BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Republican Party: Part two

This round is going to be a bit more complex. In order to debate you on these topics I need to know your position. On many several of them I think we may be closer to agreement. For example, I would support Marijuana legalization. the logic goes like this. We spend an inordinate amount of money sending an inordinate amount of people to jail for smoking something far less dangerous than a cigarette. My libertarian side will likely be coming out on this round. Same thing for Gay Marriage. I believe that government should get out of marriage entirely. Neither traditional nor gay marriage should be enshrined by the government and should rather be left up to individual members of society. The immigration debate should be more interesting. I do support the border wall and am against illegal immigration. Anyone who respects our laws and comes in legally, however, should be welcome after vetting. I believe the military is an excellent institution. I plan on attending NROTC to get a commission in the Navy as an officer after I get my degree in Nuclear Engineering. The military is necessary to ensure the security of a free state and to maintain the world order. Evidence for this can be seen in 1781and the Articles of Confederation which did not allow the government to establish a standing military. As a result, disgruntled rioters nearly toppled the government and would have if not for civilian militias. This exposed the need for a stronger central government and the drafting of the new Constitution which is the one in use today. Once I have more information on your specific point of view then I will be able to develop arguments more completely and specifically. I used this round mainly to clarify my position on each of the topics.
American voters ought not be concerned with a candidate's religious affiliation

I'll try to use Puck's assertions to lay out three possible scenarios regarding religious affiliation: 1. As Puck said, if perceptions of religion are extremely relative, it all depends on our perspective. Then, because there cannot be an agreed upon "definition" of what a religion is about, it really doesn't matter what religion a person says they are, and therefor, voters shouldn't care. Then perhaps... 2. People (and I believe this is your position, Puck) aren't so much interested in what religion a candidate is, but rather that they would abandon reason for faith to believe any religion. Of course we all accept "truths" every day based on varying degrees of faith. We cannot logically explain everything we believe to be true, but that seems to be OK. So decisions of faith aren't really as nutty and dangerous as some would make them out to be. Beyond this, regardless of religious affiliation, do you think all presidential decisions come from logical reasoning? They use logical reasoning based on information that they TRUST is true -- information that they, you might say, have faith in. Do they exhaustively try to prove or disprove intelligence they receive? I doubt it. So whether they profess to be religious or not, they will receive information, often believe it to be true based on FAITH, and then make decisions based on that information. Kinda sounds like what religious folks do.
American voters ought not be concerned with a candidate's religious affiliation

"A president who believes in the end times can or has or will act towards ending the world? Christ taught peace, not "help God bring about the end of the world". I would be interested to see any scripture that tells us to bring about with our own hands the end of the world." I never stated that he did. His followers however wish to see the fruition of the same book he is in. In case you forgot, the NT is not all about Jesus. "I'm not sure the Bible justifies ALL manner of behavior. It's misguided to take quotes from the Bible and call it Biblical support." Again, that is a perspective based bias of yours. How else do you garner BIBLICAL support for an act without quoting the bible? "It's as easy? It's as easy to justify anti-happiness as it is to justify Jesus' explicit messages?" Yes. Yes it is. Denial of self happiness is a common theme. "Professing faith is not an abandonment of logic and deductive reasoning. One obviously doesn't apply these in faith (hence the meaning), but they haven't necessarily abandoned it in their lives. Do you believe everything that you do because you logically deduced it?" A contradiction of course. It is not a belief if it is logically deduced. As explained in R1 it is a measure of one's use of reason. 'God exists' is a pervasive metaphysical stance. "Honestly, I think a lot of religious profession in politics is pandering. I think that like most religiously hollow people, politicians are more interested in the good feelings of religious profession than actually living it." Ignoring the logical fallacy of your statement, one can play to a voting block and still have a religious faith. The two experiences are not exclusive. The fact that a politician may, is another good reason to base any voting preference.
American voters ought not be concerned with a candidate's religious affiliation

"Many born-again Christians believe the end times are here/approaching and a sizeable majority of those believe it will be in their lifetime. A president that believes such a thing can (has/will) act towards such a goal." A president who believes in the end times can or has or will act towards ending the world? Christ taught peace, not "help God bring about the end of the world". I would be interested to see any scripture that tells us to bring about with our own hands the end of the world. "The bible can be used to justify all manner of behaviour. Slavery, genocide, infanticide, communism, separation of church and state, homophobia, love everyone equally etc. These can all be supported by bible quotes, so it is no surprise to see a range of 'non-Christian' behaviours amongst those of its professed faithful." I'm not sure the Bible justifies ALL manner of behavior. It's misguided to take quotes from the Bible and call it Biblical support. It's imperative to thoroughly comprehend the real message of Jesus. Yes, the Bible lays out guidelines for keeping slaves, but Jesus Christ(ian) tells us how to treat our neighbors and enemies (no preemptive or redemptive violence, etc). "It is as easy to justify the free love, opiate like, Jesus rhetoric as it is to justify the biblical, anti-happiness, seclusionist policies." It's as easy? It's as easy to justify anti-happiness as it is to justify Jesus' explicit messages? "Any political candidate that professes to faith professes to abandon logic and deductive reasoning." Professing faith is not an abandonment of logic and deductive reasoning. One obviously doesn't apply these in faith (hence the meaning), but they haven't necessarily abandoned it in their lives. Do you believe everything that you do because you logically deduced it? Honestly, I think a lot of religious profession in politics is pandering. I think that like most religiously hollow people, politicians are more interested in the good feelings of religious profession than actually living it.
American voters ought not be concerned with a candidate's religious affiliation

"I believe that American voters place too much emphasis on the religious affiliation of political candidates. While a good "Christian" president may try to influence the supreme court to end abortion, they may also be bombing and killing around the world." The two examples are certainly not exclusive. Many born-again Christians believe the end times are here/approaching and a sizeable majority of those believe it will be in their lifetime. A president that believes such a thing can (has/will) act towards such a goal. If you wish voters to discard the preferences of a president to see the end of the world come to fruition, the same person who has the metaphorical finger over the big red button of doom, then fine. I however consider that to be a very relevant consideration. "The religious foundation that is so important to voters seems to crumble when it comes time for politicians to make decisions. If the majority of our political leaders really took their "Christianity" seriously, we'd be living in a much different country." Not really. Natural impulse precedes religion. The bible can be used to justify all manner of behaviour. Slavery, genocide, infanticide, communism, separation of church and state, homophobia, love everyone equally etc. These can all be supported by bible quotes, so it is no surprise to see a range of 'non-Christian' behaviours amongst those of its professed faithful. It is a matter of perspective. It is as easy to justify the free love, opiate like, Jesus rhetoric as it is to justify the biblical, anti-happiness, seclusionist policies. So when you say "living in a different country" you really mean MY perspective of the biblical interpretation, or more likely, an interpretation told to you by others. Why is that as relevant as any one person's policies? Simply because a profession of faith lets voters know about a person's level and use of reason. Any political candidate that professes to faith professes to abandon logic and deductive reasoning. Decisions they make will always be scrutinised under that one clause. They are willing to abandon reason for faith. Many voters see that as a positive sign of morality and character. I personally see it as a reason not to vote for a candidate. Those voters that see a person of faith as a positive aspect look to that person to safeguard their preferred morality of the nation as a whole. I see it as someone who believes, for example the Joseph Smith Jr. con, as a good sign of their level of reasoning.
American voters ought not be concerned with a candidate's religious affiliation

I believe that American voters place too much emphasis on the religious affiliation of political candidates. While a good "Christian" president may try to influence the supreme court to end abortion, they may also be bombing and killing around the world. The religious foundation that is so important to voters seems to crumble when it comes time for politicians to make decisions. If the majority of our political leaders really took their "Christianity" seriously, we'd be living in a much different country.
Black ops vs. Minecraft

-In Black ops, it is less than or equal to the realism of Minecraft. First of all, when the player is shot by a gun, the player sees red on their screen. A couple seconds later, the player is back to normal. This shows that in black ops, if one would be shot, they would heal back up. This is not true in the real world. Therefore, it is not as realistic > Which then probably meanss that the plyer placed a bandage on himself. -Let me ask you. Is shooting a gun as easy as in Black ops? No. Therefore, I prove that it does not teach how to shoot and kill. Shooting a gun in real life is harder than in Black ops, where you just turn and press the button. Evidently, it also teaches the players a lot about violence. This leads to more violence in society. > Shooting a gun is very easy. Ever try a NERF gun before? ==} Conclusion So, Black ops is better than Black ops. RUBRIC Agree- black ops agree- black ops conduct- black ops (even Con stated) spelling- Tied Arguments- Black ops Sources- Con This is the most fair rubric.
Black ops vs. Minecraft

Hello Pro, Contention 1- Realism In Black ops, it is less than or equal to the realism of Minecraft. First of all, when the player is shot by a gun, the player sees red on their screen. A couple seconds later, the player is back to normal. This shows that in black ops, if one would be shot, they would heal back up. This is not true in the real world. Therefore, it is not as realistic. In Minecraft, there is also a hunger level. Eat little and you become more and more hungry to the point it affects your health. This also ties back into realism, as eating little may cause you to have a lower health. Just as I said in Round 1, there are many more realistic components in Minecraft: wolves, sheep, chicken, grass, mushroom, etc. {1}. Contention 2- Education Let me ask you. Is shooting a gun as easy as in Black ops? No. Therefore, I prove that it does not teach how to shoot and kill. Shooting a gun in real life is harder than in Black ops, where you just turn and press the button. Evidently, it also teaches the players a lot about violence. This leads to more violence in society. ==> Conclusion Of course, Minecraft is better than Black ops because of the realism and what it teaches to players. {1} http://www.minecraftwiki.net...
Black ops vs. Minecraft

- Black ops, on the other hand, is not as realistic or educational as Minecraft. > Black ops is just as realistic as Minecraft. You can see real hands and real faces. - Not educational > NOT EDUCATIONAL? Black ops teaches you how to shoot and kill. So, black ops is just as educational as minecraft. > Black ops is fun, cool, entertaining, and requires skill while Minecraft does not. ==} So, Black ops is better than Minecraft.
Black ops vs. Minecraft

Resolution: Black ops is better than Minecraft. Am I correct? As Con, I will be arguing Minecraft is better or equal black ops, as I have to negate the resolution. Contention 1- Minecraft, as some of us know, is a game of survival techniques. The game is based on real life: cooking chickens, farming for wheat, killing sheep for its wool, mining, etc. Animals/consumers and decomposers are also included: wolves, sheep, chicken, pigs, cow, etc. Producers/plants are also included: grass and dandelions. {1}. Even better, players may die from falling, drowning, being hit, fire, etc. It also includes a health bar. {1}. They include even more real life activities like talking with friends in multiplayer or brewing/enchanting. {1}. Contention 2- Black ops, on the other hand, is not as realistic or educational as Minecraft. There is no such plants or real life activities there but killing and shooting. Though I have black ops, Minecraft is better by far because of the realism and the education that it teaches. ==> Minecraft is a fun game that is played by over fifteen million people. . http://www.minecraftwiki.net...
Black ops vs. Minecraft

Good debate, Pro. Contention 1- Realism "Which then probably meanss that the plyer placed a bandage on himself." We do not see a bandage when a player heals himself all of a sudden. Therefore, this proves Black Ops not as or equal the realism of Minecraft. "Shooting a gun is very easy. Ever try a NERF gun before?" LOL. I meant real guns: AR-15, AK-47, M16, Colt, etc. When using Nerf guns, it teaches children the fun of shooting. When they grow up, they receive influence of violence from these guns. http://www.minecraft.net... ==> Conclusion Because Pro dropped many of my points, Con should win. Thank you and I hope you had a wonderful Christmas. Nice debate, Pro.
An old apple is not all that great.

1. Pro has merely subtly shifted his blaming in this argument. His blame was on the sock. He has shifted it onto the person owning the sock, then back onto the sock. Nothing has changed. Pro is clearly madly jealous of my socks and card tricks.2. Pro is underestimating the power of the dark side. Join me, and we can rule the galaxy as father and son except I'm not your father and you're not my son and we'll all call each other by our first names or by nicknames based on our fabulous socks. Pro wants to stop this joyful revolution. Don't let him.3. Pro is blatently publishing opinions on opinions and I will not stand for it. As such, this argument will not be addressed.4. While this is the conventional definition, it only scratches the surface. Colorful socks and memes have very little in common, but contain high amounts of swag. In conclusion, pro never gave decisive proof of his initial claims, making the rest of the argument void.
An old apple is not all that great.

Refutation:1. My point on people being jerks about having their socks is not a sign of me being jealous. It's the annoyance of the person, and the sock causes the annoyance. My opponent is pulling the "Jealously" card to prove his point instead of providing a sound argument.2. Responding to my opponents response to my argument, not everything has a "dark side." My opponent just wants to force the dark side on everything, promoting evil within everything. I will not stand for this evil doer to continue his heresy. Don't fall for the traps of the wicked3. My opponent believes I can't have an opinion in order to declare a point. Everyone has a opinions, and everyone will use them when confronting a resolution such as this.4. swag is not a mystical power like my opponent has claimed, it is simply is the meaning of something being cooler than cool.For all these reasons I ask for an affirmative ballot at the end of todays round.
An old apple is not all that great.

Refutations:1. This is not an argument against colorful socks, but jealousy. The act of being jealous proves that you secretly appreciate fine colored socks.2.Everything wonderful has a dark side, but the dark side doesn't have to be bad. While you may consider this an inconvenience, it has great potential for passive agressive warfare. Furthurmore, fine socks should be dry cleaned or handled by professionals.3.Pro has admitted this to be purely opinion and as such it will not be addressed.4.Swag is a mysterious power yet to be completely harnessed or understood. However, many youths of this day would agree that colored socks are very "swag" or even "swagbiscuits."Finally, pro has not proven that colorful socks are not any of the defined words. Being pro, the burden of proof lies on him.
An old apple is not all that great.

Now lets begin. The resolution we are confronted with is colorful socks are not all that great. Which being affirmative, I agree with this statement and heres why:1. People who wear them are jerks. - Everytime I see someone wearing socks of many colors, I get frustrated because they come over to me and brag about their socks being one of many colors while mine is just plain o' white. Terrible right? 2. Makes your other clothes look like crap. - Wow, I have some neat red, pink, purple, green and blue socks, lemme just put them in the washing machine with my nice white materials. Ya, there goes your white undies. The ones you wore everytime to church. Gone.3. Look terrible. - Don't care if you like them, my opinion is superior. Socks that have so many confusing and terrible colors put together are a monstrocity! 4. Plain socks are more swag and practical with everything. - Need I say more? - mic drop.
Geometry classes should not be their own, they should be inserted into other curricula

geometry class is mainly review of other topics with the addition of new theorems applying to standard shapes. In geometry, the main linking factor between the different subtopics is that they all apply to shapes. geometry and its own is not used by everyone, and so, 8t should be split up instead of taking a full year to focus on math most well not be using unless going into certain feilds. on top of that, many of the proofs taught and used in geometry classes take up extra time and are not worth the effort.
All religions are incorrect.

I negate, that "All religions are incorrect." PRO has the burden of proof to show that the resolution is true, as it is a statement that he put forth and is attempting to show that it is correct. Even if I lose all my arguments and refutations, as long as my opponent has not met that burden of proof, you default vote CON because I haven't claimed anything on that level. Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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 [that is] generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. (combination of definitions 1 and 2 of "religion" off of Dictionary.com) As there has been no specification on what religion is wrong about, we must default assume that "incorrect" is talking about everything. Therefore, PRO is claiming that All religions are wrong about everything [that they claim]. "There is not sufficient evidence to support that a god in any form claimed by any religion exists. If, by chance, a deity of some sort existed, it would certainly not be anything like any organized religion has claimed." > This does not mean they are incorrect. None of you have sufficient evidence to believe that I like green tea, but that doesn't mean that I DON'T like green tea. As said many times by many diferent people, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Absence of evidence [in this context] means it's irrational to believe a god is real, while evidence of absence means that believing a god is incorrect. So far, PRO has provided no such evidence that every single god of every single religion is false. So far, the burden of proof has not been met.
War on Terror

I am for the war on terror, con is going to be aginst the war on terror. This will be a four round debate First round is acceptance Second round is first augment Third round is counter augment Four round is your closing augment Forfeits are not allowed in this debate, if you forfeit a round you will lose the debate and all points will go to the slide which did not forfeit. Now if you want to accept this debate then you must go to the comment section and tell me you want to accept this debate. By Friday next week I will pick who gets the position of con.
War on Terror

Allow me to quote my opponent."Con bring up that fact that we have terrorist attacks at home. So we should bring our troops home" This is a complete lie, and I never actually said that. I never even said that we should bring our troops home. My whole argument was just showing why the War on Terror should be discontinued. Bringing troops home, and continuing the War on Terror is 2 different things. We could have troops just stationed there to train soldiers in their local country, or for some other reason. So Pro's argument is basically useless, since I never actually said this. "They attack us at home, yet you are saying it is a good idea to leave them along overseas? What about the weaker nations, the ones who can not stand up to them and win?"Yes, I do say it is a good idea, because past events have shown us simply fighting them has done absolutely nothing to reduce terrorism in other countries. In fact, it has increased. Pro has done nothing to refute this, and simply is repeating what he said before. For Pro's point on weaker countries, it's worth noting we are somewhat repsonsible for making them weaker. This was the result of the War on Terror in it's earliest days. Pro says that we should help other nations stand up and fight, but the question is whether a 1.3 trillion spenditure is worth fighting somebodies war. So far, Pro hasn't made a convincing case as to why that budget is worth it. "They will attack us even if we do not attack them, so isn't better to fight and end them before they cause even more civilians to die?"Do you know that for a fact? Where is your evidence that would indicate that? I have already shown with evidence that more people have actually died when the War on Terror was declared. You have failed to give any evidence to back your claims."True this war has coasted us tons of money, but you must understand what we are fighting for. We are fighting for our allies, we are fighting to end a threat to our nation, we are fighting to protect those who need us. Millions die, tons are in slaved due to them. They have killed American civilians and us allies civilians. The un even said they are a threat and every nation and should be stopped. There is a link to the un and it's stance on those issue of Isis in my second round."