to American life if the average person was there in Washington DC. WRONG! If average people are there, they wouldn't know how to deal with the politicians from other countries. It may be a slight exaggeration, but if Condeleeza Rice was no longer in DC, then we would be in trouble with so many nations, and, I hate to say it, but if Rice wasn't there, the US probably would've overthrown Bush, forcing him from office. Politicians are necessary for the government to run properly and good politicians, like Rice, are the change that we need to bring to Washington. More decent politicians like herself would be amazing for this country.
Congress and the white house should be devoid of politicians.

What I am saying is that instead of putting politicians and (ok lets be honest) upper class, well educated, IVY league sons of past politicians into office, we should let everyday normal people run, and we should provide a forum for anyone to do so without hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate sponsors and lobbyists. Anyone could run initially, then they would be filtered down by an expedient process of elimination. Sure, elections would take much longer, but we would end up with people in our government who actually want to do something to improve American lives. There are plenty of every day normal people who not only are smart enough to do the job, but they have lived normal lives, understand normal people problems, and they would be much more likely to pass good laws and policies instead of ones that make money or save money for themselves and their associates. Politicians suck. And because I know my opponent will say that if we did this then these normal people would become politicians, my response is that they wouldn't because they would know that getting screwed by our government is absolutely horrible. Not a long argument, but I think it is good enough to get my point across.
Contacting Un-Contacted Peoples

Contention 1- People have a right to self determination, and these uncontacted tribes are intentionally staying that way. Most of these tribes are extremely hostile to outsiders so contacting them is dangerous. Leave these people alone so they can live life how they best see fit. Contention 2- observing these societies from a distance can tell us a lot of information about our own ancestors who lived in similar primitive conditions. We shpuld leave them alone for the benefit of researchers and scientists. Contention 3- we cannot contact these societies in a safe fashion. They are usually extremely aggressive to outsiders and succesful contact can be deadly for both them and us. Given our superior fire power, if we made a serious attempt to contact them, we would also need to conquer them, thus killing people as well as destroying their way of life
Contacting Un-Contacted Peoples

No rebuttal/counter argument. 3rd round: Arguments, counter arguments and rebuttals. By accepting this debate, you will acknowledge the following definitions and examples. Un-Contacted peoples: People currently living in voluntary or involuntary isolation from the global world. They may or may not be under another nations control. These people may have been contacted before, but overall are not in current contact with society. Examples of un contacted peoples to be used: -- Sentinelese people of North Sentinel island. -- Jarawa people of Adaman Islands -- Pintupi people of the Gibbon Desert, Australia -- Ruc people of N. Vietnam. Also, no trolling. Please accept only if you are going to see the debate through. Stick to common sense. Thank you, and see you in the debate. :) May the best win.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

My point is not that they should be forced to sit with them it is that they will not want to sit if they are racist so they will not want the court ordered desegregation. If you want to go to the neighborhood school then you should live in that neighborhood, regardless of the people that live there. Kids are taught right from wrong and if all they learn is wrong then that is what they will do, so if they see the older, responsible people using violence then they will use violence.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Hi selly :)Assertion #1- Court ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. More fighting than learning goes on in the schools. It took people 15 years to adjust to the plans. The kids see nothing but violence at the schools with all the fighting going on. Assertion #2- Courts do not have the power to combat people's prejudice. If a person is racist the courts cannot force the person to stop being racist. Assertion #3- Schools should not be used as battlegrounds to adress inequality. The kids will respond to violence with violence. Kids will not be able to focus on quality learning if everyday the school board is in the classroom doing interviews and battling the committee. The schools should be a place of learning not fighting.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative Assertion #1: Courts ordered busing was the only desegregation way in Boston. Evidence: Whites lived with whites. Blacks were going to school with blacks. Neighborhoods were segregated. Assertion #2: Desegregated school system, judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. Evidence: Judge's plan; kids to leave their neighborhoods. Not all schools are quality. Going back to neighborhood schools is segregated. Assertion #3: Race should be used as a basis for school assignment. Evidence: Creates legal uncertainty and threatens to provide considerable. Illegally used race to classify students. It didn't violate the 14th Amendment.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

-But they're racist and they are being forced to sit near them in class and in buses. -Neighborhood schools for blacks are unfair ! & a house for a black person is 3x more than for a white person. if a black chooses to move into a white neighborhood its because they want something better for their child. -Kids fighting and using violence is nobodies fault but there parents ! & if they learn right from wrong then they should know violence is not the answer, even if they see the older do it, they also see the consequences .
Women Have The Right to Contraceptives

I must also note that my arguments will probably be a tad spacious time-wise, as I have a fairly busy schedule. [1] Hypothetical Scenarios - If a woman is raped and the said rapist does not wear any form of protection, and the woman is not on a birth control substance of some kind, and does not have access to a contraceptive, this is an issue because: 1) the woman is forced to give birth 2) the woman either has to foster the child away after going through the pain of childbirth or has to raise them until they are old enough to support themselves. This is a common argument in the abortion/contraception right argument, but it is only because it is a logical issue any country where women don't have this right have to face. Another hypothetical situation would be a situation by which a woman has sex with a partner and their partner's condom breaks. What do they do now? The woman is now pregnant after taking a pregnancy test and now has to either: a) raise the child or b) foster them away. If they don't have the right to abortion/contraceptives, they can't get rid of the baby and it's only at that point a burden on them. [2] Popular Rebuttals - Many people who oppose the right to contraceptives/abortion advocate that the reason for their opposition is because of their religion. This is not, however, an appropriate way to refute anything in the political world; as not everyone conforms to the same religious beliefs, nor does anyone have to. Most countries are finally coming together in their political systems to formulate secular laws and conditions for their people. This is right step to make, but that is going off topic. The point to this contention is that religion should not be a reason to justify someone not having the right to control their body - regardless of the situation. Another popular counter-argument also seems to be that apparently if people don't want children they simply should avoid having any form of sex. Not all forms of sex lead to childbirth, and this is very reason for the existence of birth control/contraceptives. As long as the people in question are careful, that is fine and they are not likely to have a kid; there are hypothetical and less likely circumstances, but overall it can be avoided pretty well. Also, sex should not be strictly a procreative activity, either. [3] Health - Generally, birth control and contraceptives when it comes to health can be dangerous in certain forms, and healthy for women in others. Broadly speaking, at the end of the day, most of these such things are actually healthy for women. And there is a whole series of health benefits that will provided below. Note: the following source is an article from bedsider, though each point made is supported with a different source citation. . http://bedsider.org...;-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I apologize that my arguments were not longer, but again, busy schedule.
Women Have The Right to Contraceptives

Hello, TheOpinionist, I have recently come across your debate on this issue with someone else, and noticed they put up a very weak fight in discussing the subject. I would like to fill in their position in a hopefully more effective way in saying that women having access to contraceptives should logically be a basic human right. I apologize for the impromptu debate challenge, and you don't have to take this debate into account, however I would like for this to be something we may maturely dispute.
Justin Bieber shouldn't be hated.

Sorry this is late but I've been kinda busy. In reality, I'm not going to ask you to vote con, nor ask you to vote pro, because really both sides have come to the same conclusion, through different means. We can agree that Beiber shouldn't be hated to the extent that some people take this, however it is also undeniable that there is at least some room to hate him. So this is going to be a short, confusing conclusion. So basically it has been conceded that there is room for hate, just as you cannot force people to hate somebody, you can't force them to love him, but similarly it has been conceded by myself that there is no need for the excessive death threats and abuse that goes on, so in the end, the debate itself has come to no conclusion....