BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
McCain will be a better presidant than Obama

All right, I'll go line by line. McCain has the Know-how: You say he flip-flops on gay marriage, the Confederate flag, immigration, and torture. I will show you, a) why that is false and b) why it wouldn't really matter. a) Gay marriage: McCain has never supported gay marriage. While I may disagree with this view, that is irrelevant. If you mean his vote against the Constitutional ban, he did that in order to let states decide. Confederate Flag: In 2000 he made a mistake in saying it should be allowed on top of the capital building. In a current debate he contradicted this, saying he made a mistake, it shouldn't be on top. The flag is only a campaign "issue" in SC, it has no bearing on whether McCain flip-flops. Immigration: On February 7 2008 he said this in a speech to the Conservative Action Conference: "On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration. " That isn't flip-flopping, that is just saying that he won't try this again until a border wall goes up. He is not saying he feels it needs to go up for successful immigration policy, but that he feels that his bill won't pass unless this happens. That is simply recognition of a political truth. Torture he has never ever, ever supported. He has always been against torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc. I found no credible evidence to the contrary. b) It doesn't effect his ability to be a good president if he flip-flops anyways. A candidate's stance on an issue is not going to make or break their presidency, it is their actions with the issue. I could have all the right policy ideas, yet I could still be a horrible president, as I have no political experience, this probably is true. McCain has connections: Okay, he has lobbyists as friends. If you spend 24 years in Washington, you'll get to know them. Just because they're lobbyists does not mean they can't be nice friendly people. Friends watch out for each other. It happens, it's not like it will effect his presidency. There is little evidence that they have more of an impact on him than on any other politician. He has tried to limit lobbyists too. McCain-Feingold anyone? Also, he has voted with Obama on many of the lobbyist-killing bills. I happily await my opponent's response.
McCain will be a better presidant than Obama

Thank You for accepting 1. McCain has the know-how Maybe so. He knows how to flip-flop on different issues such as gay marraige, immigration, and the confederate flag business. Or maybe he has the know-hows when it comes to being against torture when it comes to him, but a couple of people in Gitmo, and even the events of Abu Gharib, then he sudden;y has different feelings. One thing that McCain has that Obama doesn't have is inconsitency. Obama has veiws that don't sound very popular to the Washington insiders like McCain and Clinton, but his voting record and his work even before the Senate, Obama shows the same determination to help people around him, and abroad. 2. McCain has connections. I am willingly to agree. He has many connections: cCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates, according to the latest finding from government watchdog group Public Citizen. The group, which advocates for public financing of elections, has identified more than 2,300 well-connected individuals, known as "bundlers," who have solicited contributions from friends and associates on behalf of a presidential candidate. (http://abcnews.go.com...) Another one of his friends that McCain says "is a great pleasure to have on this campaign". Obama has passed several bills while in the Senate to lower the influence of Lobbyist. I know Obama has coorprate donors to his campaign too, but Obama raised more money from the public during his campaign than anyother canidate on the ticket, but McCain has gotten the most money from special intrest groups than Obama. I'm sorry I have to cut this short but I'm in school right now and the bell is about to ring, so I will respond to the next two points next round.
McCain will be a better presidant than Obama

1. McCain has the know-how. McCain has spent 24 years as an elected official. He knows the ins and outs of Washington DC. When Congress and the President disagree, they are forced to make a deal. McCain has friends and experience that he can use to help make the deal better for his side, rather than Congress's side. Obama on the other hand is new to Washington. He right now does not have the know how to work the system. Although he is very smart, when it comes to working the District he is fairly ignorant, as he only has 4 years of Washington experience. 2. McCain has connections. As I said earlier, McCain has many friends in Washington, on both sides of the aisle. Proposing legislation takes many connections, or else the proposal will fail. Obama, as he is so new has not established these connections. Without these connections, no matter how good or bad his healthcare plan is, it won't get enacted. 3. McCain can handle the stress better. McCain has a sixteen year old daughter, that is his only child living at home. Obama has to raise two young girls. McCain's daughter will be off to college soon, while Obama will be dealing with his daughters for the rest of his presidency. This, although not an amazingly limiting factor is one of many that will hurt Obama. 4. Deval Patrick is an indicator of an Obama presidency. Deval Patrick, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, ran a similar campaign as Obama, and they both share many of the same views. Patrick is also a quickly rising star, but his lack of experience made him an ineffective governor. He did not have the Beacon Hill connections to get important things done, although he tried. As he and Obama are very similar, we can expect a similar outcome.
God exists

Resolution - god existsDefinitions:God - omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, conscious, immaterial, being that actively intervenes into our world, listens to our prayers, judges us after we die. Basically it's the god of the Bible or Quran. If my opponent wants to add some other properties that's fine too.God under discussion is not an idea, not a word, not a concept. God doesn't equal consciousness, god doesn't equal conscience, god doesn't equal energy etc. I hope it's clear now what kind of god I want to discuss.Burden of Proof:Burden is on my opponent to prove that above mentioned god exists, he or she may use whatever kind of evidence, argument or proof he or she likes.I will be showing that arguments presented are flawed in some way or another therefore insufficient to arrive at a conclusion that existence of the god is a fact, plus I'll present my own arguments for the absence of god which my opponent should rebut.I know that there are people completely convinced that the existence of god is a matter of fact so I think this BoP is fair.Rules:1. My opponent should start his or her argument in the first round.2. My opponent is not allowed to make arguments or rebuttals in his or her last round so we can have equal number of rounds to argue. He or she should make his or her final remarks in next to last round. In the last one he or she should write "thank you for debate" or like.3. No semantics4. Arguments have to be in written form. Articles only serve as sources. It's unacceptable to link an article or pdf document, call it an argument and expect rebuttal to it.5. If my opponent accepts debate it follows he accepts all rules, definitions, and BoP mentioned earlier.Good luck and have fun!
The Qur'an is not a miracle

Dear opponent, you are convinced that the Quran is not a miracle, and your mind wouldn't accept otherwise because it is what you want to believe. My reasons do not convince you, as yours do not convince me too. You might think that my arguments are unreasonable, but that's how I feel about your arguments too. There is no proof of Muslims' violence and mass killing. "so this is completely off-topic." I know it is off-topic but brought it up since you brought it up first by saying "What's troubling though, is that Muhammad made a lot of incorrect predictions as well." The Hadith regarding Fatima is from Sahih al-Bukhari: http://sunnah.com... There are points that I did not respond to. There is no point in arguing this matter. As Allah said in the Holy Quran: "And We have certainly diversified in this Qur'an for the people from every [kind of] example; but man has ever been, most of anything, [prone to] dispute." [18:54] I apologize for frustrating you. However, what is more frustrating is that you once were a Muslim. Since Muslims are like brothers and sisters, we lost a brother. I hope you won't have to regret that you left Islam (which I think you will) Your arguments did not convince me, did not make me think, and did not refute my arguments. I thank my opponent for his efforts. Good luck.
The Qur'an is not a miracle

You are not Arabic, and you don't speak Arabic. If you could, you would find the Quran miraculous. You only read the translation of it, which does not show the perfection of it, and which sometimes is not translated right. It is ironic that you post those videos as if they were your opinion. Oh and you believe what they say which makes no sense. "Better than any poem ever written" does not mean that there is no one that can compose something even better, because they are humans after all. EVERY single piece of writing can be re-composed, but not the Quran. Even the Bible/Torah or any religious book is not as eloquent. You might not feel the eloquence because you can't speak Arabic. If someone can compose something that is as eloquent as Quran then you can say it is not a miracle. I challenge anyone to do that. The most eloquent Arabic-speaker in the world would not be able to! There are more and more scientific facts, if these do not convince you. But what's the point in saying them? you would deny that they are elements that makes the Quran miraculous because you're convinced by the opinions of these guys in the videos that the Quran is not a miracle. The Quran was revealed in the 7th century, and scientists explored the same facts way later. It is not only about the scientific facts but also that they were revealed at a time when science was not at its best. Then what about the movement of the Earth, the split of the moon which scientists assured there is a mark that it split, the darkness in the seas, I don't think someone could explore/acknowledge these facts at that time, except the one who CREATED the universe - Allah. Oh, if the fact that the bodies of the water don't mix why didn't scientists discover this earlier? Sorry, but the URL you provided is blocked in my country, therefore I could not look at the information. However, I would like you to provide me with a few of Prophet Mohammed's predictions (which are not predictions but revealed facts) you claim are incorrect. You are saying that the events that are told in the Holy Quran are predictions! Dude, they are NOT predictions, they are facts that are told by Allah. He knows them because he is the creator of us, he knows what will happen to every single person, every single creature I should say. predictions you say? He is not predicting, he is telling. He told Muslims that they will open Mecca, and they did. Since you brought up Prophet Mohammed, I would like to give examples of correct facts revealed by him. Of course Prophet Mohammed would not know them by himself, but Allah revealed them for him by revelation. Prophet Mohammed told that Constantinople will be opened/conquered by Muslims at some point, which happened in the era of the Ottoman Empire. Also, before Prophet Mohammed died, he told his daughter Fatima that she will be the next one to die from his family, and that happened, and a lot more.
The Qur'an is not a miracle

Dear Pro, I accept your challenge "The Quran is not a miracle." I oppose my opponent by saying the Quran IS a miracle. I know that many people are with the Pro, however I'm going to state my opinion. First of all, the Quran is a revelation from Allah, it was revealed to Prophet Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. It is the words of Allah. It is a miracle because: - It is eloquent, people of that time who opposed the Prophet Mohammed were challenged to write/create a verse that is similar to it, but of course they couldn't, because it's a miracle. The guy in the video said no one can write exactly like Shakespeare or whoever, but someone can write with the same level of eloquence. However, no one can write with the same level of eloquence of the holy Quran, even if they were Arabic. The guy also mentions that not everyone talks with Arabic and that's why they can't write something similar to the Quran. Nevertheless, The Quran is Arabic because it was sent to Arabic people, Mohammed was Arabic, of course it would be in Arabic. Also, Arabic was a language that a LOT of people talked with. That also doesn't mean that the Quran was sent ONLY for Arabs. - It contains scientific facts. For example, it is said in the Quran that parts of the sea/ocean does not mix, "Between them is a barrier [so] neither of them transgresses." [Quran 55:20]. It's also mentioned that the sun does move, "And the sun runs [on course] toward its stopping point." [Quran 36:38]. Oh and the gravity is mentioned, when did newton think about it? in 1600s. There are a LOT more scientific facts in Holy Quran. - It tells things that are yet to happen/unseen. For instance, telling that the Romans will defeat the Persians. A few years after the severe defeat of the Byzantine armies by the Persians, this verse was revealed in the Quran, "The Romans have been defeated. In a land close by; but they will soon be victorious-Within a few years. Allah's is the command before and after; and on that day the believers shall rejoice."[Quran 30:2-4] In 622 AD at the Battle of Issus, the Romans successfully defeated the Persians, confirming the prophecy in the Quran. I would also like to say that the guy in the video said that Muslims themselves don't believe things in the Quran. How did he know? he heard one or two misguided Muslims claiming that? did he ask every single Muslim is the world and they all said yeah we don't believe?
cheese should be illegal

Okay, this debate is very funny. I think that cheese should be illegal. While French cheese may still be the Holy Grail for many food lovers, getting hold of it everywhere in the world can be tricky, thanks to global food regulations. Last week, the United States put a blockade on mimolette, the brightly colored orange cheese that traditionally hails from Lille. To refine the flavour of the cheese, mites are deliberately introduced, a practice that up until now has not caused a problem. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has claimed, however, that the tiny organisms could cause allergic reactions and halted the sale of Mimolette , outraging French producers and importers of the cheese in the US. Sources: http://www.theguardian.com...
Today, festivals in India are more money and glamour rather than culture and tradition

India is a country with a vast diversity in religions. All kinds of people live here. Diversity in religion means a lot of festivals are celebrated here. This may seem interesting but there is a rumour that these festivals are all about money and no tradition today. This is not true because festivals are a part of tradition and the culture is a factor that keeps it alive. Although indians today think that festivals have no tradition left, they are wrong because the sole reason why we celebrate festivals is because our tradition is alive. No one forces us to spend money on the festivals but we are the ones who spend on them. It is up to us whether we want to celebrate it glamorously or humbly. If the festivals were celebrated solely for money, no one would have bothered to even carry out the events and rituals which are a part of the festival. But people still retain their culture and tradition and thus they celebrate the festivals.
Today, festivals in India are more money and glamour rather than culture and tradition

Why do men seek expensive wedding rings for their wives? Why are vast amounts of money spent on funerals? Why do some people have extravagant birthday parties? My opponent, indeed, has it right. You can have traditions without spending grand amounts of money. My point is merely the means to end and the value those put upon "celebration" not because they feel the need to spend large amount of money arbitrarily, but rather the money they spend that they feels equates its "purpose." You can a nice celebration on Thanksgiving without spending that much money, yet still money is spent on the food industry just about as equal to giving someone a Christmas or birthday present.Its extremely interesting to me on how the human being places the value of money beyond its original intent, and that is to buy stuff that fills the requirment for an event having "spiritual validity." Since humans began their first rite-of-passage traditions they have constantly shown an internal measure that by which material = meaningful praise. I tend to believe someone has an internal "extravagance factor" in that which feels needed in some situations. Indeed, there is no better example than ones wedding, and yet many women will state "Spending alot of money on a wedding is silly." Nonetheless, all of these women (and men .... :P ) will go to some lengths to secure that amount of "Prestige." If my opponent is completely right, which I honestly wouldn't mind as I tend to rarely celebrate even the most important holidays and tradition, if we take his words and put it into practice it would be an interesting case of causation that if money weren't spent, the capitalist appeal loses its grip upon the world and less social conscience may not arise from the bottom, but from the top where the continually bombardment of capitalistic re-enforcement takes place (unfortunately). There would be no reason for others to uphold their traditions, and I make this point acknowledging it is extremely shallow and truly wish we could forget our material bringing to what we feel is sacred. Again, I'm not arguing "should", I am arguing "as it is." I thank my debating partner and I think we agree on more than we disagree.
Today, festivals in India are more money and glamour rather than culture and tradition

As you say that a tradition loses its importance if it is not properly funded, it is not true because as long as the tradition is alive, we don't need to bother its importance because the community which follows that tradition always works to keep it alive. Take for example Thanksgiving celebration, where it is celebrated only among the family members and the only expenses are food and small decorations for the attending guests and even Christmas, where people only gift each other and go to the church for special service. Now, this doesn't reduce the importance of Christianity even though both those festivals are celebrated in a simple way without any huge celebrations and as far as 'catharsis' goes, the reason of celebrating the festival itself can bring about change in a person's attitude and thinking because festivals are at last celebrated to commemorate an event in a religion's history. So, I firmly believe that festivals in India are still lively in terms of culture and tradition and the 'money' factor is subjective, varying from person to person. So, I rest my case here!!!!!!!
Today, festivals in India are more money and glamour rather than culture and tradition

When considering this topic there is a debate on two levels that I bring up on the word "Should." Whatever-culture "should" not spend that much money on traditions, which I agree with, however I am in disagreement as far as financial freedom. You dont get to say what others can spend their money on.Furthermore, I actually do accept at least some validity in the claim of spending money as some sort of psychological benefactor. I dont think that an extravagant amount of money should be spent on tradition on a fiscal sense, but if I am take the idea of their "catharsis" as ultimately beneficial, then one can see that if more money is spent on something the more meaningful a tradition is and the money spent, in this regard, helps the nation fulfill its sense of purpose. If a tradition is not fully funded than the tradition is not as important, and thus its beneficiality relies upon the impact of the celebration which may or may not serve the means to its end.
The gay marriage ruling in the US should not be overturned

I would like to open my statement by saying that I find the legalization of gay marriage to be equally a conservative victory as it is a liberal victory. I do not see how it is primarily a liberal issue, and not a bipartisan issue. As liberals typically seek to change the current system, and try to ensure equality for all groups of people in all backgrounds, they believe they have made progress with the Obergefell ruling for placing same sex marriages on the same level as straight marriages. As a leaning conservative, I also found cause for celebration on the day it was legalized. As a conservative, I do not believe that it is at all the government's place to decide who a man or woman, should they be gay or lesbian, who to marry. I see marriage as an exceptionally beautiful, and personal thing, between billions of different groups of people, that no federal government could begin to understand. Some of my conservative friends have stated their discontent with the ruling, referring to it as an "overreach." But the way I see it, it would be a far greater governmental overreach to suddenly strip millions of LGBT couples of their marriages. I have come to know and be good friends with several gay people in my life, and I am very glad to have had the privilege of meeting them. I would never wish the tyranny that is now being threatened upon them. If I were a conservative who also happened to be born gay, I would feel very threatened, rightfully so, that it would be entirely possible for the national government to make a new law or ruling taking my right to love and marriage all over again, just with a new majority on the judicial branch - a branch, I might add, is supposed to be apolitical. I would like to ask Con what the difference to him is between the law restricting the right to a free choice of marriage between two individuals, because it conflicts with what the Bible says, and the law restricting the right for an individual to attend the church of his choice, because it conflicts with what the Koran says?
The gay marriage ruling in the US should not be overturned

The issue this debate is going to be about is whether or not, as SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch is about to be confirmed, even if given the opportunity the Supreme Court should not overturn the Obergefell ruling which legalized same sex marriage nationwide. I will be arguing Pro (the Supreme Court should not overturn gay marriage). My opponent, of course, will be arguing Con (the Supreme Court should overturn it).