BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Republican party can win if if goes back to the reason for it's original success

You're right, the bad and good elements are mixed. I hope you're right that our generation will be more educated about politics. However, I think there's a certain personality (yours, mine) that enjoys Politics and generally wants to stay informed. And yes, although I won't be old enough to vote in '08 (grrr) I have observed the same thing you have in people a few years older. The Media does control quite a few opinions. It has become a sort of Religion. However, if the media will be the deciding factor in the next election, our generation is in better shape because only a very small fraction of people our age watch news on TV. We get our media mostly from the web, which has more of a level playing field. RightWingNews, Townhall.com, and Redstate, not to mention Human Events, National Review Online, and the American Spectator are all Conservative, not to speak of Conservative bloggers such as myself (www.mosingsonlife.blogspot.com.) I think that there's a natural upswing of Republicans near election time. My theory there is that there are still people who are uninfluenced by the media, who don't get involved in Politics, but who awaken from their hibernation every four years, or at the least every two, and vote. These people tend to be Blue-Collar Christians, and they generally tend to vote Republican. Because of these wonderful people and others, I don't view this election as a foregone conclusion.
The Story of Noah's Ark Cannot Reasonably be Accepted as True

I extend and conclude. In closing, I would like to relate a few personal details. I work as a Field Clerk for a pipeline construction project, an occupation that pays me very well. Despite the compensation, there are long stretches of time within which I am often forced to unceremoniously sleep in a cramped and cold trailer with a dozen other men - far out in some godforsaken Wyoming wasteland. Rather than suffer this indignity, I have converted a Jeep SUV into a very comfortable RV/sleeper. This affords me the field luxury of privacy and mobility, but with the sacrifice of space. Much of this contest was written slowly on an iPhone (like now),emailed and then transferred to a laptop, and then finally to this site. This process has led to unforgivable formatting errors, and other inelegances that have combined - to convince me that this debate should be re-prosecuted. I apologize to the judges who might have evaluated this contest, asking that these failures not be judged too unkindly. I will do the entire thing again, and soon.
The Story of Noah's Ark Cannot Reasonably be Accepted as True

According to a recent Gallop poll, some 46% of Americans believe in creationism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...This is a terrifying statistic, which if true, requires that 46% of Americans are also likely to believe that the story of Noah's Ark must be literally true. With a consumer base this large, a Kentucky theme park had been planned to consume some $40 million dollars in taxpayer money, with Noah's Ark as it's prime focus. [1] The makers of the Creationist park had hoped to lend credence to the biblical account of the flood, in part by constructing a full scale replica of the famous boat.Hence this debate, which I will use as a means of examining creationism. In this debate, I will attempt to describe good reasons why a reasonable, sane adult - upon first learning of the story of Noah's Ark - would not be likely to believe that it is a true and accurate account of historic events. Con will need to demonstrate how the Noah's Ark story does represent an accurate account of history. I am normally quite relaxed about rules. I do ask that we not resort to semantics. I also ask that we reserve the final round for summaries of our best arguments. Any other rules can be negotiated in the comments section. I will, of course honor any agreements made there. [1] http://www.christianpost.com...
Macro-evoluton is valid

Endogenous retroviruses, avida simulation and phylogentics make up some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. Rules: start off with 3 arguments max. Absolutely no gish galloping. If you're going to take part in debate, do not forfeit rounds. If you are unable to make an argument, post your argument as "forfeiting round," I will do the same, and then we can continue debate. Note: The definition given above is what evolution is. Regardless, if someone wishes to debate against the notion of "macro-evolution" feel free to accept the debate. The definition is mainly only there to stop people talkling about astrophysics or other irrelevancies to this topic. I'm not one to get bogged down over mere definitions about what evolution actually is and prefer to get straight into the science as soon as possible.
Its Men Who Need Liberation Not Women

What you are doing dear con is absolute plagiarism. You are just going on different sites and copy - pasting the arguments.I request you to post your original arguments and not those of others. Coming back on the debate. Men are hurt by the male gender role and patriarchy and that men's lives are alienating, unhealthy and impoverished. It is often sympathetic to feminism and seeks to emancipate men in the same manner by which women continue to seek liberation through the feminism. They believe that men are overworked, trained to kill or be killed, brutalized and subjected to blame and shame. They give attention to the damage, isolation and suffering inflicted on boys and men through their socialization into manhood. Thank You for reading my argument.
Its Men Who Need Liberation Not Women

On 19 Nov last year, I heard about International Mens Day on Radio. Initially I felt amused !! With little bit of contemplation, however, realized that it holds relevance!! " Men Don't Feel Pain" ""!! Men have been stereotyped like that. Feelings of sensitivity like jealousy, frustration, fear, nervousness or insecurity are not be reserved for women, but men are expected to never show these feelings. The issues of discrimination and exploitation at work & sexual of boys and men is all here". Shorter life expectancy of men, prostate cancer, high male suicide rate, our collective tolerance of violence against men, the struggles that boys face in getting education and the unique challenges of father-child relationships"are few more that come to mind straightway"We must stop overestimating the privileges that men and boys supposedly enjoy and at the same time appreciate their struggles, achievements and contributions to society. Men make sacrifices everyday in their place of work, in their role as husbands and fathers, for their families, for their friends, for their communities and for their nation. Let me now discuss the specific issues of men where we demand Liberation 1. Men need liberation from being family breadwinners or ATM cards. All responsibilities should be shared by all adult family members.If there is a family business, the son is forced to join no matter how unsuited or how unwilling. 2. Men should be able to pursue their dreams. Men need liberation from a system that expects them to " marry, ensure their spouse is dutiful, and have sons to carry on the family name "and the same responsibilities. 3. Men need liberation from being "protectors" of women. Girls who do not have brothers manage perfectly fine, women who do not have sons or husbands learn to "protect" themselves. I think families should make an effort to encourage girls to take care of themselves, so their brothers " sometimes years younger " are not forced to be their "protectors". 4. Most parents are selfish when looking for a life partner for their son. The happily married daughter is seen as an asset to the family name and honor, but not a happily married son. 5. Paternity leave. Men to be granted paternity leave I would like to conclude with the remarks that why talk of just Women Empowerment ? Why don"t we talk about equality or humanism. It is high time for normalization and neutralization.
Resolved: Discrimation against a transgender employee is "sex discrimination" under the CRA.

Darn, I was swept away this weekend and need to run to work in 5 minutes. I will make a quick argument because I will not be back in place within 9 hours. Two predicates: 1. In the case of Oncale v. Sundale SCOTUS said that the CRA of 1964 was to be applied beyond its original intent, in that case male on male sexual harrassment. 2. In the case of Pricewaterhouse v. Hopkins, SCOTUS held that it is unlawful to require people to fulfill sexual stereotypes. In that case, a woman was not promoted because she was not feminine enough. Two arguments: 1. "But for" argument: If you fire a transmale, for example, because you believe he is "really" female, you would not have taken that position but for the chromosonal sex of the employee, e.g. XY. 2. Stereotypes: Trans folk do not fit the stereotypes of their chromosonal sex. This fully implacates the Pricerwaterhouse case. 3. Sex v. gender: Sex is far more complicated than we can imagine. It means more than chromosones or genetalia. Nature loves complexity and all kinds of intersex conditions exist. Gender identity is in the brain, biologic, and therefore is part of sex. I would elaborate on this if I had the time. For further support, see the EEOC ruling in Holder v. Macey and the 11th Circuit opinion in Glen v. Brumby. That opinion was written by a potential SCOTUS appointee of Trump, Pryor, but he did not get the slot after conservative media emphased Glen v. Brumby. Sorry for the short answer but I'll do better. I didn't think I was going to draw an opponent and had not been looking. Hopefully, that is enough to be getting on with.
Resolved: Discrimation against a transgender employee is "sex discrimination" under the CRA.

I will start the affirmative in round two. Assume the following: 1. An American employee is fired by an American employer covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 2. The employer fires the employee soley because the employee is transgender. Let's make this employee a trans male (female to male) who has taken testosterone for some time and looks like a short, bearded, balding man with a deep voice. 3. The firing does not have any religous basis. We will only be addressing the question of whether this firing is "sex discrimination" under Title VII, not whether there might be some other defense (like a religious liberty defense). I hope the challenger has some familiarity with the legal and social issues involved but this may be difficult judging by the comments thus far.
God did not make the world perfect

I take the position that God never made the world perfect. The Bible never says he made the world perfect, it just says that he made the world and heavens. The Serpent, evil, and ability to sin proves that the world was made imperfect. The Bible also never says that Adam and Eve were perfectly sinless in the sense that they can never sin, it implies they were innocent. I believe in the beginning, God's plan was never to create a perfect world, but to create a world of imperfection and perfect it through the work of Jesus Christ.
God did not make the world perfect

It seems that my opponent and I are not on the same page. That, or he's excusing himself for not taking into account that other Gods, doctrines, and beliefs from a multitude of other religions exist. I'm sorry if you were expecting a "Christian" debate. Welcome to the internet: a place where religions come to die. http://m.youtube.com... I decided to partake in this debate with the intention of using the "God attribute" to justify itself; perfection. I will remain with all the contentions I've made throughout the debate. Either God and his/her creation are both perfect or God and his/her creation are both imperfect. Here is my summary of why: 1.) God is perfect 2.) Everything he does is perfect, otherwise he wouldn't be considered perfect in the first place 3.) What he does/did was create the entire universe 4.) He created the universe with the intention of including it in his perfect plan 5.) Perfect plans never go astray; they will never fail 6.) God created evil and suffering; he created "imperfection" 7.) Imperfection is part of his perfect plan 8.) Therefore, evil and suffering are going perfectly according to his plan, hence perfection all along Whatever works perfectly in someone's eyes, especially God's eyes (the supposed creator of the universe) is considered perfect. We only call ourselves imperfect because our standards for everything always fluctuate. Since God's plan should never fail, then it is logical to conclude that these "imperfections" are working perfectly, hence the illusion of imperfection is removed and therefore everything that God created is perfect to begin with. Thank you.
God did not make the world perfect

"There are two watchmakers. One perfect, and another imperfect. You can question the semantics of a perfect watch all you want but the perfect watch is a watch that works 100% of the time and will never fail to tell the correct time at any exact location. The perfect watchmaker creates perfect watches 100% of the time. The imperfect watchmaker creates perfect watches ___% of the time. The imperfect watchmaker is obviously more likely to create imperfect, unstable watches than the perfect watchmaker who will NEVER fail. One day, the perfect watchmaker strangely decides to purposely create an "imperfect" watch. The imperfect watchmaker asks the perfect one why he would do such a thing when clearly he should never fail. The perfect watchmaker contests that it's all part of his "perfect plan". Time passes and for whatever reason he had, the watchmaker concludes with strong conviction that his "imperfect" watch worked PERFECTLY and went according to his perfect plan. This was a simple reiteration of my stance on why there is "imperfection"; it's all part of God's perfect plan. Just like the perfect watchmaker, God created the world imperfect for a perfect purpose. Since God's plan should never fail, then it is logical to conclude that these "imperfections" are working PERFECTLY, hence the illusion of imperfection is removed and therefore everything that God created for her purpose was really perfect to begin with. Think about that." I would prefer if my opponent would simply stick to Scripture to back his claims up. "Genesis 6-7: that's not the point, he STILL killed/allowed the killing of innocent men, women, children, and every other living species; and it's evident with every other verse I provided. Does that not sound cruel and immoral to you?" Who am i to question if it's immoral or not? Not the point of this debeate I was expecting someone to debate solely on Scripture. We're talking about the Christian God, not just any God, but i should've phrased my debate better
God did not make the world perfect

"By trying to squeeze in "imperfect creations" within a "perfect plan"" The point of this debate was to show that God did not plan to make the world perfect, so your argument falls apart. These are accusations by a site which has no clear cut proof that it's how it is. Genesis 6-7 if you look at the context, he doesn't get mad at everyone, he only is angered by wickedness, but spares those who respond to him in faith (Gen. 6:9, 7:1 2) This only further proves that God did not make the world perfect, but that by killing these people off for the evil they done, he's in a sense making it perfect (I don't have time to explain it in this debate, we're getting off topic) 3) Once again, of course if you disobey God, death will result. It's the sign that God didn't the world perfect. By what standard of evil do you deem his actions evil? Yours? You assume that because God is perfect, he is obligated to create a perfect universe which isn't the case. The fact that God made the universe and sin is present shows that he is able to create but allow imperfection for a greater purpose, doesn't imply that he's not perfect, just that he allows imperfection. You have not shown that God made the world perfect which is supposed to be your burden of proof.
God did not make the world perfect

As my opponent stated, God is perfect in the sense that he does not sin, however the current world that we know doesn't imply that God is imperfect as we note the following: 1. God gave the commandment to Adam and Eve to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, disobedience would result in death. Now where did evil come from? I don't know, but the point is that by knowledge of good, it produced in man evil. Notice that God was not responsible for the actions of man. It is human beings which were given the choice to eternal life or spiritual and physical death. The fact that God allows sickness and errors in the world isn't his fault, it's our own. 2. perfect beings do not always make the world perfect in the way that we'd like them to be. My opponent failed to back his claims that God condemns/condones immoral acts. All we know is that God is perfect. God causes evil, but the Bible doesn't say that he created it. God punishes sin by death, but he is not the author of death. Therefore, you cannot bring a strong case against the character of God. With that in mind, my opponent drifts away from the topic at hand. I am arguing that God never made the world perfect, he simply made the world as it is.
God did not make the world perfect

I shall begin by asking one question: is God perfect? If your answer is yes, then we shall look at your definition of perfection. Perfection as you claim is the lack of evil and suffering. Evil is defined as profoundly immoral and malevolent. synonyms:wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious and more. Suffering is defined as the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. With this in mind, you would as a Christian detest to the claim that God is an evil and vile being that promotes suffering. Here's the thing: http://atheism.about.com... 1.) God is morally perfect (premise) 2.) Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1) 3.) Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1) 4.) The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God 5.) In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes 6.) It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts 7.) The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist. Obviously number 7 is not the subject of this debate but now you are locked into considering two things: either God does not exist due to too much incoherence, or the world that God created for us is indeed perfect. Everything fits your definition. All that's left for you is to say that God is not perfect and therefore the evil and suffering he created for this world is not perfect to. If you still insist that God is perfect, you must agree to the logic that perfect beings do perfect things 100% of the time. Therefore, God's creation is perfect, including evil and suffering. Therefore, this world is indeed perfect. Either that, or your God doesn't exist.
Marijuana should be legal

As of round two- First; There is still no warrant be it logical or empirical; Second; my opponent relies entirely on pathos based appeals, which have no place in this kind of debate. Third; the extent of my opponent' reasoning is his personal experience. Thus it is invalid as it can neither be proven, and it will be biased towards his own opinion Fourth; the moment my opponent paints the scene of teenagers being raging alcoholics, he considers then thus, and by attempting to retract this statement, he completely and utterly loses all impact any impact he could have hoped for.
Marijuana should be legal

My opponent claims that Marijuana "Should" be legal; should indicates an ideological change to the status quo; i. e. "You should go to bed" or "the other canidate should have won" Point being that the only burden of proof I have is to show why my opponent is wrong, I do no need to make a case for why marijuana is bad or shoud be Illegall That said, let us examine my opponent's argument; First; My opponent makes no clarification of the realm of legality that marijuana will be legal. Are we to assume then that we will be allowing kindergarten children to now legally smoke marijuana dunring recess? Second; My opponent tries to make marijuana seem good by making it sound less harmful than another vice (Alcohol) however we already know that alcohol is bad, thus he really makes no positive case for marijuana and we have no reason to legalize it.
We need to reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Let me first acknowledge that homosexuals Americans, like all Americans, are patriotic and love their country , however, the long held Military principle that homosexuality is fundamentally incompatible with Military service remains correct. Below you will find statistics and evidence that shows that the lifting of the ban on gays serving in the Military has caused a great deal of problems within the Military. In the year after the repeal of don't ask don't tell, a survey was conducted of military personnel on the issue of sexual assaults. The survey showed that there were 26,000 sexual assaults, 14,000 of those were male on male homosexual. This represents over 50% of the total despite the fact that it is estimated that only 2% of the military is homosexual. These findings were initially published in liberal GQ Magazine as well as the Washington Post, a liberal newspaper. . http://www.thenewamerican.com... . http://dailycaller.com... . http://www.frontpagemag.com... Additionally a study conducted in 2015 by the American Psychological Association, by no means a conservative organization, concluded that the male on male homosexual assaults are being under reported by a factor of 15 times. The APA concluded that the actual number of male on male homosexual assaults could number as many as 180,000, which includes 60,000 actual rapes. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... When you add in the under reported homosexual assaults, the percentage of sexual assaults in the Military committed by homosexual men skyrockets to over 90% of the total sexual assaults being perpetrated by only 2% of the Military. These numbers represent an epidemic problem. The skyrocketing of the homosexual sexual assaults coincides with the lifting of the ban. The reinstatement of the ban is crucial to eliminating this problem. While those who proposed ending the ban on gays serving openly in the Military were well-intentioned, it is clear from the statistics that the lifting of the ban has created an epidemic of male on male homosexual assaults. All-Americans, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual deserve to have an Military that is able to operate in an nonsexual environment. It is imperative that we reinstate the ban on gays serving in the Military so that the Military can focus on the primary mission of protecting our country.