BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

Well, McCain is too old as well. Tell you the truth, I'm REALLY surprised that he seems locked in to be the nominee, because of his age. But you made a point: other people don't seem to think age is much of a factor. If you'll look closely, I did NOT insinuate that you were an uncivilized slob, and for the record I am perfectly aware that this is not an attack site. I merely pointed out that MOST (okay, that was overstating it) Ron Paul supporters ARE, and moreover that the nut jobs are the ones who cause the most fuss. I provided EVIDENCE of this, in the form of a YouTube video. I was NOT INSULTING YOU. On the contrary, you're obviously an intelligent person. The gender, race, creed, etc. of his supporters is not an issue. To make these things an issue is saying that they matter. That's prejudice, something Ron Paul (and I) are against. Ron Paul may be personally pleasant, but all that goes out the window when he stands up to make a speech, or answer a question in a debate. Frankly, he grows shrill and angry, reminding me of no one more than Mrs. Clinton herself in her more inflammatory moments. None of the other candidates lose their cool like this, even when discussing issues they strongly disagree with. I've noticed that you Ron Paul supporters have an inferiority-complex: you're sure the government and the media are out to get you and discredit Ron Paul. It's a conspiracy. Frankly, Ron Paul isn't given as much time as the other candidates in past debates because he is a minor candidate. It probably hurts your feelings, but it's true, and that's all he'll ever be. He has, at last count, 16 delegates. And that's after Super Tuesday. He won't win any states, and he will fade eventually. I'm sorry, but it's going to happen. Watch and see. The Media doesn't portray the actual delegate counts? Well, here they are: Ron Paul has SIXTEEN DELEGATES. Out of over TWO THOUSAND. Whether the media reported it or not is irrelevant. Ron Paul may be a good man, but he is not the "best" candidate for President. Once again, we return to the definition of "best." I think that it generally means, "most accepted," "most successful," and so on. Ron Paul is none of these. He has strong grassroots support, but his poll numbers are insignificant. I feel that I have successfully proven that Ron Paul is not the "best" candidate, even if for no other reason then that best is so subjective. I've mentioned all his faults, and you've failed to contradict me, so I see no need to restate them here. Thanks, Sola Gratia (P.S. I HIGHLY doubt that you are one of Ron Paul's delegates in Minnesota. Ron Paul DID NOT WIN ANY DELEGATES IN MINNESOTA.)
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

When you say that Paul is old and that should be a factor, have you compared his age to McCain's? they are the SAME age!!! and apparently, McCain is winning right now. Now you are calling me an uncivilized slob? That is uncalled for! This is a debate not a personal attack site. He is supporter by EVERY race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc... When you "claim" that he is, "Too old, too angry, too petty, and with nasty rumors of racism in his past," I must disagree. Dr. Paul is the most pleasant and kind candidate on the campaign trail. Apparently you haven't seen him talk before which is a shame because he is the person for the job. He has strongly denied the allegations of racism in his past, and since he has absolutely NO dirty marks on his record of flip-flopping (besides parties) and has stayed true to his beliefs, I believe him. In the debates that Ron is a part of, he gets flustered because the moderator promises 'equal' time to ALL candidates and then he only gets to field 2-4 questions while Romney and McCain go at each other over who voted for what and when. He gets mad at them because he thinks they should be focusing on our FUTURE and not the PAST. Of course Paul gets mad about the war, his stance is against it and he should be forceful about his stance so that true republicans know he is the 'right' candidate with fundamental republican views. Since when do Republicans start wars? You cannot rely upon the media to present your case for you in this debate. The media presents the straw poll results, NOT however, the actual delegate count. They assume they are proportionate except Paul has a lot more delegates than they want to believe. Paul is the best candidate for the job, because he knows how to fix our nations problems, not just patch them up. Hopefully, everyone who reads this debate, will vote for the person who argued his case best. I wish you good luck, but still believe Paul to be the best candidate for the job. In Fact, I am a delegate of his in MN.
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

This debate has become almost solely about the war. I mentioned this in my last post, but neither of us seemed inclined to follow my advice. Very well, now I will. 1. Ron Paul's age SHOULD not matter. It wouldn't, in a perfect world. Unfortunately, in this world, people age, and as they do they slowly but surely lose their mental faculties. Ron Paul may not be subject to this now, but heck, if he wins he has four years to go. Please don't bring up Reagan. Ron Paul would be older than Reagan was by several years when inaugurated. He would be the oldest President ever. Frankly, if he had been a serious contender in, say, 2000, this would be a non-issue, and I resent that it IS an issue, but it is and there's no getting around it. 2. "Best" is a hard word to define, and is most definitely subjective. YOU may think he's the "best" candidate, but to others perhaps the "best" candidate is Condoleeza Rice or Al Gore. I will try to pin down what you mean by "best." I assume you mean that Ron Paul is: electable, a sharer of your views, a good leader, a leader who is capable of leading America through the today's tumultuous world affairs, and a principled person. I will address these one by one. Electability: Sorry, but no. Ron Paul is patently unelectable. Although he has a dedicated "fan-base," they are mostly college students and mostly white males. While these are by no means bad things, they do not endear him to the general public. Plus, they're mostly outrageous, testosterone-fueled, uncivilized slobs. (http://www.youtube.com...) A sharer of your views: This, of course, is entirely subjective, but he definitely agrees with your views. Not mine, however, and not those of the majority of Americans--or if he does, they do not view him as the right vessel for these views. But more on that later. A good leader: This, again, is debatable. I would argue that presidential leadership is one of the only qualifications for the job that can't be learned without experiencing them, so it's a non-issue. A leader who is capable of leading America through the today's tumultuous world affairs: Because of his age and intemperance, I don't think he is capable of leading America through these times. Too old, too angry, too petty, and with nasty rumors of racism in his past. A principled person: Yes, he is. Frankly, the only qualifications Ron Paul meets in my admittedly imperfect graph are "principled" and "a sharer of your views." These qualities do not negate his faults, and he is not the best candidate for president. 3. He is angry. Every time I see Ron Paul in a debate, he gets madder. He can turn any question into a huge argument, an insult at his fellow candidates, and an angry screed against the war, Bush, and anything else that gets in the way. All the other candidates, even the Dems, have shows their softer side, but not Ron Paul. He's one-dimensional. He's totally unsubtle, and he's not presidential material. As the results for Super Tuesday come in, we'll see if voters agree with your assessment of Ron Paul. Thanks. Sola Gratia
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

I'm going to assume you meant "far-reaching consequences of WWII." First off, it is NOT possible to win the war in Iraq, in fact you gave me the proof. It's not possible because they have a cause worth fighting for, we don't, they hate and we don't. It's that simple. They can only gather enough 'haters' to fight us if/when we leave. And at that point, they WILL stop because they won't have a choice. The Iraq war will turn out the same way Vietnam did no matter who is president. The only question that remains is, "How many American Soldiers are going to have to die before we realize that?" I don't know how you can think of the Iraq War as the assasination of Ferdinand? That just puzzles me. If we lose, which will happen, we will not be subject to the 'ravening hounds', we will just prove that we are human instead of this giant war-hungry nation that will destroy anyone who tries to hurt us. Apparently you dont understand the UN very well. Yes, they need to fix some policies that would allow them to more easily step into world conflicts, but that wont happen unless the UN realizes they are needed in the world. You do realize that Al-Queda wasn't even in Iraq when the war began right? They only came because we were there taking over Middle Eastern soil. I'm not exactly sure how you can blame Clinton for the mess that Bush got us into, and then say that Bush wasn't completely to blame. Yes, you say, "wasn't entirely guiltless," but that makes it sound like Clinton is as much to blame for the War as Bush. Sorry, but that is NOT the case. I NEVER said that they could blame us for 9-11, I said that had we not provided the motivation for the attacks, it wouldn't have happened. There's a difference between that and saying it was partially our fault like you are making me sound. I'm curious as to what kinds of policies you find are 'acidic'? Following that, I'm not sure why age should define a persons capability as president. Thirdly, Paul is NOT misguided about the war, he is the one with the truth about it. One of your last points suggests that the UN shouldve run the war instead of us. I don't think we should've EVER gone into Iraq, and the UN actually made a GOOD decision on that choice. Iraq NEVER had WMD's and we had NO proof that they did, yet we went into their country and found what? Oh, Nothing. We presumed them guilty instead of innocent (unlike our court system), which had we gone the other way and made a rational decision, we wouldn't be in this situation either. Dr. Paul does NOT have a hatred towards government, he believes that the constitution is our guide and recently (Bush's administration) the Federal Government has gotten WAY too powerful. Which is true. A prime example of this is the patriot act. It is anything but patriotic. If you address the personal aspect of Paul being 'too-old', that is just unfair, b/c age shouldn't be a factor for presidency. I look forward to your counter-argument. Matt
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

We keep rehashing this same territory. You make a good point when you say that the Iraq war might not in the end have the far-reaching consequences of the Iraq war. I tend to think of the war, however, as something like the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Bosnia that set off the keg of powder known as World War I. If we win in Iraq, we can hit the Rewind button on the world in a way. We can recover our image in the world from its post Vietnam low, and we will show the Islamofascists that no quarter will be given or asked. Anything less than total, lasting victory will be like the stumble that brought the giant down for the ravening hounds to devour. We cannot lose. You're blaming the U.S. for the laziness of the UN? Think again. They have made themselves unable to help us maintain the free world with their own bureaucrats. You honestly think that Al-Qaeda and their allies will stop when they have the Muslim part of the world free of the "barbarians"? Sorry, but no. These people are religious fanatics. They want to convert us, or kill us, and they haven't been doing much converting lately. They hate civilization. They HATE it. And they will stop at nothing to destroy it. What you and other otherwise intelligent people fail to grasp is that they HATE. We do not hate them, they hate us. And that gives them a definite advantage. Not to say that if we give them the Middle East, they will cut off our oil supplies. Now everyone with a brain wants to wean us off foreign oil, but if it happened right now, today, we would starve to death. Our country would collapse in a few weeks' time. True, we should have known Al-Qaeda was coming. Frankly, if Clinton and his somnambulist administration had not been such incompetent blowhards, this never would have happened. And Bush wasn't entirely guiltless either. We were the "motivation" behind Al-Qaeda? Oh, so that makes it okay with you, does it? Sorry, but they have no one to blame but themselves. Millions of Muslims live in America around the world, content to exist peacefully with their fellow humans. But these fanatics cannot bear to do that. Moving beyond that issue, I do know what the tenth Amendment says. So do most Americans. I don't deny that the government has too much power. If Ron Paul wasn't personally so acidic, so old, and so misguided about the war, he would have my heartfelt support. The UN should step into our foreign affairs? Right. So, we should have let THEM run the war in Iraq. Oh, that would be a great success. They would governmentize the poor radicals into crying submission. Ron Paul goes beyond the tenth amendment. He has a hatred for government. We have merely covered the issues. In the next round, I will address the PERSONAL aspects of Ron Paul's unfitness for the Presidency. Thanks, Sola Gratia
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

Well, in answer to your question at the beginning, I supported Fred Thompson before he dropped out, and I lead toward Mike Huckabee right now, with Mitt Romney a last resort. I'm generally Conservative. By the way, you could have found all this out by clicking on my profile. First of all, there are some serious logical errors undermining your argument. You say that pulling out of Iraq, and dismantling all of our military bases overseas would actually IMPROVE the United States' standing in the world? That makes no sense at all. The rest of the world, in general, is going to hate us whatever the heck we do because we are the big boy on the block. There's no getting around it. World opinion of us is not a compelling reason to elect Ron Paul, and I'm pretty sure they'd hate him even more than they hate GWB. You say that other countries' attitudes to our withdrawal from the world scene would be, "Gosh, they were doing all the protecting around the world and everybody just keeps giving them crap and telling them to get the h*** away from our country. I think we should step in and help them." That is completely wrong. If they can't realize that this is true without having us pull out, they never will. Just because we needed "help" to end the Cold War doesn't mean it wasn't mostly our doing. With the help of our like-minded allies, we won the Cold War. You think that some other country would assume our role in foreign affairs? Which one? Britain? Germany? France? Japan? China? God help us, Russia? Would you really trust them, even if they did exactly what we're doing now? We should rely on the U.N.? Really? What good have they done lately. Frankly, if the UN were capable of doing what we are doing now you would be right. But it can't, so you're not. The UN is too slow and forgiving. The free world would have nukes shoved up their collective noses within months. You don't really attack WHAT we are doing in the world, only that we ARE doing it. You say, in fact, that if we didn't do it, other countries would step in. Why should we make them do that when we are capable? Why should we, to use an example from history, let the British and French defend themselves from the Nazis when the fate of the free world is at stake? In all honesty, that would have destroyed us. And nothing has changed today except the religion of our adversaries. Ron Paul IS a MILITARY isolationist, like no US president has been. I admit that besides that, I generally agree with him except for his pure hatred for government. It's up to you to defend Ron Paul, as the instigator of this debate, you must state your case. You haven't. Please do that in the next round. Thanks, Sola Gratia
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

I want to start off by asking you who you support and why? I would like to know what kind of views you have on the issues. Now onto your argument. You say that Ron Paul is an isolationist in your first point. This is completely false, and here's why. Yes, he wants to withdraw all troop home the USA, and yes that would mean that we would leave the Iraq war right away as well. However, keeping troops at home in the USA, is NOT isolationism. Isolationism would be cutting off all contact with other countries, including trade, discussions, and treaties. If the world turned to turmoil when we left, then the U. N. could actually do its job and step in for once. The U. N. figures that we will take on anything that they don't deal with, and therefore let it go. Not to mention, the world would then see us in a new light saying, "Gosh, they were doing all the protecting around the world and everybody just keeps giving them crap and telling them to get the h*** away from our country. I think we should step in and help them. " Onto your second point. You say that, "[W]e almost singlehandedly defeated the forces of tyranny, and the Cold War. " The key to this statement is the word 'almost'. We did NOT stop the cold war singlehandedly, we needed help, you even say so. Therefore how are the places we occupy now going to be any different? We need help to 'win' in Iraq (even though I think a loss is inevitable in Iraq), so we should rely on the U. N. to step in where there is conflict. This includes, but is not limited to, Darfur, Kenya, Iran, North Korea. We are not the world's police no matter how much the world wishes we are. I now await your rebuttal. Matt (Don't forget to answer my question at the beginning)
Ron Paul is the best candidate for president

Ron Paul is not the best candidate for the Presidency. Frankly, in a perfect world, he would be, but America does not need Ron Paul's isolationism at this point in history. If we withdraw from the world military scene, as Paul advocates, it would do far more harm than good. Our image in the world would then be entirely formed by our enemies. 1. Ron Paul wants to withdraw from Iraq. And not just withdraw. I'm sure he would love it if he could just snap his fingers and put all American soldiers overseas back on our soil permanently. Of course, it is American troops in the Middle East that keep it from descending into chaos and violence. It was American troops that protected the sovereignty of South Korea and Taiwan. The world, passing over Vietnam--the debacle of which was caused by anti-war loonies of whom Paul is the modern incarnation--would be a far darker place without American troops in the past century. 2. And that's not even to speak of both World Wars, when we almost singlehandedly defeated the forces of tyranny, and the Cold War. That is just one long argument against Paul. I have many. Thanks for making this debate. Sola Gratia
Math owns!

My definitions have been conceded too because silence is consent, they were not addressed. I am sorry if my opponent is mad but I have taken the CON stance and now must refute that position. You have accepted my definitions by not addressing them and have provided no evidence to support your own stance. I am not being sarcastic but instead presenting my case. To be honest I dont appreciate the language directed towards me. So I extend my arguments and still believe that "Math [mathematics] does not Own."
Math owns!

I will provide a few definitions to begin this debate. MATH Main Entry: mathï¿½eï¿½matï¿½ics Pronunciation: \ˌmath-ˈma-tiks, ˌma-thə-Function: noun plural but usually singular in construction Date: 1573 a : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations OWN Main Entry: own Function: verb Date: before 12th century transitive verb a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over TANGIBLE Main Entry: 1tanï¿½giï¿½ble Pronunciation: \ˈtan-jə-bəlFunction: adjective Etymology: Late Latin tangibilis, from Latin tangere to touch Date: 1589 1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable b : substantially real INTANGIBLE Main Entry: inï¿½tanï¿½giï¿½ble Pronunciation: \(ˌ)in-ˈtan-jə-bəlFunction: adjective Etymology: French or Medieval Latin; French, from Medieval Latin intangibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin tangibilis tangible Date: 1640 : not tangible http://www.merriam-webster.com... Math cannot own anything. If my opponent believes that Math can own, I would like examples. I can prove that people can own something by giving examples.
The Old Testament, or Torah, was given to the Jews by God.

I can't really define God because hes not physical, but basically God is a higher, perfect being who is the creator of the world. By Jewish people I mean the Israelites that are in the bible story, the ones that were (supposedly) slaves in Egypt. Also it includes modern day Jews, either by birth, or converting. Yes, most of it was given to them through Moses. But the main point of my argument is that the "Old Testament" is the word of God, not how it was given. CASE It would be very unlikely that the bible would be as widespread as it is today, if it was a false book. If it was false or made up by a human, it wouldn't have been passed on by so many generations as truth. In the Bible There is a mass-prophecy [1] involving about three million people. The bible couldn't have originated at a later time (then this incident). If a book claims that something happens to so many people it would be easily verified or disproved. Lets say someone gave you a book. In the book it claims that millions of people all saw a whale jump out of the water, fly across the sky, and yell at the millions of people. The person who gave you the book tells you that it is true. Would you give it to your children and tell them that it is true, without first confirming the story? Of course not! Even if you did give it to your kids they would still be able to know that it is made up because, where are the millions of people that this supposedly happened to?? My point is that the old testament is most likely a true book that is really from God. How would it have made such a huge claim and have been passed down if that claim wasn't true? [1] Exodus chapters 19 and 20