BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

I'm glad to see you are not like other conspiracy theorist calling me a government agent or a brainwashed victim of the U.S. government so I thank for this, and also engaging me in this debate, now as for your doubts on the attacks of September 11th. 1.) WTC 7- World Trade Center 7 did not fall in complete free fall. At one point it did for 2.2 seconds, and that was the west side of the tower. When the tower began to collapse the incredible resistance due to the 7th floor ceased the free fall acceleration. Do not let biased conspiracy theorist tell you other wise as they believe and spread the theory that WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds, which is extremely misleading and incorrect. 2.) As for fire never being the primary cause of a collapse of a steel frame structure, this is untrue just look at Windsor Tower, The Faculty of Engineering building and even World Trade Center building 5. Sure the Empire State Building didn't fall because the plane that crashed into the skyscraper in 1945 was first moving at a much lower velocity and was a much smaller plane. And to clear the record, no one ever said the jet fuel melted the steel in the twin towers. 3.)The Melted steel that was found at ground zero was a chemical reaction of iron, hydrogen, and other chemical reactions and elements found at the site, if you want me to go into long detail of the chemical equations that caused this molten steel, it requires some sort of degree in chemistry. Its a lot to take in if you don't know certain aspects of chemistry but I can try to explain it to you, if it is what it takes to believe the truth in on September 11th. 4.) The black box recordings that were never found I don't really have an explanation for that. But it doesn't really prove anything that helps your skepticism, as their were phone calls made from the hijacked airliners by terrified passengers, just do a simple Google or as I prefer Bing search of the recordings, its available my friend.
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

First off you talk about science. Well we were told building 7 fell at the rate or gravity or free fell which is only possible with controlled demolition. The U.S government was also warned 40 times on Bin Laden hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in New York. The 9/11 commission report said the buildings fell because of fire. Well fire can't drop a sky scraper. The Empire State Building survived a plane crashing and a big fire in the 1940s. A skyscraper in China recently burned out but didn't fall as well. The jet fuel which was gone in a matter of minutes can't burn steel either but yet melted steel that was like molten lava was found on the site. Just look at all the major U.S wars that started with lies too. WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Iraq wars all involved lies. Also there were no black box recordings with the two planes that hit the towers, but a passport of one of the terrorists survived the ordeal. So as you can see a lot of things about 9/11 don't add up.
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

There has been many theories and rumors that surround the attacks of September 11th. These misleading theories disregard logical and reasonable thinking, undeniable science, and physical evidence. I invite anyone that can provide evidence, scientific proof, and a reasonable stand point then I am open to debate, debunk, and disprove. I am not on a biased agenda. If cold hard facts that are supported by science and reason are presented, I will fully acknowledge them and truly take them into consideration and if this information is correct and trumps my side of the debate then I am duly willing to accept defeat and admit the flaws in my side of the this debate.
Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art

My opponent declares that art must pass certain standards in order to be categorized as art. I have a difficult time following his line of thought, as I have always envisioned art to be an extremely broad term. Going by my opponent's argument, we cannot logically conclude that those things are not art. We can only conclude that these pieces stray from the traditions of past artists and that my opponent dislikes them. I argue that it is impossible to give an objective scale to measure whether something is art or not, so my opponent's declaration that "X is not art" is false. Simply put, everything is art.
Art that has no discernible point--Modern or Postmodern--is not art

First let me clarify: There are several modern/postmodern artworks that I find appealing. They do take skill, and on some level they make a point. Frank, by Chuck Close, at the Minneapolis Institute of Art is one example I can think of. However, many more so-called works of "art" are everything but. I guess I can only really show you by example. I went to the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in D.C., and was amazed at how utterly pointless it all was. A few pieces especially stuck out. http://hirshhorn.si.edu... This is sloppy and pointless. It could have conceivably taken an hour to paint, I'd guess less. Where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? This is compounded by the fact that the museum has 20 pieces by this artist, most of which follow this theme. No skill, no creativity. Or what about this one, by Lichtenstein, at the Minneapolis Institute, my home turf. http://www.artsmia.org... Once again, we see no point. At this link there is a short blurb, where you can see the museum's laughable attempt to give it a point. "Of Lichtenstein's various recurring motifs, the brushstroke, as depicted in this color screenprint of 1967, is among the most enduring icons of his art. In a parody of the painterly gesture associated with the Abstract Expressionists, he represents the brushstroke--the principal signature of the artist--as an object in its own right, a visual pun frozen in time and space. Placed against a field of colored dots, Lichtenstein's motif mimics the photomechanical printing methods commonly used to produce comic strips, thus reflecting both his Pop art sensibility and preference for the impersonal and machine-made image." So, it's a brushstroke, made to look like a comic strip, which shows us a preference for the impersonal. I'll ask again: where is the beauty? Where is the truth? Where is the art? I trust I don't have to give more links. I once saw a painting which was simply a canvas covered in salmon-colored paint, in different textures. Aside from the repulsive color, it had no purpose. It was not art. The Metropolitan Museum in New York is a prime example of this: they exhibited a picture of the Virgin Mary in a jar of urine. Why? Not to improve, art's true purpose, but to degrade. To desecrate. It is meant to shock. Once again, it is not art. Art, to define the term, is truth and beauty. It has aesthetic quality. It appeals. It is aesthetic. This trend in art, from Andy Warhol to Roy Lichtenstein to Pierre Alechinsky, is to move away from real art. Thanks, Sola Gratia
God doesn't exist.

"This is a non-sequitur. You have not proved anything before this, and so they could not have created the universe." - They make atoms, and atoms make everything that literally exists. So I think it's highly possible they could have created our universe, and everything out there. "This is completely unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation. It is also incredible that you consider the creation of the universe as such a minute thing." - It is a "minute thing". God is all-powerful, he can do it in a flash (as he is all-powerful).
God doesn't exist.

It is remarkable, you have still left my entire argument untouched. Please respond to it "What if protons and neutrons follow the same principle as this God" You can make a "What if" comment about literally anything. This proves nothing. This hypothetical proves nothing. You must prove how protons and neutrons follow the same principle as a god(s). "Protons and neurons could have easily created the universe as we know it. " This is a non-sequitur. You have not proved anything before this, and so they could not have created the universe. "And as far as we know that's all God has done really, besides lounging in heaven. :)" This is completely unnecessary and adds nothing to the conversation. It is also incredible that you consider the creation of the universe as such a minute thing.
God doesn't exist.

I'm quite sorry about that. Here's another logic question. What if protons and neutrons follow the same principle as this God. They are simply there. No beginning, certainly no end. They weren't created or made, they just are. Technically protons and neutrons have "godly powers". Protons and neurons could have easily created the universe as we know it. And as far as we know that's all God has done really, besides lounging in heaven. :)
God doesn't exist.

You have ignored my entire argument, and have failed to disprove even a single point I've made. The statement made to be debated is "God doesn't exist". I argued that, not the existence of a single, specific, virtuous god(s), but merely the existence of a god(s). You even ignored my disclaimer saying that I would not prove the existence of a specific god(s). "No, a god or supernatural being can't exist." You haven't validated this in the slightest. In fact, it is circular reasoning stemming from your first claim, and is logically fallacious. Your first question is ignoring the definition of a god(s) that I presented. A god(s) is not "made" of anything, because to be "made" is a quality of the natural world. God(s) is not part of the natural world. It is not bound by the natural world. To be comprised of matter is a limit of the natural world. God(s) does not fit that description. Your following 3 questions ignore my initial disclaimer and the statement at hand. I am not arguing for a specific god(s). Nor am I arguing the quality of said god(s). I am simply arguing for the existence of a god(s), as stated in the title of this argument. You've completely ignored my argument and disclaimer and strayed from the statement at hand""God doesn't exist".
God doesn't exist.

No, a god or supernatural being can't exist. 1. What is the god made of? 2. How old is he? 3. Is the Bible, Torah, Quran, etc. more compelling evidence than science? And finally here's a logic question. God can't be all good and all powerful at the same time. If he was, it would mean that there would be no sickness, death, or anything negative on Earth, as he is all good and has the power to take away all bad things being all powerful. But that's not the case. So god contradicts himself.
God doesn't exist.

My understanding of the statement is that God (as in any supernatural being) does not exist. I will not be attempting to prove the existence of a specific God, but merely a requisite being. Cosmological Argument: >Everything finite and contingent has a cause >The caused entity cannot cause itself >A caused entity must have a causer An infinite regress is not possible. This can be extrapolated to the natural, observable world. >The natural world is finite and has a cause >The natural world cannot cause itself >The natural world must have a causer The natural world is bound by physical laws. An entity outside the physical laws that bind the natural world would be necessary to cause it. The natural world cannot cause itself and must have a causer, so an entity that is not limited to the physical laws that the natural world is must exist. The necessity of being caused is a physical law of the natural world. Since such an entity is not bound by the physical law of the natural world, it does not have to have a causer nor be caused. The definition of a god: A being not bound by the laws that limit the natural world. Using the transitive property of equality, the entity needed to cause the universe is by definition the same as a god(s). There must be evidence of a god(s) The natural world exists The existence of the natural world is dependent on the existence of an uncaused causer. A god(s) is an uncaused causer. Therefore, a god(s) must exist in order for the natural world to exist.
The government has been complicit in spreading HIV in poor and black communities

If the government is aware of the consequences of a policy, and the government continues that policy, the government is complicit in those consequences. Some call this willful ignorance, but in fact, the government is quite cognizant of the human cost of the drug war, so ignorance is an incorrect charge. Complicit is more descriptive. My opponent rightly points out that the statistics I posted were only on men. Many women are infected by partners who use IV drugs, some no doubt without their knowledge. They are the innocents caught in the crossfire of a not only misguided, but lethal government policy towards drug use. Zero tolerance is another name for deadly negligence. My opponent points out that homosexual contact is a higher risk factor in the black community than IV drug use, but this does not bolster his point. In fact, the government has also willfully failed in its duty to contain a deadly sexual pandemic, despite the fact that cheap and effective means exist to significantly retard the infection rate. Condoms are not foolproof, but are the only weapon against sexual transmission of HIV, besides quarantine. The government has also failed its long recognized responsibility to contain a pandemic. My opponent invokes personal responsibility as a remedy to this problem. This statement is akin to telling the tide not to roll in. Junkies are going to use junk, because if they don't, they could literally die from withdrawal. People are going to have sex, even if the government puts its hands over its eyes, its thumbs in its ears, and sings, "la la la la la." Which is exactly what it has done, and is why it remains complicit in this heinous crime perpetrated on the public, and to the black community in particular. My opponent will no doubt attempt to argue the meaning of the word complicit again, so I'd like to offer this analogy. A man is drowning, and you, an able swimmer, are within 30 yards of him. You stay on shore and watch him drown, then walk away. Are you complicit in his death?
The government has been complicit in spreading HIV in poor and black communities

Hello. Thanks for starting this debate. Complicit- Associated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) What you are describing is negligence. The US Government has been negligent, if what you say is true. The website you are referring to, http://www.avert.org..., shows that your facts are skewed. The 34K blacks you speak of who are infected with HIV only account for those who acquired the disease through intravenous drug use (third table down from top). In 2006 there were 134,683 white males living with AIDS in the US. There were 127,359 black males living with AIDS the same year. These numbers are pretty close, but amongst females the number IS much higher amongst black females than it is amongst white females (about 61k and 19K respectively). This can be for various reasons. For one, the number of male to male homosexual contact reported amongst black males is much lower than in white males (almost double amongst white males), but the number of "high risk heterosexual contact" is 4 times as prevalent amongst black males than white males, and 4 times as prevalent amongst black females than white females. Because we are looking at totals similar in size amongst males, it is easy to speculate that there should be a more equal amount of homosexual contact as well as "high risk heterosexual contact" amongst both groups. These groups report for themselves, and homosexuality is more "in the dark" amongst black communities. Homophobia amongst blacks has been heavily reported on, and can attribute to many black males staying "in the closet", staying in heterosexual relationships, even marrying their girlfriends, and thus spreading AIDS more frequently through heterosexual contact. (http://www.republicoft.com..., http://tse.sagepub.com..., http://thevitalvoice.com..., http://articles.latimes.com...) (I could have provided upwards of a million references, but I thought that would be beating a dead horse). I also think that the argument that the government is complicit is more detrimental to blacks than the argument of personal responsibility. When you give people an excuse it denigrates accountability. Blaming the government will not lower the prevalence of AIDS amongst blacks. "At the very least, by not allowing an amnesty on needles, the US government is complicit in these peoples' illnesses." -The government sponsors syringe exchange programs (http://www.cdc.gov..., http://www.nasen.org...). The government provides grants of up to $75,000 for programs in 90 days of operation. The rest of your arguments are addressed under my argument for personal responsibility and accountability.
The government has been complicit in spreading HIV in poor and black communities

I will argue that the premise of Rev. Jeremiah Wright that so inflamed Americans is actually true. He argued that the government has spread HIV or been complicit in its spread, especially in the black community. My first contention is that the government, and their officials, make a lot of money from the drug trade. The drug war costs hundreds of billions when the money is all tallied up, and that money doesn't just disappear, it goes into peoples' pockets. Millions benefit from the prison system, including everything from guards to construction firms, and even agricultural firms. The CIA and FBI, Federal, and State police are paid many billions by the taxpayers. The drug war is a lot of peoples' livelihoods, and it is very lucrative. Sharing needles accounted for an estimated 34k black people living with HIV in the USA in 2006, the highest of any racial category (see: http://www.avert.org...). At the very least, by not allowing an amnesty on needles, the US government is complicit in these peoples' illnesses. My second contention is that the US government has been involved in the supply side of things, as well. This is an open secret, ex-officers and agents of the CIA have been spilling the beans for decades, describing tons of heroin and cocaine shipments from overseas, to ports unknown, known about to their superiors. Information about these activities is harder to come by, but it has been reported in reputable press, such as 60 minutes, and in respected alternative presses such as Playboy and Rolling Stone. If the government is indeed, or has indeed been both involved in the supply side of drugs, and negligent in their response to drug abuse, to the point of allowing drug users to share needles, and doing nothing at all to stop it, then they are complicit. The evidence seems clear.
The government has been complicit in spreading HIV in poor and black communities

Given that my opponent has failed to even attempt to prove his points, I am going to dissect his closing argument rather than attempt to make one of my own. He has made it quite impossible to debate against his position as he has provided no facts. "My opponent can't see ill intent in inaction"- I invoked one program you claimed not to exist, and personal responsibility. The government is not here to hold anyone's hand. "The problem that we're facing, however, is that we are all losers with zero-tolerance drug laws, and with the puritan ethic that ignores the real world consequences of apathetic government policy."- This debate is not about the drug war. My opponent invokes opposition to policies he knows are unpopular, but he doesn't address his own claims. He doesn't provide the reader with facts that would allow us to make a connection between his argument and the policies he mentions. Any assumptions are deteriorated by the facts I provided. "This is certainly not a matter of personal responsibility on the part of women."- If protecting yourself isn't a matter of personal responsibility then nothing is. "My opponent cites government sponsorship of private needle exchange programs"- I cited government Syring Exchange programs. This program is run by the Center for Disease Control. The program sponsors private programs through grants. "and defends them as adequate against my charge of neglect."- Your claim was not of neglect rather of complicity. My charge was of neglect. Complicity and neglect do not have the same meanings. "The problem with this approach is that the government is still taking a hard-line against drug users, driving them underground, and making them a lot less likely to participate in these sorts of programs."- First my opponent claims the programs are private, then he claims the programs drive the users underground. The fact is that the programs are set up in neighborhoods with high use. The programs are in those "underground" areas. "Owning needles without a medical reason can lead to a felony drug paraphernalia charge."- This statement is contradictory to your position. Posession of a disposable needle is neither a felony, nor a crime. Posession of a reusable needle is an obvious sign of drug use. Heroin addicts keep their reusable needles as part of their inventory of gadgets... much like a pot smoker and his bong. It's his and he won't use another. Paraphernalia posession is not a felony. Your claim is moot. "In this sort of environment, how can anyone expect chronic addicts to trust a needle exchange program?"- Chronic addicts could care less whether or not they have HIV. Even so, in case you've never been to these neighborhoods (which I grew up in), there are disposable needles everywhere and are often found in parks around the world. (http://www.capebretonpost.com...) I have run out of characters. My opponent has proved there can be improvement, but no complicity.