BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

"Please clarify. I assume this would mean child actors, Who are very talented for what they do, And get paid accordingly for their effort and time. " No, I mean the children of celebrities who are rich because their parents are rich. These kids will often have more money than some other celebrities and they have never worked before. "Can you give examples? " My brother in law goes to work for about 10 hours a day everyday. I believe he said he hasn't had a day off in 7 months. He goes and renovates houses and works on a bunch of other stuff for different people. He's kind of a handyman. He works and works and works so hard and he has like nothing to show for it. Main reason I know what he does is because I've went to work with him on these houses. He can pay for him and my sister and his kids, But they aren't financially "well off" in the slightest, Where a programmer can go and type on a keyboard and make double his money. That's my main example of that. "Rich are what keep the economy going. Especially business owners. They hire more and more employees and grow their business, Helping the economy and jobs. If money is taken away from what they earned, They can't thrive their businesses. " The rich isn't more important than the poor in the economy nor vice versa. Each plays its own role in economic "peace" per se. And I'm saying a proportionally even amount of money should be taken from everyone, Not a bigger percentage from the rich, That isn't fair. Apologies for the issues in posting my debate.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

"What if you have super rich celebrity children who didn't work at all for their money? " Please clarify. I assume this would mean child actors, Who are very talented for what they do, And get paid accordingly for their effort and time. "And by the way, Poor work harder than rich in a lot of cases. " Can you give examples? "I believe that the government should take a percentage off of your income. Not a flat amount. I think that we should take a proportional amount of money from the poor and the rich, Even if that means the rich lose more. " Rich are what keep the economy going. Especially business owners. They hire more and more employees and grow their business, Helping the economy and jobs. If money is taken away from what they earned, They can't thrive their businesses. Ok, Now finally starting arguments.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

That isn't necessarily true. What if you have super rich celebrity children who didn't work at all for their money? And by the way, Poor work harder than rich in a lot of cases. I believe that the government should take a percentage off of your income. Not a flat amount. I think that we should take a proportional amount of money from the poor and the rich, Even if that means the rich lose more.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

Taxes should not be raised on the rich because they worked hard and eaarned that money, And because they work harder and earn THEIR money and are rich does not mean government should steal more from them than anybody else, NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS. Copy and paste
Annihilationism is sound doctrine in Christianity

Pro says, "Therefore, it appears that only those who worship Satan will be tormented forever." That sounds fine, but those who worship Satan go to the Lake of Fire and Rev 20:15 says that EVERYONE not in the Book of Life(the wicked) go to the Lake of Fire. Pro said, "I will attempt to prove in my points that, by eternal, Jesus means that the effects are eternal: that is to say, the soul dies for all eternity." The problem is how can an eternal being(soul) be destroyed unless it eternally suffered? Thus, the Lake of Fire has to be the final destination for wicked souls. My opponent appears to admit this by saying, "the soul dies for all eternity." Correct, so how could it be annihilated? Further, what's the point of the fires of Hell never going out IF no one is to be tormented by them? Now my opponent is correct that the Lake of Fire is separate from Hell, and that Hell is thrown into the Lake of Fire, but that just proves my point. The wicked go from burning in Hell to BURNING in the Lake of Fire. Hell is not destroyed, its merely cast into the Lake of Fire to BECOME EVEN HOTTER(Rev 20:14). The Bible DOES NOT say that the Lake of Fire annihilates anyone, its just as hot as, if not hotter than Hell. The prove for this is Revelation 21:8 which says, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the LAKE WHICH BURNETH WITH FIRE AND BRIMSTONE." Why would it keep burning if the wicked just get annihilated? Rebuttal to Pro's Points The first death is the death of the body. The second death is the death of the soul, but it dies eternally, or as MY OPPONENT SAID, "the soul dies for all eternity." The Lake of Fire does destroy the unrighteous, but it destroys them by eternal suffering or "everlasting punishment" as Matthew 25:46 says. Hell is emptied, but the wicked are still punished forever in the Lake of Fire. Pro says," It appears as though the lake of fire and the lake of burning sulfur are two separate entities from one another; this, unless, those whom establish worship in Satan are tormented forever in the lake of burning sulfur, while the unrighteous are thrown in the lake of fire. I ask my opponent: what is your opinion on this idea, if we were to assume annihilationism for a brief period, as this is a fascinating concept in and of itself." The problem with such an interpretation is that Rev 21:8 is this Lake of buring sulphur that the "Wicked" go to. It's a lake burning with "brimstone" which produces sulphur. Thus, ALL the wicked go to this same Lake. I don't think there's any brief period of annihilationism at all based on such verses. Conclusion: Annihilationism is HERETICAL Christian doctrine that does conflict with biblical teachings. Sources http://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.biblestudytools.com...
Annihilationism is sound doctrine in Christianity

I accept. Revelation 20:15 says, "And whosoever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Thus, the wicked(those not in the book of life) go to the lake of fire. Now the question becomes, "Will the wicked burn in this lake of fire forever." The answer: yes. Rev 14:11 says, "And the smoke of THEIR TORMENT ascendeth up FOREVER AND EVER." Thus, they are not annihilated. Jesus tells the goat nations in Matthew 25:46, "And these shall go away into EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT." The Wicked are never annihilated. Thats not even implied in the Scriptures. Observe all these references on Hell: Matthew 8:12- the wicked go into outer darkness where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth. They are not annihilated. Matthew 22:13-same thing again Matthew 25:30-same thing again God never just destroys these souls and puts an end to them. They are ALWAYS tormented. Mark 9:43,45-go into Hell, into the FIRE THAT NEVER SHALL BE QUENCHED. Further, Jesus Christ makes it perfectly clear that the wicked are not annihilated. He tells the story of a rich man and a beggar who died. The beggar does to Paradise, and the rich man to Hell. Luke 16:23 says, "And in Hell he lift up his eyes being in torments." Verse 24 says, "send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, AND COOL MY TONGUE; FOR I AM TORMENTED IN THIS FLAME." The Bible is clear that the Wicked are not annihilated, but burn in agony forever.
Annihilationism is sound doctrine in Christianity

Before I begin, I am only referring to the Christian idea of the lake of fire: therefore Islamic theology and Jewish theology in regards to Sheol, Gehenna, or Jahannam will not be discussed in this topic. The primary focus will be on the Book of Revelations. The lake of fire is a Christian doctrine discussed almost exclusively found in the Book of Revelations. Two very important concepts are needed before we actually begin discussion: firstly, that the lake of fire is known as the second death (Rev. 21:8, Rev. 20:14-15); secondly that those who are not found in the Book of Life, of which one's good faith and works is recorded, are sentenced to this lake of fire. (Rev. 20:12-15) Furthermore, a definition for our singular term is required: annihilationism is "the theological doctrine that the wicked will cease to exist after this life" (1) Anybody who holds an opinion on this matter, please feel free to respond to this challenge. I thank my opponent in advance for helping me increase and challenge my theological knowledge. (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Chocolate is healthy

Just to clarify, I'm new to this, so... ANYWAY Chocolate has many health benefits, including better blood circulation and flow, antioxidants, and decreases blood pressure. Obviously, I'm not talking about the milky, sugary chocolates that first appear in your mind upon hearing the word. I'm talking about the bitter-sweet, dark chocolate. The higher the cocoa content, the more health benefits there are and the less sugar content, which is better for overall health. NOW FIGHT MEEE
There are no compelling objections to anarchism

===Resolution===The resolution for this debate will deal with anarchism and whether it would have a legitimate possibility of effectively and qualitatively providing various social services which are generally recognized as necessary for the existence of civil society.In this debate, Pro is tasked with establishing a general framework for the effective production of these services (as well as their plausibility, just saying it's possible that everyone would get along is insufficient) while also refuting Con's arguments. Con's burden is to both attempt to refute Pro's framework, as well as to forward and defend one or more compelling objections to anarchism.===Definitions===Anarchism in the scope of this debate does not concur with the vulgar use of the term (referring to chaos or lawlessness), but instead with the political philosophy advocating a form of social organization without a territorial monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, or any other services. More specifically, I will be defending free market anarchism[1] when more non-institutional specifics are brought up.The term State refers to an institution which holds an aggressive monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, and in most instance other services (such as roads or mail delivery). Aside from monocentric control of the provision of these services, a State also has the power to tax the inhabitants under its control.A compelling objection in this instance will refer to an objection levelled against anarchism which shows it to be incapable of providing necessary social services (such as law and order) effectively or qualitatively. I don't think Con will be guilty of this but just in case, an argument along the lines of saying that some service X would be 5% more efficient then anarchist service X wouldn't be considered compelling. The term compelling implies a strong difference between the respective provision of the given services which sways strongly in the State's favor.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Complete Gun Control

I disagree that we could reduce murders by 80 percent, maybe 20 percent but not 80. Guns are not the only way to commit homicide. Also (hypothetical) if a man broke into my house with an illegally obtained firearm and he was intending to kill me, how could I defend myself? Sure, I guess I could throw kitchen knives but when has that ever worked? Like the old saying goes; "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.".
Complete Gun Control

even strict gun control countries allow exceptions for hunting. no reason we can't too. australia is pretty low on the count. the USA is over four times worse just by comparison. australia is pretty far down the list. https://en.wikipedia.org...;it is ashame we can't protect ourselves if w got rid of guns. but most of the time we need a gun cause we have guns to begin with. most peopl would say they'd be willing to get rid of guns if we could get teh rate down eighty percent. at fifty percent we should still be considering it. australia shows it might be doable.
Complete Gun Control

Australia's murder rate may have gone down but have you ever been to Australia? Do You know that Australia is still one of the most dangerous countries in the world? Less guns means less murders except for the ones that do happen in which no one can defend themselves and they get cut down without even having a chance. You have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is about to be murdered and they know that they cannot defend themselves because they have no gun in their house. And sure some people know martial art forms but you can't make everyone learn karate. And what about hunters who rely on guns to LIVE. We are talking about LIFE and DEATH here. If a hunter cannot have guns then they can't live, yes there are hunters who kill for sport but I am talking about all those who hunt to live.
Complete Gun Control

the main reason we need guns for defense is because we have so many guns to begin with. i concede not everyone will be able to defend themselves without guns, but we could signiicantly curtail overall murder. you concede it might be twenty. you dont know. i dont know. we are both thinking with our gut. but we can say it'd be something. austrailia got rid of just their worst guns, and cut their murder rate in half. i dont see why we can't do that. plus your thesis is vague. 'compelte gun control'. so to add to the generality, i'll also say that ninety percent of gun researchers think more gun regulation is better than none when it comes to homicide. you can find various studies to say various things, but similar to gloal warming, the consensus is there amoung scientiets,
Two holds the same value as one.

Why the direct challenge? Anyways, I had a major in Economics, so this isn't too difficult, just a little bit of an illusion. Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). ^^^ (a-b)=0, and dividing by zero is undefined or approaches infinity, and not the result listed.
Two holds the same value as one.

Let a = b. Then a^2 = ab. Subtract b^2 from both sides. Then a^2-b^2=ab-b^2. Use difference of squares. (a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) Divide both sides by (a-b). Then a+b=b. Now let a=1, then b=1. Substitute a=1 and b=1 into a+b=b. Thus 2=1.
Nuclear power.

Unfortunately, my opponent accidentally forfeited his final round. Yes, there's still Round 4, but TBR and I agreed before the debate that he'd pass in Round 4, since he started the debate off in Round 1. TBR cannot make new arguments in Round 4 because I'd have no way to rebut them, which would make the debate unfair. Still, out of respect for my opponent, voters should read what TBR did write and consider that when weighing the debate. That said, I'm briefly summarize my arguments and explain why I think I win the debate. I made five key arguments: (1) nuclear power isn't economically sound, (2) nuclear power isn't a solution to climate change, (3) nuclear power is vulnerable to terrorism, (4) nuclear power is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and (5) nuclear power is insanely dangerous. TBR did not address most of these arguments (I'm sure he intended to in Round 4, but he accidentally forfeited, so there's nothing that can be done about that).I think I win the debate on the economics issue. TBR did not address that issue, and it's the main reason renewables should be preferred to nuclear. The economics for nuclear simply don't work, because the costs of building plants, mining uranium, storing waste, and then decomissioning plants, on top of the costs of running the plants and producing the electricity, are simply so astronomical that no private investor would ever invest in nuclear. There's also the insurance problem (governments have to insure nuclear since no one else will). The result is that taxpayers end up paying the cost of nuclear, instead of private investors. Renewables are much cheaper, both in the short-term and long-term, which makes them a better solution to our looming energy crisis. Renewables are also better for the environment, they're not vulnerable to the effects of terrorism, and they're safer than nuclear.For all these reasons, and all the reasons discussed throughout the debate, Vote Con. Thank you.
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

Pro has unfortunately forfeited round 5. My closing argument is that above all, Stephen Colbert does not need replacing. The Colbert Report has had (and continues to have until 2015) a great run, but it's time for the show to retire. The Colbert Report without Stephen Colbert would be useless. If Comedy Central was for some reason insistent on keeping the Colbert Report, neither I nor Pro would be qualified to act as a replacement. However, Comedy Central would be best served replacing the Colbert Report with something new.
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

Here are my answers for Cross Examination: 1. "Are you aware the show is still going on?" Absolutely! I am just speaking in consideration that the show is nearing its end. 2. "Who do you believe would be a fit replacement?" I don't believe there is a fit replacement for Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report. I believe a different, new show should take its place. If a replacement is mandatory, the only people I would consider able to pull it off would be either Jon Oliver (although he has his own show on HBO now) or Steve Carrell. This is only due to their past appearances and chemistry with Stephen Colbert via guest-starring on the Colbert Report or on Even Stev/phens. No matter what, however, I do not believe that Pro or I are qualified or capable to act as replacements. 3. "If no replacement is hired what will Comedy Central do?" As I said, I believe Comedy Central can take this opportunity to launch an entirely new show. There is always potential for something new on television.
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

Thank you Con! Here are my cross-ex answers! 1)Colbert is funny. Here are some of his quotes http://politicalhumor.about.com... 2)If you win that means the winner should not replace Colbert. Therefore I replace him or no one! 3)What should would they use it for? 'The hidden cameras of Wal-Mart' or "Teacher vs. Technology"? Over to you!
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

Here are my cross-ex questions for round 4: You claim that being "funny" qualifies you as a replacement. What makes you think that that is sufficient prerequisite to act as Colbert's replacement? Should I win, what makes you think I would be qualified to replace Colbert? What reason is there to replace Stephen Colbert, if the time slot can instead be used for a brand new show instead? Cheers!
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

Con has brought on good points in his argument. However, he is indeed a "con"man and should not trusted. Here are my Questions for Cross Examination [to be answered in Round 4]: You claim "The Colbert Report was a one-of-a-kind show." Are you aware the show is still going on? Who do you believe would be a fit replacement? If no replacement is hired what will Comedy Central do? Over to you!
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

The Colbert Report was a one-of-a-kind show. It combined satirical comedy with current events in a manner that appealed to people of all ages, social standings, races, creeds, and religions. However, what really made the Colbert Report so amazing was... Stephen Colbert. Now he's leaving Comedy Central to replace Letterman, which is a blessing and a curse. Pro believes that the winner of this debate is worthy of replacing Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report. I, however, believe that replacing Stephen Colbert with anyone but a few select people would be a complete bastardization of the show, and an insult to what the show was. Instead, the Colbert Report should end where it is right now in order to preserve its legacy as one of the best satirical comedy shows on television. Looking forward to Cross Examination!
The winner of this debate should replace Stephen on The Colbert Report when he replaces Letterman

My opening argument is quite simple: I am funny. Hopefully you are funny. Stephen Colbert is funny. As he is leaving to host the Late Night Show when David Letterman retires in 2015. http://www.cnn.com... Due to Colbert's absence, Comedy Central would be out of a half hour show Mondays thru Thursdays, they would need someone funny to fill his shoes. The funnier the better, so here is my first ever headline: THE 69th BEST PROSPECT IN THE NFL DRAFT IS... MICHAEL SAM, DE, MIZZOU #leavenocharactersremainin
GTR vs toyota camry

Because of the Toyota Camry's size, it's more convenient for people who are taller in height. The Toyota Camry is more spacious compared to the GTR. Larger vehicles often carry their mass higher off the ground. Large vehicles weigh more and have longer hoods and bigger crush zones, which gives them an advantage in frontal crashes. If a larger car would hit a smaller car, the smaller car would have more of an impact. This is something far more important than the ability to park. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com... You do not have any sources to back your statements up. (Your definition of "better" is incomplete) Thank You -For your statement -For your Debate -For your understanding
GTR vs toyota camry

C1The Nissan GTR lacks advanced safety features. When it comes to the Toyota Camry, this includes dynamic radar cruise control. It allows pedestrians to be safer. It's something the GTR lacks. Performance doesn't outweigh safety. C2 Since the GTR is too simple and accessible, it could possibly be the reason why it's easily damaged. C3 Since the front of the car is larger than the rest, it starts a visibility problem. Proportions are easier to deal with when it doesn't include the GTR. C4 Handling and steering are controlled with the Camry. Sharp turns are easier to make because of its size, shape, and other features.