BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs.

I only need to make one argument to win this debate. For example, if there was a religion that said you have to kill 10 people per year in order to remain in good standing with god, should society not prevent these religious people from acting on their beliefs? According to your standpoint, these people should be allowed to murder without any legal recourse for the victims. In this case, Society needs to prevent people from acting on their beliefs!
A secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs.

I will argue in the affirmative: a secular society should not prevent religious people from acting on their beliefs. Second Arguments in favor of your stance. Statistics must be supplied. Third round is counter arguments and further comments. Fourth closing statements. Definitions: Secular society - A society where religion and the state are separated. Religion has no executive influence on the state and vice versa. Acting on their beliefs - Any form of religious practice. This includes wearing religious items and clothing.
Welfare is a Communistic Idea.

Pro said: Communism is the Idea that people works and everybody shares the benefits. First of all: work*. Remember that spelling and grammar are important on this site. Pro said: Through welfare, I as a working person, have to pay for those who don't to work or be productive. You do not pay the welfare. As a taxpayer, money you own that would have gone to something is going to something else, so your taxes would not be affected, and neither would the money you spend. Welfare can be thought of as a sort of assistance by the government, kind of like teachers helping you out when you have trouble in school. Communism is rather the idea that no social classes exist. I do think, though, that someone must be on the search for a job or already have one in order to qualify for welfare, which would balance out the system. P.S.: I still suggest you give rules, at least put them in the comments.
Welfare is a Communistic Idea.

Pro said: It is a communistic idea because it spreads the wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't. Regardless, this wealth would have been taken away from those who have it regardless of whether welfare existed or not, so maybe you would like to debate taxes as they are also a redistribution of wealth (from taxpayers to government). I agree on your point where it should be a form of insurance for people in between jobs, but there really isn't a way to check (at least, not easily), which is unfortunate. However you are currently not debating whether the idea of welfare is communistic, but rather the effects it has, meaning you are going off-topic. This debate is now over.
Welfare is a Communistic Idea.

It is the fact that it is misused that makes it communistic. There are people who don't work; they just live off the system. If it worked, it wouldn't be communism, but since it doesn't work it is communistic. As for the money going to something else, I would rather have my money go towards teachers, law enforcement, and public safety. Welfare is under the idea of "Spread the Wealth" which, basically, is communism.
Obama isn't that bad

Rebuttals: " I don't think so... He's pretty darn bad." It seems you have not provided evidence for your claim, and no reason to believe your statement. please show some evidence. More opening arguments: here are more reasons obama isn't that bad. " Requires large employers to contribute to a national health care plan " Spending growth under Obama lower than that of both Bushes, Nixon, Carter & Reagan " Came out against SOPA " Temporally suspended taxes on Unemployment benefits " Jail population decline for first time in decades " Wind power growth up 39% " Instituted the toughest Wall Street reform since Great Depression " Passed health reform: Others tried & failed over the last 60 years " Insurance companies can no longer drop you when you get sick " Stimulus Plan which brought us out of the brink of financial collapse " $100 billion to embarrassing, crumbling infrastructure: Most since Eisenhower " $60 billion to create renewable and clean energy " Credit Card reform stopping the most abusive credit card practices " Huge investment into science & technology " Quadrupled the number of openly gay judges on the federal bench " Amped budgets at NASA & National Science Foundation " Expanded state run health insurance to cover additional four million kids " Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act " Equal pay for equal work " Global initiative keeping nuclear material out of hands of terrorists " Hate crimes prevention act (Matthew Shepard Act) " FDA for first time allowed to regulate tobacco " Eliminated scandal plagued Mineral Management Services " Overhauled the astonishing stupidity of the student loan system " Cancelled bloated weapons program including useless F-22 " Stopped Russia supplying $1 billion of high-tech missiles to Iran promised by Bush " Tax cuts for small businesses " $14 billion in federally funded loans to stimulate job creation " Cut taxes for 95% of working families " Passed 16 different tax cuts for American small business owners " Fought GOP for Health benefits for 9/11 responders - He didn't forget. " Consumer spending increase
Obama isn't that bad

Opening arguments. here are a few bullet points on what good he has done: Unemployment lower in in 6 years. GDP up 3.5% Stock market at record highs. Outperformed Reagan on jobs, growth & investing: He was handed the biggest mess since the great depression and accomplished the following all in the face of the most obstructive congress in history: " Six straight months of over new 200,000 job added " Brought us out of recession worse than last 3 recessions combined " Jobs record: http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://www.whitehouse.gov... " Got more Taliban leaders in 30 days than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years " Auto Industry saved " Got North Korea to stop enriching uranium " Bin Laden dead " Nuclear weapons reduced by 1/3 in US & Russia " Stock market more than doubles " Stock market set record highs " Creamed Bush in turning around job loss " U.S Gross Domestic product went from steady decline to increasing every " of the Obama Presidency See graph " Ended Don"t Ask, Don"t Tell " Insurance companies must cover pre-existing conditions " Kids stay on their parent"s insurance until 26 under certain conditions " Requires health plans to disclose how much of premium goes to patient care " Prevents children from being denied health insurance coverage " Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%
Gun Rights

Re: (1) "Dictators prefer unarmed citizens." My opponent has given no reason to believe a dictatorship is bad, no reason to believe dictators prefer unarmed citizens, and no reason to assume the preferences of dictators have any relevance to the issue of gun rights. My opponent's contention thus has no impact on the issue at stake in this debate. My opponent claims it is the job of citizens to keep the government in check. I also don't see how this is relevant to the issue of "gun rights." First, the US government has an extensive system of checks and balances which keeps the government from overstepping its bounds. It is therefore unlikely that citizens will ever be in a position where they have to lead a violent revolution against their own government. Second, the idea that citizens can take up arms against the government in today's world is a non-starter. The government will always have bigger and better weapons, more resources, and more organization. There is no reason for citizens to pretend they have a chance, as they will be taken out before the revolution even begins. The only things a gun does is make it easier for people to kill other people. Re: (2) "The founding fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights." First, the quote my opponent provides does not guarantee a right to keep and bear arms for everyone. A careful reading of the Second Amendment only allows the carrying of arms for militia service, which applies to the right of states to have a militia. This does not mean every individual has the right to bear arms. The right of individuals to own guns is never established by the Constitution. Second, even if my opponent's reading of the Constitution is correct (it isn't), my opponent has offered no reason to believe the Second Amendment is right. I would argue it is no longer relevant. The Constitution was drafted at a time when allowing citizens to own guns may have had a positive impact, but the Second Amendment is now obsolete, because the idea of a citizenry rising up against the government's military is a non-starter, and because guns lead to murder and crime, making the cost of gun rights unacceptable. Re: (3) "Criminals prefer unarmed victims." The same argument could be turned around: the victims of crime would prefer unarmed criminals. My opponent's argument has no relevance to the debate, as the preference of criminals and the preference of victims is irrelevant to whether the government should prohibit individual gun ownership. The number of violent murders in the United States far exceeds countries that have stricter gun control laws. The cost of having guns readily available is not worth the benefit (if one can even be proved). An armed citizenry is not going to change the fact that gun rights perpetuates crime and murder.
Gun Rights

I have 3 arguments for gun rights. 1. Guns keep us safe from our government 2. It is our constitutional right to bear arms. 3. Guns keep us safe from criminals (1.) Dictators prefer unarmed citizens. In our own American history we have had to use arms against our government in the Revolutionary war. When our government oversteps its bounds it is its citizens' job to keep it in check. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson (2.) The founding fathers included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. It is our government officials' jobs' to uphold the Constitution. It is in there oath, and the Constitution states this right blatantly. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (3.) Criminals prefer unarmed victims Through the first six months of this year the city of Chicago have had an aggregate of 228 homicides. Chicago has some of the very toughest gun laws. It also has the most police officer killings than any other city. Just recently there was a shooting in a theater in Colorado. If one other person in that theater was carrying, the shooting would have been much shorter.
More Fantasy: BANANA MAN VS DSA PIGEON BOY

I AM THE BANANA MAN, & I'M HERE TO SPREAD TRUTH AND NUTRITION. MY NEMISIS, DSA PIGEON BOY, IS NOTHING BUT A CORPORATE SELL OUT. TOGETHER WE WILL END HIM In the comments please vote for TEAM B-MAN or TEAM PIGEON, if you vote Pigeon, you're dead to me.
A Priori Knowledge

However I will clearly state in this first round that I do Not accept my opponent's first offered definition and explain in what way I think it illegitimate. (Of course, however, I will restrain myself from actually offering an "argument" for viewing his definition as I view it for he has reasonably requested that I refrain from arguing the resolution in this first round) The definition I believe objectionable is this one:"A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed" For upon consideration of it I have found that the offered definition makes it such that the name "A Priori" is a useless addition to the terms "knowledge and justification", that is that the parts of the definition which supposedly clarify what type of knowledge "a priori knowledge" would be do not actually restrict the term "knowledge" in any meaningful way. That is, it is Not evident from my opponent's definition that what constitutes "A Priori knowledge" is any more limited whatsoever from what constitutes "knowledge" broadly. It is not clear that his using the name of "A Priori" to describe what he describes is at all informative. This would leave his naming such a thing "a priori" to be an indefensible, meaningless, source of confusion which should be dropped immediately. Now I'm not sure yet if I will look to expand on this stated problem I have with my opponent's definitions with arguments for viewing my opponents definition as I view it, following of course to offer what I consider a more sensible definition for "A Priori Knowledge", and argue against That notion, or if I will look to argue with my opponent from some other angle. I am so explicit about the nature of my objections to his definition Now because I do not want to be accused of "playing semantics" if I do pursue such a manner of argument after he had been so clear in his introduction that he didn't care to have semantical arguments. If My opponent does not believe such an objection to his definition, if supported by arguments, can possibly be legitimate in a debate such as this, or if such an argument simply doesn't interest him, I would suggest we end this before we get started. For I do think such Semantical arguments can be legitimate and m not willing to rule out my arguing with his definition in this manner. I hope that PCP will indeed continue in this process, and look forward to reading my opponent's opening arguments ard to what I would imagine should be an engaging debate 8)
A Priori Knowledge

IntroductionI thank mattrodstrom for agreeing to dialog with me on this topic. This debate will be about the existence of a priori knowledge and epistemic justification. I will be arguing that a priori knowledge or justification does exist and mattrodstrom will be arguing that it does not.TermsA priori knowledge and justification - A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed. [1]A priori knowledge is knowledge that rests on a priori justification. A priori justification is a type of epistemic justification that is, in some sense, independent of experience. [2] RulesThe first round is for acceptance, terms, definitions, and clarifications. The rest of the rounds are for debate. No semantics, please!Sources[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Donald Trump would be a Terrible President

Actually I didn't respond to any of your other arguments because they are completely unfounded, where did Donald Trump say that he wants to date his daughter? And what was the context of him saying any of these things? I know that what he said about Rosie O' Donald was true, but who cares, Rosie O' Donald is a Jerk and she deserves it. And Donald Trump does not hate women, he put a woman in charge of building Trump Tower, [1] and another thing, every woman who has ever dated the guy says that he was a gentleman, and if you watch an interview wit hi daughter Ivonka Trump, you will find that she has no self esteem issues, which is generally a sign that Trump is a goods father and anything but misogynistic. You are misquoting my argument, Donald Trump wants to ban Muslim immigrants from coming into the US, not Muslims who are already citizens. And even if Muslim citizens weren't allowed to enter the US, this would be fine since Islam isn't a religion, thus it's practices aren't protected under the First Amendment. And I can prove all of this, the definition of religion is; "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."[2] Does Islam have a moral code? Nope, because their code is not in the slightest moral. And Christianity does not call for murdering infidels, Deuteronomy 13 and 17 aren't commanding people to kill infidels, it is ordering Jews to kill any Jews who worship other gods, this law was isolated to Israel, nowhere does it say to go out and kill infidels or lie infant for them, keep in mind, this verse also orders there be whiteness's and a trial, so it doesn't violate the constitution since the 5th Amendment says "without due process of law." [1]. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [2]. http://www.dictionary.com...
Donald Trump would be a Terrible President

First of all, you do not win. I was on a trip and didn't have time to submit an argument. Now let's get to actual arguments. I notice you only addressed one of my arguments. From this, I am led to assume that you have no response to my other points. You are correct that a ban on Muslims entering the country would not mean the establishment of religion, but it's the other part of this religion clause that's important: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The religion of Islam requires all able Muslims to travel to the Arabic city of Mecca at least once in their lives, a pilgrimage called hajj. Because this policy would prevent Muslims from reentering the United States, it is, effectively, barring or restricting an important tenet of Islam. Therefore, this policy is indeed unconstitutional. Second of all, the Fourteenth Amendment does apply. It doesn't matter that religion isn't specifically mentioned. The amendment includes all people who are citizens of the United States. Therefore, this policy is unconstitutional on yet another count. Thirdly, you make this ridiculous claim that Islam is an "evil mysogenistic death cult aimed toward destroying all of our civil liberties until the world is all-Islamic and their false Islamic Messiah brings forth a Totalitarian Islamic World Super-State." This claim is completely unfounded. Since you are the one making it, it is also your job to prove it. Also, about the oath and its applications towards religions: Christianity also calls for violence against the infidel. Both Deuteronomy 13 and 17 call for people who have practiced religions other than Christianity to be stoned or hacked to death; thus, violating these same amendments that you cited. So if you're making this claim that Muslims cannot take the oath based on these Qur'an verses, I can also make this claim: Since being a Christian would prevent you from honestly taking this oath and following the Constitution, this means that any and all Christians who take this oath are lying, and thus, they cannot become citizens, and preventing Christians from becoming citizens would only be common sense enforcement of the law. Eagerly awaiting your response and hoping to see a reply to some of my other arguments in the next round!
Donald Trump would be a Terrible President

First off, a ban on muslims entering the U.S. would not constitute the estalihment of a state religion, that's absurd. Neither does the 14th ammendment have any relevance to this debate, because #1 it doesn't offer any protection to people who aren't citizens of the U.S., #2 it doesn't offer any protections on account of religion, and #3 Islam isn't a religion, it is an evil mysogenistic death cult aimed toward destroying all of our civil liberties until the world is all-Islamic and their false Islamic Messiah brings forth a Totalitarian Islamic World Super-State. Before an immigrant can become a citizen of the United States, they have to take the following oath:"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."This oath prevents someone from having any allegiances to foreighn powers and touphold the constitution of the united states. The Qur'an says in 9:111and 9:5 to kill all infadels, which would constitute a violation of the 5th ammendment, in Qur'an 5:33 says to torture infadels, which violates the 8th ammendment. Since being a Muslim would prevent you from honestly taking this oath and followingthe constitution, this means that any and all Muslims who take this oath are lying, and thus, they cannot become citizens, and preventing Muslims from becoming citizens would only be ccommon sense enforcement of the law.
Islam is not a religion of war and terror

If they were it for privacy, then why don't men wear a hijab type thing too. How can 3 - 5% be correct. If you paid attention to my links in RD1 you would have seen Ben Shapiro clearly outline just a few Muslim countries. The number of Muslims who believe those terrorist organizations and other things is over 50%. The lord's resistance army - OK, I agree The KKK - How are they, terrorists? How do you know that white supremacist was Christian? South Carolina, how do you know he was Christian? Olympics bombing - Ok, I agree. Iraq war - They did have/developing weapons of mass destruction. NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! Okay, here's the problem. I would say less than 1%, probably even less in Catholics (which is me) kill illegally. Sure some f*cked up groups in Africa do some weird sh*t. But the number of Christians who do that type of stuff is way under 50%. A lot of yours made no sense like the KKK and the two shooters. They didn't belong to a terrorist organization. Just because two random guys killed some people doesn't mean the whole religion is bad. This is untrue for Islam as more than 50%...
Islam is not a religion of war and terror

Its wrong to think that women that wear hijabs look funny and stupid. A hijab is worn to help keep the privacy of a woman. According to statistics less women are raped in the Muslim world than anywhere else... As i said only 3-5% of Muslims believe that what ISIS and these organizations do is correct. You said that all terrorists are Muslim.... let me give you a few examples of christian terrorists.... 1) The lords resistance army --> this organization maimed raped and killed over 100,000 people to establish a christian state. 2) The KKK --> christian terrorists 3) In a place called Quebec in 2017 --> a white supremacist killed 6 muslim men while praying 4) In 2015 in south Carolina ---> a white supremacist killed 9 black people to start a race war (isnt that terrorism) 5)1996 Olympics ---> a christian man bombed the olympics in Atlanta 6) and the USA --> attacking Iraq and killing thousands of people to find weapons of mass destruction... and when non are found all they say is sorry and steal all the oil. As you can see not all terrorists are muslim...
Islam is not a religion of war and terror

Yeah only 7% actually kill, but it"s disturbing to find that you think Islam is a peaceful religion when over 50% of its followers believe in those things. If they don"t want to kill Christians then why are they burning them at the stake, and in cages? My source for he hanging girls is Hisham 819. Now here"s the thing, not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. By the way Muhammad is a horrible man for making women wear hijabs. It"s hilarious how people at feminist rallies put on hijabs, as it"s he most feminine oppressing thing in the world.