BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is god evil

First the bible is horrific book written by "man" and there is the key the bible can be edited to suit any group we have seen this with cathlics and king james bible and the niv bible they changed many meanings of the bible from the orignal bible also they took out many books of bible so the bible is not a very reliable source so lets focus on what we know today back to 1 a. d. Becuase were pretty certain about what happend from there to now My first reason god is not evil he gave us life most likely not in the sense of whats told in genesis but still why would he make us if he hayed us Second is he gave us the abilty to go to heavon why would he do this if he is Third if your Talking about genesis than it says god made us in his image and I would not call humans evil If god is evil why does good always win in the long run
DNA Databases/profiling

I do agree with you that profiling is unfortunate. However, the way I see it, profiling is also an unfortunate necessity. If you were a TSA agent responsible for the lives of travelers at some airport and you had a number people to inspect, you would probably have to inspect the more middle easterners, not because you're prejudiced, but because, statistically speaking, it is that minority that happens to cause more terrorist acts than the other minorities. It's unfortunate, but a necessary trade off if you are responsible for the protection of lives. While DNA profiling does eliminate bias, DNA profiling is an unstable and fragile system. Criminals could plant DNA samples of innocents and those innocents would suffer as a result. DNA profiling could be used as a tool, but shouldn't replace the system already in place.
DNA Databases/profiling

One major problem in crime is the mis-representation for ethnic minorities and young people. This creates an anti-police attitude. In fact, two in five black men already have their DNA on record compared to fewer than one in ten whites. Justice cannot properly be given to those in a majority gender or ethnicity that holds more protection compared to the minorities. DNA profiling can eliminate the bias in crime by giving solid evidence towards who the perpetrator is. A computer does not discriminate against those of different color, age, and gender than the majority. http://www.theweek.co.uk... http://www.yourgenome.org...
The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance

In closing, I'd just like to point out again. I'm not against Ron Paul at all. I just believe that the majority of the Republican party has to actually support him in order for him to speak for the rest of the Republican party. Because that's what an election is, where you're choosing someone that represents you and your opinions and at the moment most REPUBLICANS don't have the same opinions as Ron Paul.
The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance

I think Ron Paul's views are better than those of any other Republican candidate, but that doesn't change the fact that unless the majority of Republicans vote for him he doesn't represent the majority of Republicans. At the moment most of his supporters aren't actually Republicans. There's Anarchists, Socialists, Libertarians, Democrats, Neo Nazi's/Skinheads/KKK, and even a few Conservatives(But a smaller percentage than the rest of his supporters.). Just because a group "should" change if they want to stay in power, doesn't mean it will change. That's like an Italian resteraunt calling itself a Chinese resteraunt, but it still only serves Italian food. If the majority of the party thinks one way, then that defines the party.
The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance

Although I agree with you that the United States should adopt a more open political system (with multiple parties), we must face facts that such a system will NOT come overnight, or even within a few elections. You have failed to noticed that I am NOT advocating a completely different approach for the Republican Party, rather that it return to its former positions. The Republican party USED to be the party of limited government. They USED to advocate low taxes. Ronald Reagan wanted to abolish the Dept. of Education, as Ron Paul does. The Income Tax was, for many years, opposed by the Republicans (and a few radical Democrats such as Huey Long). The Republican party has allowed itself, since roughly 1988 (based on what I know), to be dominated by Neoconservatives, converts from the Democratic Party that kept their fiscal beliefs. They have used the social-conservatives to push their agenda, that of the warfare state that Eisenhower (a Republican) warned us against. They have abandoned the very things that have made the party what it was. People are abandoning the party in droves because of its hardline stances against abortion, for the war on terror and in Iraq, and their unwillingness to cut the budget and abolish the Income Tax In 1976, the poeple of this country, tired of Washington and politics as usual, elected an outsider, Jimmy Carter, President. In 2008, the poeple of this county, tired of Washington and politics as usual, will elect an outsider, Ron Paul. If the Republican Party bosses fail to seize this rare opportunity to reconnect with the general public (not their party devout), they will be unable to win in 2008, unable to win Congress back in 2008 and 2010, and risk becoming insignificant and unimportant.
The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance

The Republican party is NOT a Libertarian party. The majority of the Republican party has completely different views than that of Ron Paul. So wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority should define the party? It wouldn't make sense if a party was led by ideals the majority of it didn't believe in. In my personal opinion, the entire 2 party system is flawed. The United States should adopt a system more like Canada, where there's a party for every combination of possible beliefs.
The Republican Party of the United States must become more libertarian or face collapse/unimportance

With the President's approval rating hovering around 30-35%, and with the Republicans facing near-guaranteed loss in 2008 with their "mainstream" candidates, the GOP is in dire straits. Unless it returns to its low-tax, less gov't, non-interventionism roots, it will be unable to win in 2008, unable to win the House or Senate, and become powerless at the Federal level. Only by abandoning its failed policies, failed big-government solutions, and fully embracing Ron Paul, his movement, and his ideology as its savior can the GOP hope to survive as a meaningful political party.
Space travel

We still are not sure if it would be possible to put breathable air into mars' atmosphere. If we fail, do you know how many billions of dollars we have just wasted? plus, there is no water on mars, so therefore it is still unable to sustain life. Further more, humans are made to adjust, so if we need to adjust ourselves to an over populated planet, so be it. plus, new laws are being put into place in the over crowded regions of the world.
Space travel

I do have a few arguments to make about your statement. =Argument One= Our planet is in a state of disarray however if we had a colony in space such as on Mars, see argument two, the people on Earth that are homeless or in need of help, we could transport them to Mars. =Argument Two= The fact that Mars is uninhabitable is an untrue statement, for our scientists researching the matter are quite sure that we could add breathable air into Mars' atmosphere.
Schools should allow cell phones to be carried in case of emergencies

Now moving on to attack my opponents case, First off, saying that using a calculator on a math test is cheating yes, but I have Ti-89 Titanium graphing calculator, and that has limitations. A simple phone calculator isn't even scientific, how are you going to cheat with that in high school. Really. But next, if you don't have a PDA phone, or a phone that can cacce that internet then you cant really cheat on anything like history. Next, I'd like to state that the topic is in case of emergencies. What if my mom needs to tell me that my brother broke his leg, and I didn't need to pick him up after school. So I don't go to his school waiting, and when he doesn't come I don't think he got kidnapped. Now I realize that this is a little far fetched, but hey, its happened before! Also for little things like a friend letting you know that they went home sick, so they wont be walking home with you.
Schools should allow cell phones to be carried in case of emergencies

Cell phones are a great modern convenience. They aren't phones any more they are very advanced computers. Which is why they should be left in the students' lockers, cars, or at least turned off in class. Many features that phones have now open windows for things such as cheating (example: using the calculator to get an answer on a math test or looking up answers for a history test) and can be very disruptive. No one wants to be interrupted by a ring tone when they are trying to learn . As far as the in case of emergencies issue teachers have phones as well as the schools themselves, so there will be enough people with phones to handle any emergency.
Media censorship should be banned internationally.

Unfortunately my opponent has been unable to post her response in time. I have not heard back from her so I cannot be certain if she is going through a troubling time in her personal or family life. I was hoping to expand and add some clarity on my points but I would think it would be unfair so I will wait and see my opponent posts her round 4. Hopefully we can still have an enjoyable debate with the remaining two rounds.
Media censorship should be banned internationally.

Here are some basic definitions that clarify the debate. 1) Media censorship- To examine media sources and prevent publication of information thought to be unacceptable. [1] 2)Banned-Forbidden by law. [2] 3) Internationally- Throughout the world. [3] I will be arguing for the fact that media censorship should be banned internationally and every nation should have rights of the press. Good luck! Let's hope for an excellent debate. ___________________ [1]. http://www.apheda.org.au... [2]. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3]. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
There will be a more peaceful world if America actively maintains it's hegemony

everything i said is above in conclusion, America must support of its hegemony because of the following reasons 1) MY opponent has not provided a better alternative, and thus my plan of action is still the best one on the table 2) The impacts of withdrawing are yet unknown, and my opponent's arguments that eurasian powers will somehow preserve world peace is ungrounded 3) The US must maintain its hegemony due to other threats in the world today, as i have listed
There will be a more peaceful world if America actively maintains it's hegemony

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States has been the preeminent superpower. Since then, America has actively interfered in many country's internal matters (i.e supporting one faction over another in a war, attempting to ouster a ruler ect), including some that have resulted in the violation of a country's sovereignty, and/or have made the country actively hostile against the United States. Moreover, the United States is actively working against countries such as Iran and Venezuela, and is blatantly antagonistic to emerging countries such as China and India. This policy of active intervention and antagonism is perceived by many as harmful to the United States world image - rightfully so. However, I believe that these policies that help maintain the United States hegemony and national security benefits the entire world. However, I believe that this policy of active involvement is necessary to keep peace in the world - at least in the current state of affairs. 1) Many more wars would pop up should America withdraw it's hegemony - the prime example of this is Taiwan and China. China will attack Taiwan should America withdraw it's support and opt-out of its mutual-protection treaty with Taiwan. Without America's active intervention, brutal civil wars such as Somalia will propagate throughout the world, and genocides such as Rwanda will become even more numerous (think Middle East, Africa) 2) Prevent the rise of another superpower - EU, Russia, Pakistan, India, and China are all ready to grab the mantel of world leadership from the United States, and given the right opportunity they will. A bipolar world may result in a renewed cold war, with quasi-wars being waged by client states (like the cold war), or straight-out conventional or even nuclear warfare by the new power against the United States. This could result in the deaths of millions. However, right now America is keeping these countries in check both politically and militarily, and these restrictions must be enforced in order to ensure a safer tomorrow. 3) The war in Iraq may serve as examples of how America failed in it's role of world police - however, this war is only a pale reflection of might happen should the US withdraw from it's role. Thus, America must maintain it's hegemony and actively assert it's policies in order to ensure future wars do not happen.
Evolution is the best theory for the diversity of life.

I saw your debate on this topic with another user, but didn't feel like that person did the argument justice (which isn't to trash him/her - it's just my personal opinion). If you'd be willing to accept, I'd like to discuss this with you. Rules: 1) Be respectful.2) Formulate arguments and responses in bulleted or numbered lists, and respond to all of the opponent's points. notes: 1) scientific theory - is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 2) As the title suggests, this debate is about evolution's utility as a theory of biodiversity and not an overall origin of the universe or even life. Evolution doesn't necessarily take a position on whether God is real or any religion is true; its explanatory domain starts when and only when life already exists, and only concerns how that life changes over time. If you want to, we can assume that like got here by supernatural means because the origin of life is inconsequential to evolutionary theory.
The United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage.

Hello there username: libertarian, thank you for giving me a chance to express my opinion in this debate. You gave 6 bullet points as to why you believe the United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage. I'm first going to write up a semi-syllogism to explain the con side. 1. A nation's Constitution is the supreme law of that country. 2. The United States has a Constitution. 3. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the country. 4.Amendment X of the United States Constitution grants the States and the people power over matters not listed in the Constitution. 5. The Constitution lists the powers that Congress (federal Government) has in Article I, Section 8. 6. Matters of legislation unlisted in Article I, Section 8, are under the power of the States and the people. 7.Matters of legislation unlisted in Article I, Section 8, are under the power of the States and the people. 8.The power to establish laws regarding marriage legality is not listed in Article 1 Section 8. 9. The Constitution did not give the federal government power to establish laws regarding marriage legality. Congress simply doesn't have the authority to legalize or explicitly recognize same sex marriage. Without authority over a matter, Congress should not legislate over a matter. On to Rebuttals 1. Article 14 is regarding states, not the federal government, as stated in the resolution. It really doesn't apply in this situation. 2.The Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal." And on the front of the Supreme Court building the words are etched in "Equal Justice Under Law." Equality is a basic American principle that should be respected. Neither of those writings, while both inspirational, have any legal value. Only the Constitution does. Its one thing when a person doesn't follow the law, but rather uses inspiration to guide them, but a completely different thing if a whole government did. Imagine how messed up we'd be if government leaders did whatever they felt like doing. 3.States have the power to address this issue of visitation rights, states such as mine, Maryland, have. 4.I believe you are making a policy proposal, not really making an argument. This would be a discriminatory policy, and goes against your previously cited works in argument #2. 5. I know its a shame, but the federal rights do fall into place as soon as a state recognizes marriage, or writes law that makes it the same as marriage. The problem can be solved within The Constitution, unlike how the resolution suggests. 6.Many nations including Canada and the Netherlands allow same sex marriage. Many nations also behead people for being gay. It really doesn't matter what other countries do. I cannot wait for your reply, as to continue our debate.
The United States federal government should legalize and recognize same sex marriage.

1. The United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 states, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gays under marriage laws is unconstitutional. 2. The Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal." And on the front of the Supreme Court building the words are etched in "Equal Justice Under Law." Equality is a basic American principle that should be respected. 3. Most hospitals allow only family members to visit after visiting hours. When somebody is on their death bed, they should be able to see the love of their life for each of those last, precious seconds. 4. When a gay American wants to marry a foreign gay person their spouse will not become an American citizen like heterosexual couples. 5. There are 1,138 federal rights not offered to gay couples. And many other state rights. 6. Many nations including Canada and the Netherlands allow same sex marriage.
eSports

eSports are not the future of sports because they will never gain the type of infrastructure that physical sports have. Physical sports have the key advantage of exposure from a young age through gymnastics sessions at school and parents' desire to get kids active and outside. In contrast, eSports will never be utilized in school or promoted by parents because they provide no tangible physical benefits. Also, as it is more fun to play an eSport than watch one, their marketability is limited.
Leafy should be banned from youtube.

I accept the following argument as to why Leafy should not be banned from Youtube. A little context behind myself is I hate Leafy myself, but that should not result in a ban from Youtube for the content that he has created. Brings Entertainment The content he has created has admitedly fired up the Youtube drama, but I ask my opponent who are the ones who clicked the video in the first place? Viewers did, and if viewers clicked that video and each video having more likes than dislikes; why should he be banned for his content? Youtube is a website for videos that are for entertainment purposes, and Leafy is clearly a channel for entertainment. If he is providing entertainment to the point of 4,000,000 subscribers and constant viewes, why would we eliminate the entertainment he has bring; which is a core value of Youtube.Marketing SchemeThe fact is, Youtube is a market of videos with competing channels to rise to the top. According to journalist and economist Andrew Beattie, Youtube makes a revenue based on the advertisements presented under certain Youtube channels. Youtube channels that are more popular will attract more advertisers to display their content, resulting in people seeing those content, and Youtube gaining a revenue in retrieval for that content (1). looking at Leafy, he is popular enough among people so it would make more sense to keep him in the spotlight in order for Youtube to still recieve a good revenue. No matter the creator, every little bit helps. Impact on the EconomyPlus also looking at Youtube itself and its application in the United States economy, Youtube does play an impact. Because of the internet culture coming within society, the internet plays a bigger role in establishing the economy. According to Moises Nam, the Youtube environment with the comparative aspect of advertising plays a newer impact on our economy. It achieves this with a collaboration of revenue from channels and cooperation with advertisers (2).Drama SellsWe might look at Leafy in a negative becuase of our emotion and his statements of roasting others, but that should not determine someone from being banned. Clearly, Leafy has played an impact in promoting drama in the Youtube environment; but drama sells to us viewers because of us wanting to continue to create conflict (3). If it sells, why get rid of the item that is making the revenue? Leafy might have his negatives, but does support Youtube in bringing in that revenue.Admitedly it's hard to look at the truth, but let me ask this? If we have one Youtuber who is roasting others, he keeps Youtube running, resulting in more favored channels to stay. Even small timeo ones, and even promoting larger based channels. Sources:1. http://www.investopedia.com...2. https://www.google.com...3. http://www.evancarmichael.com...
Leafy should be banned from youtube.

Leafy should be banned from YouTube. 1.His content is based around "roasting" someone for about 10 minutes,usually picking people who can't defend themselves. Ex: 2.He has led to people receiving death threats. 3.His fanbase go to any video that he features and dislikes it and leaves nasty comments. So as you,can see.Leafy has caused a lot of problems.I could go on but for the sake of round one i'll just leave it at that. There is my argument.