BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump consistently tells lies and contradicts himself

Tongue-in-cheek sarcasm aside, Trump actually does repeat Fox News rhetoric as gospel. Let's just PunditFact to examine the veracity of this fine organization's "journalism": http://www.politifact.com...Actual, fact-checked quotes:- ‘(The diversity visa) lottery is ridiculous, as you know. They take people from a lottery where you can imagine these countries are not putting their finest in that lottery.’- ‘You look at what's going on where somebody comes in who's bad, and yet they'll have 24 members of a family, not one of them do you want in this country.’- ‘You catch them, even if you know they are a criminal, you catch them, you have to release them, by law. You have to release them.’- ‘We have the worst immigration laws in the entire world by far. Other countries laugh at us, and it’s because of the Democrats. It’s because of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.’- ‘The Democrats are sticking up for MS-13, you heard Nancy Pelosi the other day, like trying to find all sorts of reasons why they should be able to stay’Some articles:- http://www.businessinsider.com...- https://deadline.com...
Donald Trump consistently tells lies and contradicts himself

Interesting article again. However, I did not make it thru the first NYT example without immediately seeing the fallacy of this article. (I did in fairness read the entire thing.) Now I say this..... It was the most unsupported article I ever read. Please, stay with me. For a moment, set aside this debate. Read the article again, with the expectation the BOTH SIDES have to identify a source to support their claim. Now to make it easy... Let assume TRUMP DID IN FACT say all those things. That would mean the NYT is the only one that has to 'PROVE or otherwise demonstrate TRUMPS statements are a lie. You will notice they do not cite sources of verification or anything in most cases. They are simply the authors opinion or commentary. This is literally the first sentence of the first example... and most follow the same methodology. Jan. 21 "I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq." (He was for an invasion before he was against it.) Where does the NYT prove their claim? They don't. That's just an unsupported opinion. Then they move onto the next one. Throughout the entire article... they quote the Date... His statement... and their 'counter'. Which in most cases is an unsupported opinion. And some are stated as matter of fact. Its ridiculous. Example.. Trump says something went smooth.... NYT says 'it didn't'... That's not proof of lying. That is literally an opinion. When Trump says a new agency apologized. NYT says "They didn't".. NYT does not identify who they spoke to at the referenced agency stating they in fact DID NOT apologize. Seems that would that be easy to do and verify?? Maybe someone at agency DID call Trump and apologize. Good chat. Was fun. I liked the debating... But yeah... Trump is a clown. I don't like the way he drives but I like where he is going. Regards...
Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

Be concise and stick to the point. Got it. Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If I tell you that Santa Claus exists, I have to prove it. If you explore the entire Arctic and find no trace of a toy factory, you must assume I was wrong. Based on the available evidence, it is far more likely that I lied/was mistaken than that Santa Claus exists. The same goes for God. The available evidence (and lack of supporting evidence) contradicts God, making it more likely that the "God hypothesis" is a load of bull. Points: 1. Genes code for proteins, which code for everything about an organism including the ability to display religious behavior. As religion itself is not genetic, I used quotation marks when I said "religious genes" to show that I wasn't seriously suggesting a gene that directly and absolutely makes you religious. Religious fervor has environmental causes as well, so no genetic analysis could determine religion. 2. O.R. requires that both explanations fit the evidence and make as few EXTRA assumptions as possible. An explanation that requires only the physical evidence is making fewer assumptions than one that requires physical evidence + God. That's just basic math. 3. If God has left evidence, what is it? I may have the burden of proof, but that doesn't let you off supporting your side with facts. 4. Actually, hallucination is a simpler explanation than God. We know for a fact that people hallucinate, but we have to take God on faith. Taking something on faith is making an assumption, so O.R. favors hallucination over God. 5. Actually, witness testimony depends entirely on the credibility of the witness. A druggie is not a credible eye witness, while a respected scientist is. A raving religious fanatic who denies Evolution is also not a credible witness in the context of proving God. 6. I'm not part of "the boys club of the new atheism" and I resent the ad hominem fallacy. If you have an actual reason why the examples I gave are not good enough, please address them directly instead of brushing them aside and saying "not good enough" without explanation. Same goes for my argument in general, if my case doesn't work then explain why instead of just saying that I haven't made an effort.
Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

I've never done a debate before, so forgive me if I don't follow standard protocol. It is my opinion that God doesn't exist. Science currently explains most natural phenomena, and the uncertain stuff is because we haven't found the answers yet. Non-believers are capable of moral behavior, so God obviously isn't required for that. And we are yet to see a genuine miracle occur. There is no evidence or need for God's existence. I'm not fussy about who my opponent is, but please use proper grammar/spelling, be polite, and make a reasoned argument based on evidence.
Based on the available evidence, God probably doesn't exist.

There is no published model regarding God. No evidence can be acquired that will prove or disprove God's existence. We are merely dealing with how probable it is, not proving it beyond reasonable doubt. Occam's Razor is therefore highly appropriate. Acceptable Evidence: - Experimental evidence is always acceptable. - Testimony is acceptable ONLY if it is first-hand and doesn't contradict experimental evidence, and it can ONLY detail the facts of what happened. So "the preacher touched my leg and it was healed" is okay, but "the preacher touched my leg and God healed it" is not. The witness doesn't know God healed them, they are just assuming. Anything from the Bible is invalid, because those people are dead and cannot testify. If somebody claims they saw a chair levitate, we must be able to gather evidence and then apply Occam's Razor (which usually shows that the person is delusional). - Documentary evidence is acceptable ONLY if the facts within can be verified by testimony and/or physical evidence. Which means the Bible is not a valid source, as it can be verified by neither. Points: - The appendix is still vestigial because it no longer serves one of its original functions, yet it still has the machinery to perform that function. - Here: http://www.nature.com... http://www.evolutionnews.org... https://www.google.co.nz... - Aside from the fact that the rest of the Bible tells us sex is immoral and shameful, your argument regarding male nipples simply doesn't work. If God gave men nipples for sexual pleasure, why didn't he stuff them with 8,000 nerve endings like he did with the clitoris? Either God made male nipples to get us off and he did a poor job, or Evolution made nipples for women and couldn't be stuffed making them gender-specific. The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity who is obsessed with whether hairless primates are virgins on their wedding nights is a FAR bigger assumption to make than the assumption that Natural Selection sometimes gives organisms traits that they don't need purely because it has no reason not to. - Random, unguided mutation is, by definition, random and unguided. This is in direct conflict with the idea of Intelligent Design, which states that God GUIDED the process of Evolution. - This is the last round I can argue and I have no idea what you consider to be adequate proof. Just refute my points and we'll let the voters decide if I made enough effort. Chances are they'll vote based on personal beliefs rather than how well we debated, but oh well.
Hillary Clinton should be in jail because she has broken the law

I might have not made myself clear, in which case I completely apologize. I do not agree that she should be in jail because of said reasons. Basically because of her intentions (lack thereof). To my memory, David Petraeus did not go to jail and only got a misdemeanor and firing. Considering how Hillary's actions didn't really compromise sensitive US documents or deleted them like David did, then she simply did a mistake. Besides, she's not the Secretary of State anymore, so she can't get fired from that position. Regardless, I enjoyed my debate with you, and hope we can debate once more. Have a good day!
Hillary Clinton should be in jail because she has broken the law

Yes, David Petraeus did do a lot worse than HC, but what exactly HC did was still illegal, no matter how much worse someone else's deeds were. It's still illegal, and the punishment is still jail time. The only reason that she got off the hook was because the person giving the trial was a jerk, as I have said before. The second reason why HC should go to jail: in her private computer database, which was set up in a closet with no locks, she contained Top Secret information, some of which was already Top Secret when sent to her. A Secretary of State has no privileges to Top Secret documents, so keeping those was illegal. On top of that, she had no security around it whatsoever! That is illegal too. Also, if I'm right, this looks pretty easy: http://m.wikihow.com.... Again, that same jerk did the trial, and she got off the hook again. That jerk! Also, this is : 'Should Hillary Clinton be put in Jail', not 'Will Hillary Clinton go to Jail'. Thank you for debating! It was fun!
Hillary Clinton should be in jail because she has broken the law

As much as I'm not neither a Hillary fan nor a Trump supporter, I will admit that logic and reason surpass the average American's exaggerated ruling on Hillary's email violation. You see, David Petraeus was the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I doubt you can disagree that the CIA's information is profoundly more important than the Secretary of State's, right? A few years ago, he also misused the government email server he was given but unlike Hillary, he actually got a misdemeanor and had to be resigned from the CIA. How come he had to resign and get charged with a misdemeanor while Hillary gets off the hook? What an outrage, you say. Well, you see it's all about intention, the removal of said emails and who the classified information was given to. David Petraeus had an affair. He cheated on his wife and was meeting and communicating with a woman he met. In order to lessen the risk of getting caught, he decided to use the government secret email to email her and send pictures to and back. At this point, he truly betrayed the nation by breaking the three rules: - He intentionally used the government email server to construct emails that were not related to the United States and instead for personal use. - He gave out his secret government email address to a non-federal employee, breaking the code of the typical citizen having access to said secret addresses. Ergo anyone who doesn't work the government cannot ever know the email address - He deleted all the emails send to her and back to him which is a clear and irresponsible violation because anything on the government's email server must NEVER be deleted to ensure lack of corruption and fraudulence. With that being said, he deleted emails he wasn't supposed to, he sent his email to an ordinary public citizen, and he intentionally did something he KNEW was criminal. And so he got charged with a misdemeanor and pleaded guilty. Hillary on the other hand did not break the three rules: - She did not even use the federal government's email to send out the classified emails, it was through her private server. Gmail If I remember correctly. - She did send the emails to anyone from the public. All her emails were directly sent to her co-workers in the federal government. - She never intended to misuse the emails or do any wrongdoings with them - Because of the above reason, she never deleted ANY of the emails and kept them for the Feds to investigate. Hillary made a mistake, but it wasn't as big as David Petraeus'. Is it worth a misdemeanor or felony? I believe not, nor does the FBI. The Feds did however insist that she was extremely careless with it, but never meant any harm, and clearly didn't hide anything. Once more, I'm no Hillary supporter but I wont accuse her of something based on my hatred for her, or my support for Trump. I take logic, reason and proper investigation facts before I take a stand on any topic.
Hillary Clinton should be in jail because she has broken the law

That's alright! I can always launch it again ;-) So HC (Hillary Clinton) should be in jail because she has broken the law many times. One at a time. With her private email server, HC had government personnel set it up for HER OWN USE ONLY. That is illegal. Government personnel can only set things up for people if it's for the good of the public. Fortunately for her, the person giving the trial was a jerk and let her off the hook. Even now, she has so much power that they wouldn't throw her in jail.
Diseases are caused by sin.

"If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you." Exodus 15:26. Yes, but there is very spiritual Christians getting sick. A friend of the family a nun, died of cancer. I don't think it was because of any unconfessed sin. There is also many examples of very faithful followers becoming sick with terrible diseases that modern science has labeled heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. Yet, if we exclude science there must be a religious reason for these diseases. Corinthians 6:19-20: "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies." 1 Corinthians 3:17 "16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are. 18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise." Genesis 6:3 "His days shall be an hundred and twenty years" (Gen. 6:3) I conclude that disease is not caused by sin as long as one if faithful. Instead disease is caused by failure to honor God with our bodies. Thanks for reading. https://www.biblegateway.com... http://biblehub.com...
Diseases are caused by sin.

That same book says " in reality the cause of that sickness might be the violation of some natural laws of God?" Plus, the question isn't about Christians getting sick, it's about diseases being caused by sin. This book is close to that topic, but it it doesn't talk a lot about diseases, just people getting sick. And, if you do consider that close enough to the topic, then John 5:8 says "Sin produces sickness, pain, and degeneracy.".Romans 5:12 also says this "Sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Both of these bible quotes say almost the opposite of what you said, and are just as close to the debating topic as what you said.
Diseases are caused by sin.

I would say that not all diseases are sent to punish sin, but some are. The ten plagues aren't really diseases, but according to the bible they were sent to free the slaves in Egypt. I found a site that quoted this from the bible. "But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram"s wife Sarai." Genesis 12:17. These diseases had been sent because of the Pharaohs sins. Another quote from the bible said this: "He said, "If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you." Exodus 15:26. God does heal you, but as this says, when you do sin like the Pharaoh did, you may get a disease. God does not always create diseases because of sin, sometimes he creates them just to put us through trials, and to strengthen us, but sometimes he does put us through them because of sins.
Diseases are caused by sin.

I know almost nothing of religion so please go easy on me. I found an interesting wiki I don't really understand but would love some input. "For example, in a 1772 sermon entitled "The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation", the English theologian Reverend Edmund Massey argued that diseases are sent by God to punish sin and that any attempt to prevent smallpox via inoculation is a "diabolical operation".[10" I Con will attempt to argue that disease is not caused by sin. Pro will argue that disease is caused by sin. Thanks in advance. Rules: Stick to religion no science allowed that includes anything related to the scientific method. This includes Louis Pasteur's germ theory and Darwin's theory of evolution. Remember these are scienfic theories and cannot be used in this debate. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://inventors.about.com...
Legalization of suicide

The human population is currently 7 billion and is completely ruining the planet. It is taking up countless resources such as oil, water, food, land etc. Many animal species are endangered due to humans. If suicide was legalized, human population would reduce, thereby reducing resource consumption, land shortage and rate of pollution. It would save time of the cops as it won't be a crime, so there would be less paperwork and less resources of the police invested in such cases. Police would pursue actual criminals rather than these suiciders. People who attempted suicide don't have a normal social life afterwards. People always would think there is a chance he/she would attempt it again, or some other reason for bias. Hiding the suicide attempt, changing locations etc. increase complication for the person. We don't need such demotivated people to live in this world. Suicide is a cowardly attempt that should be punished by death (irony). While people can recover after suicide, is it really worth it? All that care should be diverted towards patients who actually want to live. The survival instinct is natural. The person who goes against that and kills himself isn't a normal person. And plus, legal suicide could have suicide centers where you have to sign a document and attend a few counselling sessions before killing yourself. After all, it isn't nice to go out on the driveway and find the dead body of your neighbor on your car. Not sure if I would be angry about my car or sad about my neighbor. Suicide can be made illegal at homes, only legal at suicide centers. That way at least illegal suicides would reduce. Plus, suicide from a rooftop can sometimes leave you alive and crippled, which would be worse than before. Media uses suicide to increase its ratings, if suicide was legal it wouldn't be such a massive event. The only reason suicide is illegal is morality and pity for its victims. But then if you are that far gone that you kill yourself, I don't think you deserve pity. Population reduction is more important the morality.
Common Sense (Gun Control)

This is just a quick run down. I'm not sure where you live, But where I live people with past violent crimes in their history are not allowed to buy/own firearms. I do believe that people can be against common sense gun control while simultaneously not wanting mentally disturbed people to own firearms. Though you have to also realize that some shooter's mental state is only noticed after an incident. ~100, 000 people are murdered by firearms a year in America. Though, Over 2. 1 million people are saved by them. Mass shootings - Though mass shootings are almost becoming common recently, More people die from cars a year than mass shootings. Guns in general - 20 years ago, You could see people with guns in the back seat of their truck. Were there any mass shootings/major problems with them then? No, That's because guns are thermally activated. Someone has to have the guts/will/ignorance to pull the trigger. It's not the gun's fault, It's the user's. I believe we should ban criminals, Wait, We basically do. Though I'm not completely sure where you stand, I will quickly break down why I don't believe in Common Sense since I'm really tired. 1. It would ban some hunting rifles as well. Many states allow AR-15's and "high capacity rifles" to hunt. The most common argument that I've heard is that, "If you can't use it to hunt, You don't need it, " I understand that there are Common Sense supporters that agree with pistols for self defense. But you also have to think about the other side. Would you rather have a pistol or rifle to defend your home/self/others with? 2. The people - I believe that we should attempt to get people to start helping those who have mental problems. Though I know there will be mistakes here and there, Like Nick Cruz, Where the FBI failed to check his record correctly. These recent generations are the problems here. You didn't really hear a lot about school shootings in the 1900's. Right? That's because they were disciplined and had a harder life. Plus, Kids are making kids do this. Most of the time, The mental illness is caused by bullying. There is a very easy solution here. Get schools and parents to do more about the bad kids, So they don't make the good ones do something bad. I am only doing two reasons here. And to clarify, I do believe that we need a small amount of more laws. But, Only ones that help prohibit violent people, Mentally distressed people, Etc. From having firearms of any kind.
Common Sense (Gun Control)

Happy to think with you tonight. My argument will be along the lines of: 1. Mentally challenged people, Violent criminals, And people with disturbed pasts are permitted to legally buy guns. The common argument Pro-gun people will make when a school shooting occurs is "they were mentally disturbed" et cetera. One cannot simultaneously be against common sense gun control and hold the position that mentally disturbed people shouldn't have access to guns. Therefore, A critical contradiction exists in the argument against common sense gun control. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht