BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare plays a positive role in America

First Argument in favor of Welfare: Government's Duty towards All Citizens The principle duty of government is to provide for and secure the well being of ALL its citizens. The military at the national level and the police at local level are prime examples of money being withdrawn disproportionately from the wealthy towards societal good. And since there are more middle and lower class Americans (economically), the same argument you made in your previous debate about welfare could be cross applied and of course rendered apart here. The government has a duty to provide for its citizens, and Welfare is one way for the government to ensure at the very least an adequate (if albeit not altogether comfortable) standard o fliving. Second Argument in favor of Welfare: Redistribution of Wealth The redistribution of wealth is in and of itself a healthy part of any Democratic, Capitalist society. Without forms of wealth redistribution, such as welfare, wealth collects in the hands of a few individuals which eventually transforms America from a democratic country into an oligarchy of a few wealthy families. By continuously redistributing wealth, the wealth and power gap between the upper and lower classes remains manageable. And as a subset, redistribution of wealth is also healthy for the American economy. Among poor people, there is a higher marginal propensity to consume, and especially a marginal propensity to consume so that the money is spent in America. The upper class is both less likely to consume and more likely to spend money purchasing goods and services outside the country. Welfare, which puts money in the hands of the poor, betters the economy. Third Argument in favor of Welfare: Cheap method of societal preservation There are two ways to prevent an armed class conflict. A police state or granting all individuals at the least a modest standard of living. A police state is truly expensive, and I am not speaking of the expense of surveillance equipment or of maintaining a tremendous body of police officers. I am speaking of the cost to our culture and ideals. Fortunately, so long as the impoverished are a step above desperate, they would be too busy to rebel. The taking of arms is the last recourse, and so long as the government ensures them some form of housing, medical services, clothing, and food, we can cheaply maintain our present day society. Take that away and....
Healthcare should not be a right

So your justification for denying the right of healthcare is due to the economic impacts (plural) that (necessarily) follow when we make it such. This is a pretty hefty claim. You know what they say, Extraordinary claim, Extraordinary evidence. I'm a simple man. Sources are nice, But really I just need you to show me logically that your claim can be true, If you can do that, Then we can explore the possibility of it. Healthcare is a civil responsibility. There is no reason for people to die needlessly over a some tax dollars. I don't even care if it's a lot of tax dollars. Pieces of green paper are NEVER. . . ". NEVER more important than societal well being. I cannot stress this enough. If your strongest argument is that it's expensive, Then I'm afraid you're gonna fall short of the goalpost on this one. Now your last claim may have some more merit to it. You say there are other ways that can achieve the same goal. Please list these ways, Give logical details so we can ground the concept in reality instead of taking you at your word, And you must also prove that those alternatives are necessarily better than the current best solution, Which is to not let people die for no reason. Your floor
The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

Many thanks to my partner for presenting this topic. I look forward to challenging this, the most updated and formidable version of this debate to be fielded (I presume.) Pro will also be happy to learn that I am the most brimstone-flaming atheist in all of the known world... At any rate, it will clearly be up to Pro to present the definitions, some of which has already been done. The definition of "Theory" is acceptable to me. I can accept the following addition, which I present to Pro for review. HypothesisNoun: 1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.I bother to list this definition in order that we may also (beginning in the next round, of course - rules are rules) establish how a hypothesis can possibly be a theory. As I deal with the chore of definitions, which I know is tedious, I feel that we should also specify precisely which god we will be discussing as we examine the God Hypothesis. If the GH will be used to support an argument for Yahweh, for example, it would be necessary to demonstrate how the GH is not heretical to the Abrahamic religions that adore him. I am of the opinion that the premise cannot stand if it disagrees with the religions that it attempts to "prove." Further, we should establish precisely how we can independently measure any attributes of Yahweh that can be explained by hypothesis - before we can offer a credible graduation to scientific theory. Obviously, humanity stands on a precipice. If the GH is proved in this debate, mankind will have been changed forever. To say the very least, I am honored to take part in such a monumental scientific enterprise, and look forward to carefully studying my partner's Opening Argument. Which I await...
The God Hypothesis should be considered a Scientific theory

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis should be a scientific theory. In principle, I technically have all the Burden of Proof, but for the purpose of winning and losing this debate, my opponent must successfully poke holes in my science based on the criteria I set out without appealing to pure philosophical arguments. This means my opponent MUST provide arguments that have scientific backing to support it and not just logical assertions. My opponent will have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being an established theory: Essential criteria "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. .. .. .. A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before. )"[1] The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in having a human affair. A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories. Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections. P. S. I would preferr my opponent to be a flaming atheist since they would be the most motivated to examine my hypothesis thoroughly and falsify it. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Who are better Koreans or Greeks

I will not deny that Greece is in a state of financial crisis. But Korea is also facing a period of instability. South Korea and North Korea act as bitter rivals. North Korea, being a militaristic state, is in the development in hydrogen bombs. I do not have much doubt that, if tensions should increase between the two nations, war may be declared, spreading chaos and destruction through both Koreas.However, my argument shall not focus on the current status of either region, but instead discuss the rich history and culture, and the achievements of the Greeks. I shall present my main points in the following round to give my opponent enough time to create his or her own new points.
Burning the Flag of the United States of America Should Be Legal.

As you should well know, the flag of America is the good 'ole red, white and blue. As a symbol of our nation, I contend that the burning of it in any way for whatever reason - as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual like burning people's houses down - should be legal. My argument in favor of this is that freedom of speech and expression allows us to burn the flag for reasons such as protest. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1] From virtue of the First Amendment, flag burning should be legal. ---References--- 1. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Israel belongs to the Jews

Well you say that, but there isn't any proof for that claim. The evidence rather suggests that they are not descendants from a group of people that lived in 14 century BC and even if 1% of Jews are Israelites, that's about 140,000 people that have no right to take over a certain area with the help of secular nations. We've established that the Jews today are not the Children of Israel, that Israel is committing crimes against Palestinians, that Israel is violating international law and that Israel was established by atheists. We've seen Israeli children calling for the killing of Arabs and Palestinians, we've also seen that the Palestinians are put in a prison camps, Gaza and the West Bank. Regardless of what the Torah says, Palestine belongs to Palestinians and Israel shouldn't exist. Israel should be ruling with the land with the law of the Torah, not secular "democracy". Hypocrisy, that's the problem. Jews reject most commandments, but they don't mind ethnic cleansing and even if we take the few verses that can be interpreted one way or another, it's still vague.
Israel belongs to the Jews

They aren't converts. The original Ashkenazi Jews were from Israel, they just interbret with converts so now they're about 1% Israelite. Either way since they trace their lineage throuugh the mothers side they cant claim ownership to specific land since this land is passed down through the fathers side. They still have a right to be there. Again, Zionist goveronment is not a fair representation of the Nation of Israel. The Jews have a right to move into Palestine.
Israel belongs to the Jews

And I have shown you that the Jews today are not the Children of Israel. They're just people with a certain belief that is allowing genocide. You're saying that if someone "converts" to Judaism he or she can steal someone's land? That's an absolute joke. Israel is Palestine and it is the land of the Palestinian people who have lived there for centuries. If anyone tries to claim that there was no Palestine before 1948, that person is a lunatic. The majority of countries in the world see Palestine as a state, except for most Western countries (and others here and there). Palestine was even a state in BC, the former Israeli prime-minister was born in Palestine according to his own birth certificate: https://en.wikipedia.org...You can bring whatever from scripture, it doesn't matter. Jews and Israel today don't even follow their own laws, Jews are spiritually dead. Basic principle of Israel's apartheid: Israel's genocide in action:How lovely. They just need to kill some innocent children to get their paycheck, what a job.I know you disregard (and probably support) the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but I've shown you why Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and not the Jews of wherever.Just some average Israelis advocating genocide: ;
Israel belongs to the Jews

Again, this is a religious debate, so we should be arguing who according to religion the Land of Israel belongs to, in which case I have demonstrated is the Jews according to both the Tanakh and Qur'an. In regards to the Ashkenazi, they are Jewish in origin but their genetics were diluted with Europeans for 2 millenium- either way Abraham, the father of the Nation of Israel, was himself a convert, so this is kind of irrelevant.
Israel belongs to the Jews

Sure whatever, let's ignore all the crimes done by Israel for the sake of argument. Whether the holy land belongs to the Jews or not, Britain had no right to give you somebody else's country, no matter what the scripture says. It's like Italy telling Britain that Britain is actually part of Italy because of the Roman Empire. It makes no sense. The first people who started this zionist cult were atheists so to possibly claim that the Israeli state is religiously motivated is ludicrous. Looking at the Israeli state today we find that it is corrupt when it comes to religious laws., just another clear and undeniable proof that this is not religiously motivated. You claim that I can just take these words out of Psalm and just think that these are the words of God and that if I don't believe that they're the words of God, that I shouldn't call myself a Muslim. Well it's really hard to believe a word of this book when the Qur'an continuously states that the previous scriptures have been corrupted by men. The earliest complete Torah scroll dates from 1155-1225, if that's the case then there's no reason to see this as something authentic in any way. The famous Dead Sea scrolls don't date back to Moses either. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... European Jews are gentiles that converted to Judaism, they're not the children of Israel. They largely descend from the Turkish Khazars. Therefore modern "Jews" have no blood-link to the Biblical Israelites. Most of the Jewish scholars agree with this and according to a scientific study this hypothesis is correct. http://www.texemarrs.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... Leviticus 19:34 does not encourage Jews to perform ethnic cleansing in the 21st century. This book has many laws that Jews and the Israeli state don't obey so it's laughable when you quote from this book.
Israel belongs to the Jews

Check the debate setting my freind, this debate was classified in the "religion" category, so the whole point of this debate was over religion! Now, G-d doesn't change and would not alter his word since Psalm 89:34 says:"I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered."Furthermore, the Tanakh says that G-d gave the Israelits Canaan FOREVER. And G-d does not lie- if you want to say that he does, please, go be an atheist or satanist or some other religion- don't call yourself a Muslim. Another thing, the Israelis did not bomb the Palestinians, that was the United States. There wasn't a conflict before we did that, in fact millions of Karaite Jews moved into Israel during the Middle Ages without having any problems. And if what you are saying is trrue, and the Israelis did bomb palestinians, they should know better, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves, because the Torah says in Leviticus 19:34:"The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."Exodus 22:21:"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."But-the land still belongs to the Jews, the war crimes of a Talmudic Zionist governance does not diminish the rights of the Jewish people. Truth be told these guys aren't even following Judaism, they're going off of the Talmud, which says something very contrary to what the Tanakh says in Sanhedrin 57a. Most of these guys are atheists and are oppressing Karaite Jews simply for obeying the Tanakh. Just because the Mexican Goveronment is corrupt or the Chinese goveronment burns students alive for wanting a fair democracy, doesn't mean that Mexicans or Chinese People are these evil monsters who need to be killed. It also isn't grounds to undermine both what the Tanakh AND Qur'an say because you hate them.
Israel belongs to the Jews

The Children of Israel were given the land at a point at the time of Moses, but later on we find that the land simply belongs the One and Only Allah. (Quran, Al-A'raf 7-128) So that's that, Allah doesn't mean that 20th century Jews can start a program of ethnic cleansing and demolish a whole state into another Jewish state. There are currently 14-15 million Jews in the world, they have no right to pillage and bomb Palestinian homes. You will have to use a lot more than some Bible verses. Can you justify the state of Israel in the real world? You haven't refuted my point that the world should be controlled by Muslims because Muslims are the servants of the Lord of the worlds either. The Jews were persecuted due to the holocaust and they were "granted" Israel as a result of it, granted by Britain. Britain has no right to grant you somebody else's country. What right did Britain have to grant you somebody else's country? Palestine had Jews, Muslims and Christians living side by side for centuries, peacefully without violence or discrimination. So Christian anti-semitism in Europe that caused one of the greatest crimes in history was not paid by the Christian countries who performed and practiced that holocaust, but was paid for by the very people who were innocent of such crimes. Britain is a secular state. Secularism takes religion out of politics and Britain is the prince of the secular world. In November of 1917 Britain issues a declaration known as the Balfour declaration. It was the intention of the government to work for the establishment of a Jewish national home. Why would a secular state, which rules the world in secular states declare its intention for the establishment of a Jewish state in the holy land? Between 1918 and 1948, Britain ruled over Palestine on a mandate conferred by the league of nations. So not "Jews". In between came the interlude of Hitler, which speeded up the movement of the Jews in Europe to enter Palestine. In 1948, for the only time in British history there was no legal transfer of power to the successor state. So the Zionist state was created, the European Jewish state of Israel. Israel's law is democracy, which is totally against the law of the Torah. The Jews of today are not the chosen people, how can they return to a land they were never in to begin with? Let's take a look at facts instead of the Holy Books. I also want you to justify Israel's crimes and violations of international law. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Israel belongs to the Jews

I am going to compare both sides of this debate between Muslims and Jews in regards to who the land of Canaan belongs to. We will start with who the Torah says it belongs to, and then move onto who the Qur’an says it belongs to. WHO DOES THE TORAH SAY CANAAN BELONGS TO Genesis 13:15 says: “For all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.” Genesis 17:8 says: “Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” WHO DOES THE QUR’AN SAY CANAAN BELONGS TO Qur’an 17:104 says: “And we said thereafter to the Children of Israel, “Dwell securely in the land (of promise)”: but when the second of the warnings came to pass, We gathered you together in a mingled crowd.” Qur’an 5:21 says: “O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.” Qur’an 10:93 says: “We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place, and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them, that they fell into schisms. Verily Allah will judge between them as to the schisms amongst them, on the Day of Judgment.” CONCLUSION Well, clearly this land belongs to the Jews!
Some deists are irrational

Deism is a belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. I derived these contensions from a dictionary and the bible to support my argument. If God no longer assumed control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomina, and giving no supernatural revelation, how did he open up space in the Jordan river for Jesus to cross. There could possibly be an exception: If their definition of Deism is not precise and very specific.
Sexiality Isn't a Choice

Please Note: I'm NOT attempting to offend anyone, nor am I against those who are other than heterosexual. I wish the best of luck to me and my opponent. Sexuality in my honest opinion isn't wired into one's brain at a very young age, nor do I believe one is automatically heterosexual when born. I believe it was taught someway, somehow weather through society or media. I seen people go from straight to gay vice versa, I've heard many say biologically it's naturally weird into one's brain, but honestly I find that false due to the fact a child doesn't yet have the knowledge on the meaning of sexuality. When children view television, magazines, movies, cartoons, etc. It's influencing children in some kind of way.
Sexiality Isn't a Choice

My statement is silly? Bravo. Give it up. Sexuality is a choice. One feels a certain way in their life at one point then all of a sudden "figures" themselves out. You went from having a sexual orientation to being "asexual" whatever that means which is a change by choice. One day you think you feel a certain then next you "figure" it out later on in life you feel another way? Right... anyway. You're welcome, glad I took the time to debate about this.
Sexiality Isn't a Choice

You've informed me it's determined at birth, but you also say it takes one a while to began to realize who they are. I'm not able to process that through my head correctly, one because determined means strongly felt and mostly likely not to change it. So, say one's into women and all of sudden one figures themselves out due to whatever the reasoning may be, you mean to inform me that one isn't changing their mind or ways? You began to question your sexuality, right? But you also said "I simply realized hey I don't really like anyone" You're making a change. You said "As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are." No, that's one changing their ways.
Sexiality Isn't a Choice

Sexuality is determined at birth, but it may take a while for one to figure it out. As for people going from gay to hetero, this is just them trying to figure out who they are. They could even be bisexual. Here I speak from personal existence. I grew up in a conservative Christian household, so anything other than heterosexuality was frowned upon. I hit the teenage years when I begin to learn things about myself, and I began to question my sexuality. I simply realised, "hey, I don't really like anyome" and go to talking with some friends and I figured out that I'm asexual. Did I choose to be this way? No. Did my environment influence me? No. I was asexual at birth, but only recently realised it.