BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
India needs sound policies and not a growing personality cult

Of course there are two sides of a coin. Modi has got a strong personality cult but I think he uses it for good. If you are talking of the suicides of the farmers in Gujatrat then you should consider both sides of the coin and also note that The Economic Freedom of the States of India report 2013 has shown that the Narendra Modi helmed Gujarat remains at number one. This is an index that measures governance, growth, citizens' rights, and labour and business regulation among the country's 20 largest state. Of course this cannot be proven wrong. If you check it up, it clearly shows that Gujarat is one of the best developed states of India and the credit goes to Modi.He has this personality cult given by the media. He only believes in Less government and more governance and does not decentralizes power. Thats why the media GAVE him this cult of personality
Resolved: Progressive Tax is superior to Flat Tax for a nation to utilize.

This will be a three round debate with "Round 1" used not for debate but for acceptance. Definitions: Progressive tax: A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals. (http://www.investopedia.com......) Flat tax: A system that applies the same tax rate to every taxpayer regardless of income bracket (http://www.investopedia.com......) (I suggest you use your R3 argument for your R1 argument.)
God Does not exist

I decided to go ahead and take this for two reasons. One, I'm curious as to what positive case Pro has that God does not exist. It's refreshing to find an Atheist who recognizes that the claim "The Judeo-Christian God does not exist" is as much a truth claim as "The Judeo-Christian God does exist," and that it also must be supported. Saying "you can't prove a negative" is demonstrably false. So kudos to Pro for that.Second, so that the Atheists in the comments don't have to play "devil's advocate" for the purpose of this debate.Pro has the burden of proof, and I await his opening argument.
The Case For A Creator

Omnipotence Paradox"But this paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence (all-powerful)"In fact, no; no it doesn't. I already defined omnipotence from a prestigious dictionary; it is valid and we ought to argue with it."He can do anything that"s possible according to his nature."Even by your definition, it is fallacious; if that is the case, then God is not 'all powerful'. Since God is bound by logic... A God that would truly be all powerful, ought to be able to surpass logic.My opponent then uses the bible as a source; this is not a valid source, and I commend that Pro does not use it to verify his argument. I can write in a book as well, and state the complete opposite... Which one is more valid? Neither; without deductive evidence, his argument is not valid." Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with God"s nature and consistent with his desire."This is hedging; Pro contradicts the definition he provided earlier, and commends that God is in fact not 'all powerful'.Teleological ArgumentI would like to begin with a quick prologue to this argument: This is known as an abductive argument, which means that it is an argument for the best explanation for something we don't know... As this argument does, it appeals to probability. However, since this is only abductive, a deductive argument would supersede the veracity of an abductive argument; for a deductive argument infers a definite answer... That's what I would like to use to refute this argument...Reverse Modal Ontological ArgumentP1:It is possible that a maximally great being does not exists.P2:If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world.P3: if a maximally great being does not exist in some possible world, then it does not exist in every possible world.P4:If a maximally great being does not exist in every possible world, then it does not exist in the actual world.P5:.If a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world, then a maximally great being does not exist.C: Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.Through modal axioms, it is not incoherent to postulate that God cannot exist. Therefore, through modal representation, this argument is valid:P1) ◊~(∃x) P2) ◊~(∃x) ⊃ ◊~(∃x)P3) ◊~(∃x) ⊃ ~ (∃x) P4) ~ (∃x) ⊃ ~(∃x)P5) ~(∃x) ⊃ ~(∃x) C) ∴ ~(∃x)Therefore, the conclusion logically follows from the premises and the argument is sound.Since deductive reasoning supersedes abductive reasoning, Pro ought to refute the two proposed arguments to win the debate.
The Case For A Creator

Omnipotence ParadoxThe intentions with this argument is to convey that one of God's intrinsic maximums are sophistry. By doing this I will violate the definition of God, which would then fulfill my BoP.This argument will assume the following syllogism:P1: The concept of omnipotence is incoherentP2: If God is defined as possessing omnipotence, then God is incoherentC: Therefore, God is incoherentI will now demonstrate why the concept of omnipotence is sophistry and completely paradoxical. It would be reasonable to first define, "omnipotence": "an agency or force of unlimited power" (1). If God were to truly possess omnipotence, then by definition, he cannot have a limit, for that would contradict the denotation of 'omnipotence'. But, this argument postulates why this is in fact, sophistry. If God does not have a limit, then God would be able to create a God that is more powerful than itself. If God cannot, then God is not truly omnipotent. Yet, if God can, then it would completely contradict the definition of God - nothing can be greater or equally great when in comparison to God. Therefore, the syllogism is valid and the conclusion logically follows from the premises.Rebuttals:Teleological ArgumentIt seems like my opponent has taken a teleological approach to prove God's existence. However, this is only abductive... Deductively, this would commit the appeal to probability fallacy, so unfortunately it will not suffice."my argument of Goldilocks zone was meant that it is near impossible for a bang or whatever theory you believe to perfectly place the Earth where it is."In fact, the Big Bang Theory only postulates that the universe expanded from a singularity. There is nothing incoherent regarding the placement of the earth. Considering that we are the one of billions of billions of planets in the observable universe, the placement is not unfathomable. The rest of Pro's assertions are not backed up with sources.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Case For A Creator

Just for clarification, my argument of goldilocks zone was meant that it is near impossible for a bang or whatever theory you believe to perfectly place the Earth where it is. For my next argument I would like to bypass my argument and say somehow the Earth and everything came into existence. Then what? Astronomer and Mathematician Fred Hoyle calculated the odds for a one-cell animals to emerge by chance, and the result was a 1 in 10^40,000 chance. He concluded that the odds for a complex human to emerge by chance were too high to calculate. Biophysicist Dr. Harold Morowitz calculated the time it would take for simple bacteria to reassemble after all the chemical bonds are broken. The answer was 10^100,000,000,000 years. So the claim that human being were emerged by chance is invalid, therefore there is a greater being that made us. Since my opponent did not state any other argument, I will only state one.
The Case For A Creator

Due to poor time management by myself, this will be very quick. This will be weird but I will only rebut this round. Sorry, this will be very quick, please expect a more elaborative response in the next round. Pro uses a 'God of the Gaps Argument' to deductively prove God's existence. He proposes that a pencil cannot create itself, therefore God must have done it. This is evidently fallacious, as there is no abductive, inductive, nor deductive link to the resolution. Pro then uses a teleological approach to affirm the resolution. He states that we exist in the goldilock's zone. Ok, but if we consider how many planets there are in the observable universe, we can clearly deduce that the chances of a planet not existing in the zone would be infinitesimally small. I don't know what Pro was asserting when he says that the positioning of the Earth apparently refutes the theory of evolution. For the rest of his arguments, he tries to refute the non-existence of the Christian God. This does not pertain to the resolution and is therefore a red herring. Sorry, I will post my arguments next round.
The Case For A Creator

Many atheists believe that there is no such thing as a God who created beings. To prove that this argument is wrong, I bring a pencil. A pencil is a very simple tool, that almost everyone uses on a daily basis. They are cheap, simple, and effective. But if I told you that a pencil was created by it self you would say I am crazy. So if a pencil, a simple pencil can"t create itself. How can you tell me that our entire universe came into existence from nothing. Planet Earth is an amazing place, but it is very complicated sort of like a Rolex Watch, also the positioning of the Earth just shows how wrong evolution is. If we were a little closer to the sun we would all burn, a little farther we would freeze. Next if the world is millions of years old, how come the oldest tree recorded is only about 5,000 years old. Also the longest-lived coral were 2,742 years and 4,265 years. In a christian perspective, "perfect" means sinless. In Hebrew, perfect means complete. THe definition of creation is "the action or process of bringing something into existence. " It is a process, nature is still a process. God is not finished with nature.
Tablets should be used instead of actual textbooks

The dmlcentral link you posted said the page was "not found", therefore making it an invalid link. http://prntscr.com... To support my earlier argument about negative health effects of installing multiple wifi ports in schools, this video shows the dishonesty companies display about the problem with wifi and/or phone radiation & shows how parents feel about wifi as a possible health hazard. The link below mentions how this is a growing problem with the growing demand of electronics & wireless services used in schools. http://www.fox5vegas.com... Books should not become obsolete only because of a growing want for technology, if they were to completely be ridden of, what will schools do when their wifi stops working due to a blackout or a power outage? Textbooks should be kept as a backup plan, not ridden of. Newer does not mean better. No reason to get rid of textbooks.
Tablets should be used instead of actual textbooks

I'd like to start by saying you cited the same article twice. Neither of these websites are .org or .net websites, and one of these websites is essentially a blog. http://dmlcentral.net.... This website debunks the claim that technology is making us stupider. All of your claims have no real scientific evidence, (or at least none that you cited). You cited a website, "http://www.globalhealingcenter.com...; that basically forced you to assume that all the data was correct by saying things like "If you think your heart races when surrounded by wireless networks or 3G or LTE cell phones, it may not be in your head." Theres no scientific background, nor is there any actual survey information attached. This website is owned by whoever is willing to pay for it, which is why it ends in .com. Thanks
Tablets should be used instead of actual textbooks

While tablets do have benefits such as being capable of holding multiple textbooks & other useful applications for educational purposes, they can be a health hazard and cause a multitude of problems. For example, blurred vision (or deterioration of vision) from staring at the screen for so long. Headaches, insomnia, development of tumors, affecting cell development (especially Brain Cells which if those start dying off, you essentially become dumber and those things take years to regenerate) etc. http://www.globalhealingcenter.com... http://www.networkworld.com... http://www.globalhealingcenter.com... As society becomes more technological, the demand for wifi usage grows, but also grows the threat of cyber type attacks. If books were to become obsolete, what then will you use to do homework etc. if your schools network gets hacked?
Tablets should be used instead of actual textbooks

The ability to have any book you could ever want in you hand is an incredible power, which if used correctly could completely change the way we do education for the better. Text books can hold, books, homework, tests and quizzes, yet would completely remove all the added weight that a student must carry daily. E-textbooks on tablets cost on average 50-60% less than print textbooks. According to a 2012 report from the Federal Communications Commission, K-12 school districts spend more than $8 billion per year on textbooks. E-textbooks can save schools between $250-$1,000 per student per year. Tablet prices also continue to drop, making them increasingly affordable. Tablets cost on average $489 in 2011, $386 in 2012, and are projected to cost $263 in 2015. Thank you
Is Curry the best PG of all time.

Ok your argument is pretty good but i"m sorry curry is not the best pg of all time,let"s go back to magic since you wanna keep talking about awards here you go Magic was unlike any point guard that came before him. He made the Showtime Lakers the "Showtime Lakers" and led them two five NBA titles. Magic was named NBA Finals MVP 3 times and NBA MVP 3 times. He finished his career with 10,141 assists also he has more assists per game rebounds per game and blocks per game. Then on top of that he has more total points more total assists more total rebounds and more total steals. Finnaly, magic has the better fg % than curry. I rest my case
Is Curry the best PG of all time.

Bro how did we go from curry being the goat pg to lebron and mj? Also You are the one that brought up stats. And how is it easier to score with a better team. Its statistically proven that the better the team the worse the stats. Your not using any factual evidence. Stats and rings dont matter what? Also Im.a wizards fan. I hate the warriors but im.not bias and I know when someone is an all tiem player. Stats do not lie. Its that simple. Ur not provuding any sort of evidence that any of those players are even close to curry. Jerry west? The same jerry west who couldnt make the playoffs in the qeakest era of all time. John stockton? The same john stockton whos spent his career as MJs punching bag. Westbrook is just not good enough. Hes not better than curry. Curry has the highest true shootingnpercentage of all time. Hes the most efficient scorer of all time. You dont even realize that curry is better all around than every single pg u just named. You have not given any factual evidence to support what your saying. You're spewing nonsense but you dont have the evidence to back it up. I hate people like you who think they know everything but have no clue what they're talking about. Curry averaged 30/10 in the greatest era of basketball. Has 2 MVPs. 2 scoring titles. 3 rings. Dont say accomplishments dont matter either. If bron had no rings do you honestly think he would even be considered a top 10 player. Same with mj. If he had no rings he would have already been forgotten. Curry has the stats and the accomplishments. Since I know your ignorant you'll want to keep battling so ima post my discord link so we can keep debating. https://discord.gg...
Is Curry the best PG of all time.

Buddy get off your high horse we all can tell ur a gsw fan and love your precious steph. First off i am a 28 year knics fan so there is no bias in this. In the goat debate it is mostly jordan or bron, the ppl who say jordan go by stats which does not measure the skill of another player. So In my opinion bron is the Goat the best all around basketball player ever because even though jordan is the best SCORER of all time basketball is not all about rings and stats. So back to our argument throwing stats away because with curry"s team it"s easy to get stats steph curry is not a BETTER Player/point guard then russel westbrook,jerry west, John stockton, Magic johnson and the list keeps going.
Is Curry the best PG of all time.

Lemme destroy your argumenr real quick. First off some of the stuff I said about magic applies to Russ. Also stat wise. Westbrook is a known statpadder. In clutch situations hes passed when he was wide open to get assists. Hes pushed his bigs like steven adams out of the way to get rebounds. Bigs have also cleared the way for him just ti get those. Also lets debate the stats of the last 4 years. In the last 4 years curry leads in every category except for rebounds, assists, and blocks. Evdry other stat including drtg and dws. True shooting percentage. Winshares in general. Ortg. And to think hes doing all of this with less than a 30 usage rate while westbrook has almost 45 usage rate. Curry and Westbrook aren't even close. In fact u fan apply every single thing I said about curry to kyrie, harden, cp3, wall, and even Nikola Jokic. Theres no question that curry is the best guard. And u talk about his shooting and defense. His true shooting is 53 which is average at best and his drtg and winshares are just that. Average. Im not saying russ isnt good but he is definitely not on the level of steph curry. Also curry has more 2nd round and playoff appearances than russ and russ has had kd, 6moty harden, ibaka, and others while for most of his career curry has had monta ellis, klay, and draymond eith kd just jumping ship. Statistically curry is by far the best pg
Is Curry the best PG of all time.

No,there is no chance curry is the best pg of all time . He is also not even the best right now. Russel westbrook is the current best and their is no stopping that. When russ had a terrible team with no other all stars he averaged a triple double. when Curry had a bad team he had nothing close to that stat line. Also curry"s career stats are not even close to russ. Finally russ is just the better player he has a good three point shot great defense and an unstoppable drive
Is Curry the best PG of all time.

Yes. #1. Stephen Curry is the only unanimous MVP #2. Has the 3rd highest winshares in nba history behind MJ and CP3 #3. Is a better rebounder than Magic. Averages 5 at 6'3 while magic averaged 7 at almost 7' while playing C at times #4. Magic Johnsons only scoring skill was layups and a sky hook on occasion while curry can make a shot from anywhere. And I mean anywhere from the court. #5. Curry is a better defender. His drtg is better than magics. Curry averages more steals and blocks than magic which is sad with him being nearly 7' and all. #6 The only thing Magic is better at is passing but his assist to turnover is less than 3.5 while currys is almost 3.3. Debate if u want but curry is thd goat pg.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The facts are overwhelming. Period.

I'm not going to give you indisputable evidence that Oswald didn't act alone. If that existed then this debate wouldn't be happening and you wouldn't believe that Oswald killed Kennedy. As William Cowper famously said, "absence of proof is not proof of absence". The fact remains that there are still numerous unexplained problems with the findings of the Warren Commision. The morning of the assassination, the FBI, Secret Service, and Dallas PD were given a list of 23 known subversives in the Dallas area. Of those 23, 22 were followed. Who wasn't? The man at the top of the list who entered the book depository building carrying a 3 foot long rifle (1). Why wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald followed? JFK's route was published in the Dallas Morning News that morning and was widely known. But at the last minute the Secret Service changed the route so that it would go directly past the depository (1). Oswald's description was broadcast by the Dallas PD 12 minutes after JFK was shot. This seems nothing short of miraculous, as police officer J.D. Tippit was not supposedly shot by Oswald until 35 MINUTES after the assassination! There are certainly other facts about the case that point to inconsistencies in your supposed answer, but I believe those are sufficient enough now to cast doubt on the findings of the Warren Commision. In conclusion, the facts are not overwhelming, and questions certainly still remain. 1. http://karws.gso.uri.edu... 2. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The facts are overwhelming. Period.

I want a conspiracy whackjob to give me one fact that a conspiracy occurred on November 22, 1963. not a hypothesis, not an opinion, not a rumor, not innuendo, not hearsay, not possibilities, not what ifs. Facts. I don't even want several facts. Give me ONE incontrovertible fact that proves that a conspiracy killed Jack Kennedy. In 45 plus years, conspiracy theorists have not provided a shred of evidence. Just the afore-stated muddling of truths and distortion of historical record. What say you, conspiracy fans? Give me one fact.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The facts are overwhelming. Period.

Disappointing. My opponent appears to be more interested in debating the merits of bodily functions and the sexual prowess of presidential candidates than debating about something he actually claims to have some sort of knowledge about. The affirmative side of a debate is charged with showing why the resolution is the only answer to a problem. As the negative side, my only job is to cast doubt as to whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for assassinating President Kennedy. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence to show that it is not possible to say for certain that Oswald shot Kennedy, and that he acted alone.