BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: george bush was a terrible president

To begin I would like to start off by definint terrible. Terrible is defined as EXTREMELY bad http://dictionary.reference.com... Since the Pro has the burden of proof, I will simply refute his arguments. 1. Bush did not cause the 2001 recession, it simply happened during his presidency, which meant that many looked for a scapegoat to blame their economic problems on. In actuallity, many causes of the recession were occuring before Bush was even elected, much less took the oath of office. Furthermore, the 9/11 attacks were also a factor of the recession, and those attacks could obviously not be controlled by Bush. Just because bad things happen during a certain administration doesn't mean that that administration caused it.(http://useconomy.about.com...) 2. Outsourcing actually makes America richer. Bottom line, outsourcing helps businesses which stimulates the economy as well as helping shareholders of the companies that outsource. (the politically incorrect guide to Capitalism) 3. The Patriot Act was enacted in order to maitain the national security of america. It was enacted about a month and a half after 9/11 and was passed by Congress which meant that the majority of the nations officials were in agreement with the act. 4. President Bush raided Iraq because Saddam Housein failed to comply with UN weapons checks which ignited old hostilities from the Gulf Wars. Furthermore, in 2008, America found about 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium which is an essential ingrediant in nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that national security was the first priority during Bush's administration. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) 5. According to newsmax.com, it is not Bush's fault for the slow hurricane response, it is the fault of Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans, Governor Kathleen Blanco and other LOCAL officials. The fact of the matter is that disaster response is assigned to local governments, not the federal government. Therefore, Bush was "no where to be seen" because it wasn't his job, it was the job of the mayor and the governor. (http://archive.newsmax.com...) 6. It's not like Bush restricted the CIA and other organizations from doing their best to find Bin Laden. The same CIA and military operations were occuring during the Bush and Obama administrations which means that just because Bin Laden was killed during the Obama administration, doesn't mean that Obama had anything to do with the finding of Bin Laden. Similarly, Bush had nothing to do with the not finding of Bin Laden. 7. The vast majority of presidents have done nothing to protect the environment. Does that also warrant that all of them were "terrible" presidents too? 8. As I already addressed in number 4, Bush invaded Iraq because Houssein wasn't honoring the treaty that involved weapons inspections which led to America to believe that he might be trying to obtain nuclear technologies, and he was as exemplified by the 550 tons of yellow cake uranium.
Resolved: george bush was a terrible president

1st bush sent us into a recession 2nd bush made it easier for jobs to be shipped overseas by not passing the bill that would tax companies trying to ship jobs overseas 3rd president bush enacted and singed the patriot act which was unconstitutional and probably one of the worst bills ever passed 4th he invaded Iraq on assumption 5th he was no where to be seen during Katrina 6th never caught osama bin laden 7th did nothing to protect the environment 8th he invaded Iraq when we had no reason to be there
Evolution is not scientific, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

"Involving the observation of phenomena" the phenomena is the existence of advanced life "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence". we have gathered evidence, fossil records, genetics, micro-evolution. "One makes unprejudiced observations about the world" the observations are un-biased "As the first definition states, you have to observe the phenomena. " the phenomena is the existence of complex life, evolution is the scientific model to explain this phenomenon. "You drop a ball and gravity is illustrated. " the phenomena is the ball falling, gravity is the scientific model to explain this, it is possible that the ball fell because invisible pixies pulled it down to confuse our understanding of reality. "First of all there are many things that discredit the big-bag theory, but that is a different debate. " but it is considered a scientific theory. "If the world trade center blew up on 9/11 and no one saw the plane hit the building, would it be scientific to teach in schools that a fire started in the coffee rooms and burned down the building? " that is oddly specific for a science class, but it would be valid to teach that one explanation for the world trade center blowing up was a fire, with explanations on how scientists arrived at that conclusion. "Although that may be everyone's best guess as to how it happened, it does not mean that IS what happened. " All of science is an educated guess. There is a reason that the highest an idea can reach in science is the status of theory, science never claims absolute knowledge. Pro:Where did the original matter come from? Con:What does this have to do with evolution. Pro:There has to be a starting point. evolution is a theory explaining how simple organisms can grow in complexity, the origin of the first organism is called abiogenesis.
Evolution is not scientific, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

Scientific Method: "Involving the observation of phenomena" "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence". "One makes unprejudiced observations about the world" These are all definitions, or parts of definitions of the scientific method from sources other than wikipedia. As the first definition states, you have to observe the phenomena. It is not saying you have to observe things that lead you to believe in evolution, or provide evidence for evolution, it says you must observe the phenomena. You can easily observe gravity. You drop a ball and gravity is illustrated. You can not directly observe evolution. You can directly observe adaptation but not evolution, the gaining of information. No one has ever witnessed one species changing into another species. This requires more information. If you say it is because it is to slow, that's fine, but that proves my point. You can not directly observe evolution, therefore it does not follow the scientific method. Con says, "Take the big-bang for instance. No one saw it happening, but it is the best way we have to explain the expansion of the universe, so it is scientific." First of all there are many things that discredit the big-bag theory, but that is a different debate. But the fact that "it is the best way we have to explain" it, does not mean that it is scientific. If the world trade center blew up on 9/11 and no one saw the plane hit the building, would it be scientific to teach in schools that a fire started in the coffee rooms and burned down the building? NO! Although that may be everyone's best guess as to how it happened, it does not mean that IS what happened. It would be an educated guess, which is what evolution is. No one can see it happening so it is not scientific. Con says, "Where did the original matter come from? What does this have to do with evolution." It has everything to do with evolution! There has to be a starting point. Evolution can not happen without a starting point. And if there was no one there to see the first living cell evolve, then evolution is not observable and not scientific. I would again like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate. I would also like to thank the audience for reading. Please vote Pro SOURCES: http://www.answers.com... http://www.freebase.com... http://csm.jmu.edu...
Evolution is not scientific, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

"Based on Wikipedia:" I can't argue with Wikipedia, i can only change it. even going with you definition, we have gathered data through observation and experiments, and the simplest model we have that best fits with that data is evolution. We do not need to observe it happening (although we have) for it to be a valid scientific theory. Take the big-bang for instance. No one saw it happening, but it is the best way we have to explain the expansion of the universe, so it is scientific. "Where did the original matter come from?" what does this have to do with evolution. " No one can show evolution to be 100% fact." no one can 100% show gravity to be fact, but is is our best explanation for why we stay on the earth.
Evolution is not scientific, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

Based on Wikipedia: the Scientific method "must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". This is exactly what I mean! It must be observable, and testable to be scientific! Evolution is not! Where did the original matter come from? No one knows for sure, so you have to BELIEVE that evolution is true. I contend that evolution is a religion, not fact as it is portrayed in schools. No other religions are taught in schools, why is this one? You say that it is the most likely theory, but I respectfully disagree. But for this debate it does not really matter who is right. No one was there to see it happen. No one can show evolution to be 100% fact. Yet high school students have to learn all about the "evolution" of man in school. There are laws that require textbooks to be accurate, yet we teach our students that we evolved millions of years ago from single celled organisms. This is NOT observable or testable, therefore it does NOT follow the scientific method! So based on Con's statement," in order for an idea to gain scientific validity it has to go through a process called the scientific method" evolution is NOT scientific. SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution is not scientific, therefore it should not be taught in schools.

the resolution "Evolution is not scientific" is clearly false, as it is widely accepted in the scientific community. Pro approaches this with a false definition of science, in order for an idea to gain scientific validity it has to go through a process called the scientific method. put simply it is as follows: 1. a hypothesis is created 2. the hypothesis is compared with observations 3. after a peer review process, often with many revisions, the hypothesis becomes accepted as theory clearly evolution fits. 1. it was hypothesized. 2. we compared the results we would expect to see if it were true with what we do see (DNA similarities, genetics, layers of increasingly complex life, breeding, evolution of microbes) 3. Evolution has gone through a peer review process. as i have demonstrated evolution is an acceptable scientific theory, or at worst a well founded hypothesis, if you wish to challenge its truth you are more than welcome to do so, however at the moment it is the most likely theory in the scientific community.
Being gay is not a choice

Let me clarify, bisexuals are not gay, pansexuals are not gay, asexuals are not gay. We are speaking solely about homosexuals-someone who is sexually attracted to the same sex. Not homoromantics which can be a choice in certain situations, homosexuals. Now let's begin. It makes no sense for a person to choose to be gay In Uganda, if you're gay you'll be put in something called "The Rolling Stone" and people will find you and kill you. Cops will literally hunt you down and give you the death penalty.[1] It would be completely insane to choose this life. It would make no sense for a person to want to feel like they might get severely beaten up and killed for stepping out of their house. This happens all over the world and especially after what happened with Matthew Shepard it would be a wonder if anyone even thought about being gay. Experimentation is not homosexuality In college many people experiment. Experiment meaning trying to have sex or a relationship with a person that differs from your sexual preferences. Such as a straight woman dating another woman or a gay man dating a woman. Experimenting likely ends up with you returning back to your original orientation, but just the fact that you had sex with a person of the opposite or same sex means it's a choice right? No. Bi-curiosity is when you're curious about relations with a sex you originally thought you weren't interested in. Some people turn out bisexual others revert back. Sexual relations with that person was a choice, but sexuality is not. Final points Because my opponent might hold this against me as many do I'm going to clarify this. Sexual intercourse does not equal sexual orientation. This might confuse you, but having sex with someone once or tice and never again does decide your sexuality. Sexual intercourse-intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis This is not a debate on whether lesbian sex is sex or not so let's include cunnilingus. Sexual orientation-a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted. Another thing you said "The burden of proof is on the Pro." I strongly hope that you'll provide arguments of your own or we can't have an argument. There is supposed to be proof on both sides that's kind of what a debate is. Good luck. Citation [1]
Being gay is not a choice

Definitions: Gay- of, relating to, or used by homosexuals https://www.merriam-webster.com... Homosexual- of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. https://www.merriam-webster.com... Observations: 1: All I have to do as the Con is show that the Pro side does not prove gay is not a choice. 2: The burden of proof is on the Pro. 3: Since there is no quantifier in the resolution i.e. ALL or SOME gays aren't gays by choice, then I would only have to prove one case in which a gay person is gay by choice in order to win this debate, if I decide to go this route.
Being gay is not a choice

Rebuttals: In my past arguments I was trying to rebute arguments commonly used against my cause. "however people do indeed do nonsensical things" Yes, but not at such a great expense. The APA or some other source would have discovered that all gay people are actually mentally ill people that choose their sexuality and love the rush and thrill of almost being murdered, but it is a fact that the APA does not even consider homosexuality as a mental illness [4] let alone thrill chasers that would just love to be raped for liking a woman. "How can you tell if someone is homosexual?" How can you prove anything? Extensive research and testing. You can hook up an EEG to a purposed homosexual's head, show them erotic images of men and women and see how their brain waves react. More activity for men than women would prove a male to be gay, more activity for women than for men would prove female to be gay. Or maybe just do the exact same thing and see if they are sexually aroused with images of the same sex. If yes than you have your answer. Another more logical way is to ask someone "would you ever have sex with a member of the same sex on multiple occasions?" If yes then they are homosexual. New Arguments Conversion Therapy is unsuccessful Conversion therapy is one of the worse things that can happen to a person[1]. It is psychological and sometimes physical torture for the unwilling person and if homosexuality were truly a choice a person going through it would just simply choose to be straight to end the torture except even when people do that they are never truly changed[2]. They pretend to be straight until they can safely be who they are. Sham Marriages[3] A sham marriage is when, for the most part, a gay man and lesbian woman get married to appease their families. They do not have sex or kiss. They are similar to friendships. Usually involving both parties having side relationships with members of the same sex. If homosexuality was a choice then these two individuals would just marry each other and be happy without going through all of the trouble and possible jail time/family prosecution/death for being gay. Question: Why would someone choose a harder life just to have sex with a member of the same sex? Citation [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://www.livescience.com... [3]https://www.vice.com... [4]http://www.livescience.com...
Being gay is not a choice

"It makes no sense for a person to choose to be gay" In response to my opponent"s argument about it not making to be gay, this in no way proves the topic true that people don"t choose to be gay. My opponent just makes the claim it doesn"t make sense, and sure let"s say that"s true, however people do indeed do nonsensical things, thus you can turn this argument against my opponent because Pro makes the argument that people who choose to be homosexual would be doing something nonsensical, and it"s true that people do nonsensical things. Therefore choosing to be homosexual. "Experimentation is not homosexuality" Cool, nowhere did I bring up experimentation so this argument doesn"t apply. "Final points" You can also disregard this for now because I haven"t brought up any argument about sexual intercourse, therefore it doesn"t apply. Pro doesn"t understand what the Burden of Proof means so I"ll explain. As the Con, all I have to do is prove that you haven"t prove the topic true, if I prove that you don"t meet the criteria, then I win because that would mean you didn"t prove what you were arguing for. However this doesn"t mean I won"t give any arguments, because I will give arguments, like I have already, against your points. This is still a debate. Debate means argue, and I"m providing arguments. In conclusion, my opponent still has not given any proof that being a homosexual is not a choice. All my opponent has said is that it"s nonsensical which is irrelevant as to whether someone can choose. Pro has also said experiment doesn"t mean homosexuality which is irrelevant because that"s not a reason for why homosexuality is not a choice. And finally Pro said sexual intercourse does not mean homosexuality which also doesn"t prove that homosexuality is not a choice. My opponent hasn"t given an argument that says "this evidence says homosexuality is not a choice", or something like that. Questions: How can you tell if someone is homosexual?
Why do so many say Israel doesn"t need to be a Jewish State

I would like to apologies in advance here. This may be my ignorance coming out, but as someone who doesn't rely belong to any group I don't see how cutting your selves out from the world, by having a country specifically for the Jewish people is so important, why not try to make peace with the Palestine's and merge with one another, to make a country with religious freedom as a priority, help each other rebuild the country as equals. (As I said before, I am pro a separation of church and state no matter the country or religion) Because yes it is impractical to request the 6 million Jews to leave, but the same can be said for the 3.9 million Palestinians who are starving. They will eventually need to fight Israel on a large scale, if the wars continues, and Israel, doesn't stop killing them. Because that's what desperation does, it makes you fight. This is a rule of nature that even the smallest of mice knows, when they are faced against a cat. I understand that mending the hostilities will be a long, difficult journey, and their will always be a scar, but it can be done, no it has to be done. because the Jews of Israel, and the Muslims, of Palestine have but two options before them. They can live together, or they can die together. The choice is up to them. As for anti Semitism, yes their are those who hate the Jews, Their are those who hate Blacks, Asians, Al-Sharq Al-Awasat, Sikhs, people in general, Muslims, Christians, North Americans, South Americans, and people of any religion or ethic background that is not theirs. But segregating ourselves in our own little countries, is not going to make things better. Only by trying to talk, and understand one another (as where doing now) will let us move on to a more peaceful world. Because isn't that the best part of having free will, having the ability to change things for the better, for you to change things for the better. (and if you do this than the Palestinians, won't need to impersonate your culture, in order to get better treatment in Israel) I would like to thank you for this most fun and Informative debate, you have taught me some thing about your culture that I was not aware of. I would like to apologies to the voters, and anyone reading this, I have never been able to figure out how to get a hyperlink on this web sight (it may be the computer) but I would like you to Google (or Bing which is what I used) to look up the arguments that I posted. here is the ones that I can remember... UN.com, Bing, Wikipedia, amnesty international.com Thank you for reading, but I am running out of time for the debate, and need to go to work.
Why do so many say Israel doesn"t need to be a Jewish State

Hello sorry was bit busy over last 24 hours. You posted a good argument though I just want to point a few things out. I totally support a two State solution and even don"t care let the Arabs have Jerusalem if that brings peace. But Jews need a homeland and while I agree errors were made in 2948 the seed is done and 6 million Jews aren"t going to leave now. As a Jew myself I feel that with huge waves of anti semitism across the globe Jews can"t just exist as minorities in Christian or other countries and also Palestinians are playing a game where by they are trying to claim Israelite heritage and take our history away. All in all so many issues here:( Also a one State solution would just make the Jews a minority again and could cause intermarriage to happen something we Jews don"t approve of.
Why do so many say Israel doesn"t need to be a Jewish State

Fiest thank you for welcoming me very kind of you. Ok as to my views I"ve seen many say things like Israel needs to get over itself and doesn"t need a Jewish majority etc. Well the history of hate towards Jews in Europe and elsewhere plus the fact Arabs and Islam would become the dominant religion and people of say a one State sure solution was brought to the conflict means a Two State Solution needs to be found. Sadly Netanyahu and Abbas aren"t the men to achieve that. So my argument is essentially Israel needs to remain a Jewish State.
Why do so many say Israel doesn"t need to be a Jewish State

Hello Isaac2019, I would like to thank you and accept your challenge, and debate whether or not Israel should or shouldn't be a Jewish state. Or at least that's what I think you where getting at, from what you where saying in the specifications of the challenge in the first round. Unless you where literally asking why do so many say Israel doesn't need to be a Jewish State, in which you kind of gave one reason in the first round, so... vote me.;) All kidding aside I hope this will be a fun and informative debate, that both sides, and all who read it can bring away something from. I will let you have the chance to have the first argument. P.S. I saw that you just joined the sight, So I would like to welcome you to Debate.org.