BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Catological argument is sound

THE PROBLEM OF CATEVELAll evil brings about some greater good "ALL: THE GREATER GOOD" http://www.youtube.com... When Teh cats get the pwns, but somewhere something else gets better. Why does it hav to be cats? Cats present them feels other than dogs fish and penguins. Cats have the perfect aestetic moral beuty to envoke the proper axioum detection nesseasry to see God exists. If my opponent felt nothing then he is doing it wrong, you must open up really wide. Phrasing, boom!Cats having sin is irrelevents. My argue doesnt say teh cats are teh holys. Teh cats only prove An God. They no magicial. The profit stands for spirutal profit. You profit in your spiritual.My argue es win!
The Catological argument is sound

My competitor Jedi4, "assumes" that cats prove the existence of God.... But my dear voters I have a few ideas of my own.... First, if cats proved the existence of God wouldn't they be treated better then being abused, starved to death, homeless, etc? If cats proved the existence of God then why aren't they all treated like that one kitten in the video..? Isn't God suppose to be a loving God? So if cats prove the existence of God then why aren't they treated better and or praised by the Church? Second, why dose it have to be cats? Why can't it be dogs, Fish, or even penguins!! Can it be old cats or just kittens? Also, I didn't feel anything when watching the video. I tried several times (I really did!!!!) and at no point did I fell God. When you say profit, do you mean the money profit? Or a religious prophet? Because if cats are considered as prophets then why aren't they in the Bible? At no point dose The Bible say that cats are prophets, nor dose it talk about cats at all!!! I dose talk about other animals but not cats! Third, Cats aren't humans! They have original sin!! They cat (heh, get it?!?!) be baptized because there not humans. So that means..... (And I'm sorry for all you cat lovers.......) THEY GO TO H, E, DOUBLE HOCKEY STICK!!!! Cats also have no souls, there like every other animal besides us. Well wait...... I take that back about the Bible...... It did say that God was so repulsed by cats that they were not put in The Bible...... http://christwire.org...
The Catological argument is sound

DO NOT SEE THE VIDEO UNTILL YOU GET TO THE ARGUMENT OR ELSE IT COULD MESS WITH YOUR MIND!!!There are many ways to prove the existence of god. Ontological, cosmological, telological, there are many logicals which god favors. But the catological is an enigma. It is a deduced concept derived on a feels based on evidence from acient civilzation I'll stay right heeeeere. It follows that god exists.We first observe, then we think on he feels then we deduce. I need not guide you to do this. the body does it automagically. I encorage everyone before reading the argument to take a deep breath and open up your body for the feels and logic.Premise one: Observe the video to the right and let your body do its work http://www.youtube.com... Premise two: Realize that god existsPremise three:?????Premise four: Profit.Conclusion: God existsTherefore: God existsQED: THere is a being called god.It is an argue that derives on the bodies natural axiom recogising function. When someone such as an atheist sees this their body opens up to god to realize he exists. I have already converted 4 atheists already.Win.
Communism is Inherently Bad

My opponent, in the comments section, has provided the following definition of "bad": -of poor quality; inferior or defective Communism (as defined by my opponent) encompasses two ideas: -Collectivism -"Each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs" The second statement has often been simplified to "From each according to their ability to each according to their need". The statement, then, is simply an extension of the collectivist principle. There are several flaws with collectivist economic systems, but first, I will make a brief case for Individualism, the clear antithesis of Collectivism. Individualism, in the form I advocate, holds that all individuals would be able to govern themselves and their property. The clear boundary in this liberty of self-governance is when it collides with another's self-governance. Therefore, a corollary of this fundamental individualist principle is that no other individual or group of individuals may commit violence or coercion against the person or property of another. Such a system would allow each individual to pursue their own happiness, and so their satisfaction of their value-priorities will be more likely than if the individual was not free to pursue their own priorities. Violence or coercion will only shift the priority of an individual from one value to another. This will mean that the individual's happiness can not be ensured. If each individual is free to pursue their own values, each individual will be more satisfied. A collectivist system will not allow this; therefore, individualism is inferior to collectivism. Now, I will identify the fatal flaw of collectivism. Collectivism eliminates incentive to produce by separating production and property. Because the individual does not own the produce of his or her labor, there is a free-rider problem in work ethic. Production decreases, and societal welfare regresses. Therefore, individualism is preferable to communism. Because communism is inferior to individualism, it fits my opponent's definition of "bad". Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.
Communism is Inherently Bad

This is a debate over the natural "goodness" vs. "badness" of communism. The definition to be used is as follows (from the New Oxford American Dictionary): "communism (often Communism) noun a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." I will let my opponent come to his/her reasons first, and proceed with my own arguments. A huge thanks to whoever is willing to take me up on my first official debate!
Pro for foreign cars, con for american

I am often amazed by the things that people believe that are not true. For example "A speaker cabinet made out of plywood will always sound terrible" (FALSE) or "Tube amplifiers sound better than solid state" (FALSE) or "You need 4WD to go in the snow "(FALSE) or " If the debt limit is not raised, the US Government will go into default" (FALSE) *********************** Here is another item" " You might have heard that six of the top ten best-selling vehicles in the United States come from foreign automakers. But it turns out that almost all of them are actually "made in America." "It seems like there are a lot of auto manufacturers from foreign countries that are building factories here now," says Jim Prueter of AAA. -Toyota Camry - built in Georgetown, KY -Honda Accord - built in Marysville, OH -Nissan Altima - built in Smyrna, TN -Hyundai Sonata - built in Birmingham, AL -Subaru Forester - built in Lafayette, IN -BMW X3 - built in Spartanburg, S.C. -Honda Civic - built in Greensburg, IN -Toyota Corolla - built in Blue Springs, MI -Volkswagen Passat - built in Chattanooga, TN -Mercedes-Benz ML - built in Tuscaloosa, AL On the flip side, some "American" cars aren't built in America and instead are constructed in foreign countries such as Mexico, Canada, Japan and Korea. The Ford Fusion and Lincoln MKZ, Cadillac SRX and Dodge Journey, for example, are built in Mexico. The Chevy Camaro, Impala and Equinox are built in Canada, along with the Cadillac XTS, Dodge Charger and Challenger." source: http://www.azfamily.com... ************************* Again I am not saying that American cars are better. I am arguing that the quality of "better" is not conditioned on the car being foreign or domestic. The quality of "better" depends on how a vehicle is to be used, where it will be used, and how it is needed. What is better to Ralph may not be better to Richard! I have often said that if I lived in an area where Swedish was the common language, I would drive a Volvo. It might then be better as far as repairs and parts. *************************
Pro for foreign cars, con for american

I initially declined this debate. The topic is really the domain of opinion rather than fact. The criteria for concluding the debate has not been laid out. In the face of all this, I began to reflect on other questions similar to this one. I decided to accept the debate and have some fun with it. Having owned both domestic and foreign cars, the question comes up, "Which is better, foreign or domestic?" I have a friend that owned a Porsche, but will not have another. First off, the car was not very reliable. Once the engine simply stopped. It was towed to a dealer about 50 miles away who noted that the valves needed to be adjusted every 3000 miles at a cost of $350! No more Porsches for her! Then there was a Volvo in need of a wheel bearing. The car was laid up for 3 months. The wheel bearing was out of stock at the Ohio dealership and was ordered from the warehouse. The wheel bearing was out of stock at the New York warehouse and was ordered from the auto plant in Sweden. The wheel bearing was out of stock at the auto plant and was ordered from the supplier. The supplier shipped the bearing, not to the New York warehouse or to the Ohio dealership, but rather to Sweden. The auto plant did not ship to the Ohio Dealership, but instead to the New York warehouse. The warehouse shipped to the dealer. When the Volvo owner saw that the bearing, which took 90 days to get had been manufactured in Ohio in a town about a 35 minute drive away. he said "No more Volvos!" As another anecdote, take the owner of the Renault that waited 3 years for a mechanical brake cable. Now granted this can also happen with domestics. I once had a 4 year old Ford stuck at a dealer for 30 days waiting for a part to be manufactured, but that is rare (and the dealer supplied me with a loaner car for the entire time at no cost to me!). I once drove a Ferrari that was being delivered to a customer. The trip was short, maybe less than 50 miles. The car looked sexy without a doubt. It handled very well but most of its abilities were lost in driving on American roads. I returned as a passenger in a Chevy Chevelle, which was quite a contrast, but both cars completed their portion of the trip reliably and safely. The Chevy did it more efficiently in terms of purchase cost, maintenance cost, cost per mile, etc. Untimely, my CON position is NOT about American cars are better. My CON position is that foreign cars are NOT better. PRO needs to demonstrate in non subjective measures that foreign is better. Otherwise CON wins!
Pro for foreign cars, con for american

Pro says , "How can you even compare a lambo to a truck. a Nissan titan is just as capable of transporting anything just as good as a Chevy." Con says, Yes but the truck bested the Lambo in the measure of moving gravel. Point ..... America! The Nissan truck would be bested by a Peterbuilt in the measure of moving gravel. Point .... America! Pro says, "yeah youre right that a jeep can beet a bentley off-road." Point ...... America! Pro says, "yeah a mustang is a pretty cool ride" Point ..... America! Pro asks, " would you not rather have a Mercedes C63 AMG or even a GTR" Con says, NO. Point.... America. Total America 5 points. Foreign O points.
Pro for foreign cars, con for american

How can you even compare a lambo to a truck. a nissan titan is just as capable of transporting anything just as good as a chevy. yeah youre right that a jeep can beet a bentley off-road. but thats because a bently was made for the comfort of a smooth road. the british bowler wildcat would completley destroy any jeep off road. yeah a mustang is a pretty cool ride (only the V8), but if you could have any car in the world would you really choose a mustang? Theres at least 6 mustangs on my block, let alone all the other blocks. would you not rather have a Mercedes C63 AMG or even a GTR? either of those would not only turn heads but would obliterate a mustang.
Calvin Coolidge was a better president than Woodrow Wilson

I would like to express my sincirest apologies to History Genius for forfieting to rounds of his debate. My internet aint great and i dont have much time on my hands. If he wishes to redo this debate, i am more then happy. As for my arguments for why Wilson was better Ill start with coolidges domestic policy vs wilsons domestic policy. Wilson created the first criminal charges against the owners of trust, not the trust itself. This greatly added in the breaking of the power of big bussiness. The second major accomplishment was the creation of the income tax. This gave the goverment enough income do do more things then prevously able. Goverment could now aid in peoples lives and work to stop poverty and inequality. Before the income tax this was immpossible. It also stripped the rich of excess profit that had no purpose. Wilson also used his war time powers to nationalize the railroads and break their power. Rail road companies had monopolized the railroads and hurt farmers by charge them great amounts for the transportation of crops. Nationalization helped stop this. Coolidges policies only led to the great depression. It is basic Keynesian econimics that economies work in bussines cycles. This cycle has a boom and a bust. Unfettered capitalism leads to big booms followed by overextension of profit seeking and the bust. Goverment can create a stable economy through goverment management that has no great booms or bust. All Coolidge has to show for his deregulation policies is the great depression. Moving on to international issues, Coolidge weakened the American military and pursed isolationism. If he had not, the us could have been a player on the world stage and stopped the rise of fascism. The Kelllog Brandon pact left America weak and unready for war. Wilson put america on the world stage. He intervened in Mexico, aiding in the overthrow of a dictator and ending a bloody civil war. Wilson defended Europe from the military despotism of Prussia and saved any hope of democracy in Europe. Wilson realized the threat of communism and moved to stop it by intervening in the Russian cival war. With more support, he could have crushed communsm in its cradle. Most of all, he fought for the League of Nations. If the us had been in the League, it might have been able to stop fascism. He fought for embracing the world while Coolidge fought for keeping america hidden from the world. Ive had to subjugate myself to tons of liberal bs to write this but ive done it. If you want to redo this debate or a debate on another topic I am up for it. By the way "Coolidge" by Mrs. Shales was a very good book. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Calvin Coolidge was a better president than Woodrow Wilson

I. Economic Policy Wilson created many of the problems that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge had to deal with later. Wilson created higher tax rates, a huge federal government, and severe economic problems with unemployment rising up to 7%. It was only until Harding came along and later Coolidge that the economy started to recover. Unemployment then dropped to 3% during Coolidge's presidency. [2] According to Shlaes: "In July 1921, there had been 5.1 million Americans out of work; now that figure was 1.8 million. Manufacturing output was up a third since that time. Iron and steel production had doubled....The national debt of $28 billion, nearly all war costs, was finally down to $17.65 billion." [1] Coolidge saw over 200% growth in the Dow Jones average, but Wilson didn't even see any growth. [3] Foreign Policy Wilson is likely one of the most ruthless and wreckless presidents we've ever had. When he was an ideologue who could not give the smallest compromises to US action in the League of Nations and as a result he achieved little during his overall presidency than several hypocritical invasions of countries like Mexico. He later said that he simply did it to teach the South Americans to elect good leaders. [4] Coolidge on the other hand signed an important peace pact called Kellogg-Briand. This helped him cut more defense spending to balance the budget and achieve a large surplus by the time he left. [1] Constitution Wilson, being the mean man that he was, actually did not believe in the Constitution and what it stood for. He criticized it and hated the checks and balances of the system. He firmly believed that the state should have full control over everything (in his opinion executive branch) and followed the teachings of the German scholar Georg Hegel. This guy was an awful president. In comparison, Coolidge receive a classical education and greatly supported what the Constitution stood for. He brought the presidency back to something of what the Founders would support. [4] Sources 1. Coolidge by Amity Shlaes 2. http://www.heritage.org... 3. http://money.msn.com... 4. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the President by Stephen F. Hayward
Feminism is not pointless

Sorry about my argument for the last round, apologies to Mr. Wanless for having his account closed. I will now present an argument in the hopes that Charlie_Danger's account is reopened. Feminism: a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women. [1] Pointless : [2] 1 : devoid of meaning : 2 : devoid of effectiveness The current idea of Feminism is pointless. In the 60s or 70s, Feminism did have a point, it did work to make voting rights for women etc., however Feminism as it is today, is pointless. The idea of Feminism defeats itself. Feminism is what women want to make sure they are treated equally as everyone else, however, they use Feminism as a tool to provide them with certain rights that no one else can have. These include inflated pay, etc., [3]. With this new breed of Feminism we have just created a group of misogynistic women who prefer double standards to men. In addition to this, there are some women who face unnecessary backlash from Feminists. These women are those who would prefer to stay at home with their children, who like being subservient to their husbands and who enjoy doing domestic work. Feminism is a doctrine that advocates equal rights for women. It no longer advocates equal rights for women but more tries to create a double standard and give them more of an "edge". Therefore it is devoid of its original point, therefore it is pointless. I don't really care one way or another about Feminism, I just found it an interesting topic. I thank Charlie_Danger for his argument in the first round and hope he can return to the rest of the debate. Sources: [1] - wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [2] - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] - http://www.progressiveu.org...
Feminism is not pointless

I thank Charlie_Danger for accepting. Feminism has created a breed of women known as Feminazis. These women create vile double standards about men and how they should be treated in regards to women. These women have created vile and detestable things such as: The stitch and bi*ch Changing wife beaters to "white" beater and truly the list goes on. Feminism is pointless because it is no longer accomplishing the goals it set out to. We now just have a bunch of short haired women who yell about how men should be castrated and that chivalry is dead.
Geocentrism

I will scientifically prove that the entire universe rotates around the immobile Earth. To win this debate, I must prove the following points:1. Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun.2. Earth does not spin/rotate. 3. The universe does spin/rotate around Earth. If my opponent appeals to Special Relativity or General Relativity, I will refute those theories as needed.The first debater to forfeit a round automatically forfeits all 7 points to their opponent. I'm looking forward to this, and welcome RainbowDash52 to my debate!
Geocentrism

If hypothetically geostationary satellites are hovering over a nonrotating Earth because of the gravity of the spinning universe, since gravity gets weaker with distance, any object past the distance of Earth"s geostationary satellites would not be pulled by Earth"s gravity strongly enough to counter the gravity of the spinning universe, and thus we would expect these object to accelerate away from Earth, but this does not happen. Earth has satellites above geostationary orbit [1] and they aren"t accelerating away from Earth. This contradicts my opponent"s claim. " A modern analysis by Roberts shows that Miller's experiment gives a null result, when the technical shortcomings of the apparatus and the error bars are properly considered.[B 7] Additionally, Miller's result is in disagreement with all other experiments, which were conducted before and after. For example, Georg Joos (1930) used an apparatus of similar dimensions to Miller's, but he obtained null results.[2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Geocentrism

My opponent argues that the gravity of Earth has nothing to do with if the universe spins. For all the stars, galaxies and the rest of the stuff that makes up the universe to rotate around the Earth, there must exist a centripetal force strong enough to keep these objects in orbit. Without this centripetal force, objects will travel in a strait trajectory. Since my opponent didn"t claim that Earth has a strong enough gravity to give the rest of the universe enough centripetal force to orbit Earth, my opponent must give an alternate explanation for the missing centripetal force for geocentricism to be plausible. Without this explanation for the missing centripetal force, there is no explanation as to how the rest of the universe could rotate Earth. My opponent claims the centrifugal force of the universe cancels out the force of gravity on geosynchronous satellites, but my opponent fails to understand what centrifugal force is. "Centrifugal force (") is the apparent force that draws a rotating body away from the center of rotation. It is caused by the inertia of the body."[1] Since under the geocentric model, geostationary satellites are just hovering in place as opposed to rotating with the earth, which means these geostationary satellites don"t move and therefor don"t have inertia and therefor can"t have a centrifugal force. Even if the rest of the universe did spin, that cannot give nonmoving objects a centrifugal force. My opponent sited this source [6] in attempt to prove Miller"s experiment. The source is dozens of pages long; my opponent gave no information as to where in this large pdf the quote is; and to make things worse, the entire pdf is just images of text as opposed to text so I can"t use ctrl f to locate my opponent"s quote to verify that it is there and used in the implied context. It is unreasonable to expect me or the judges to read through that entire source to locate the relevant information, and therefore it has not been made known to me nor the judges if what my opponent sited from the source is correct or not. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.anti-relativity.com...