BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Federal Programs are Unconstitutional

Firstly, on the note of the Preamble to the US Constitution, while it does state that is our responsibility to provide for the common welfare, I must remind the opposition that it is "the people" who establish such welfare. While the government is designed to oversee this general welfare, it does not say that the government is made out to take full control of it. Is having programs and associations implemented without the consent of the governed what the Framers truly intended? To have the government elect for the people which programs shall control which aspects of their lives? Surely not. Far more appropriate would be to allow the people to create their own programs to provide for themselves. This would be what we know today as the Private Sector. And while Article Five deliberately and directly states how the Constitution may be amended to allow for Federal programs among anything else that need be added, there is no such amendment in place. Therefore, until this amendment is passed, the concept and immortal government programs remain unconstitutional. Federal programs are for this reason not by-products of the Preamble or the Fifth Article of the Constitution. I also might add that while the Constitution is a founding document, it is still important today. Why do we have an amendment process if it was only important to the founding of our nation? It is absolutely still neccesary to Twenty-First Century politics, and never gets old. I find it demeaning to the purpose of the Constitution for my opposition to say that "Limiting a modern world to a way of life two hundred years ago is completely illogical," when he just outlined the process of amending the Constitution in great detail for us all! If the Constitution is amendable, and needs to be updated, then it can be updated. So it is not two hundred years old, it is absolutely up-to-date; and it is not only logical but neccesary to hold fast to it in order to keep our government from growing too large. Finally, I would like to propose an alternative to governmental programs to provide the general welfare that would be, in my opinion, more in-line with the Founder's intentions. Privatization of each Federal program. For example, instead of having a centralized, single education system, why don't we have locally run schools, which would better conform to the needs of a particular community rather than an entire nation. There are many examples of how this would be beneficial in education, say that a Texas school wants to include a far broader understanding on Texas history, or a primarily Muslim community wishes to have an Islamic-based study. Same goes for every other program, by handing power to the People we can allow more personalized needs to be fulfilled.
Federal Programs are Unconstitutional

Federal programs have stretched far and wide, regulating everything from the environment to education, but none of it is allowed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government may have programs not elected upon by the people, and yet they exist in their immense size today. And if the Constitution does not say the government has a power, it does not have that power. In other words, all of the power the government is allowed is in the Constitution, and if it's not mentioned there it's not allowed. How has this happened? Would the Framers approve of any such program? Of course not. They knew that governments tend to grow too big, which is why we have such a strict control, on our government. Welfare is not in the Constitution. A federalized education system is not in the Constitution. Gun control is mentioned in the Constitution, specifically saying that "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Our Constitution is what makes us who we are. We have drifted away from it, and it is unacceptable. All Federal programs and many legislation proposals are contradictory to it. The founding documents have not been, are not, and never will be up for discussion.
Atheism is not a religion

Con did not address my main arguments concerningt this debate. Atheism is not a religion. Religions always have something spirtual involved. Seeking self-enlightenment, seeking peace, all that wonderful stuff. Atheism on the other hand does not. It seeks to have a disbelief, not a belief, in a god or gods. Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism is not a religion

I disagree with your '...main point is that there is always a god or gods to worship.' as religion can be more habit, or faith in a personal set or institutionalized system of principles, beliefs, and practices. Highlighted by the following sources provided by yourself, http://www.merriam-webster.com......... http://www.merriam-webster.com......... ': an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group' 'Broadly speaking, some religions (e.g., Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are outwardly focused, and others (e.g., Jainism, Buddhism) are inwardly focused.'
Atheism is not a religion

Thank you for your acceptance. First, I will define religion. From the online dictionary Merriam-Webster, religion is defined as "a the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods." Atheism, on the other hand, is defined as disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity." http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...But the word religion has many meanings. It is a muddled concept, one that has been changed and redefined over thousands of years. However, the main point is that there is always a god or gods to worship. You take the main four religions in the world; Christianity, Hindiusm, Islam, and Judaism, and there is a belief in a God or gods. Religion, they worship certain symbols or venerate them. Such as in Christianity, they venerate the saints while worshipping Jesus as the Son of God. In Islam they worship Allah, who is the same god as the Jews and the Christians. Atheism, does not worship anything. They merely lack belief in a deity. Religion is a belief in gods or god. You may be able to say that Atheism is a belief that god doesn't exist. It is not. It is merely a disbelief, in which they are merely rejecting the notion that there is a God. That is all the time I have for now. I shall await your response. Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...;Sixteen years as a Catholichttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Evolution (CoRaST)

Welcome to this debate, everyone!This will be the first debate in something I call "CoRaST" ; i.e. Campaign of Reason and Scientific Truth. I noticed that my opponent, IwinYoulose333, posted a comment to a debate recently[1] and - while it wasn't the subject matter - mentioned evolution and one of common misconceptions. So, with this debate, I hope to instate my opponent's belief in evolution, try and help clear up any misconceptions and run things down. Indeed, I do hope for a graceful concession from my opponent by the end of this mighty debate! ((If my opponent does consent, please award him the conduct point))Why challenge to a debate?I feel a debate between IwinYoulose333 and myself would be better than something on the forums due to ease, effectiveness and the lack of "hardcore" users such as Medic that will (willingly or no) throw up straw men. I lament that, but as a result I believe a debate is the best way forward. I, of course, could be completely wrong about my opponent today and if that's the case I implore him to state otherwise. Unfortunately, IwinYoulose333 isn't allowing messages to be sent at this time. (19:05 BST, 09/27/13 {American date})On the assumption that I am, in part, correct though; I shall press on with the rules!1) The first round will be for acceptance and Con must put forward his case. 2) In the fifth round, Con must put - and only put - "No argument posted here as agreed".3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.4) A forfeit of a round is an automatic forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.5) Sources are considered accurate unless they are proven otherwise. 6) The BoP is shared (please see below)I sincerely hope that my opponent, IwinYoulose333 will accept this debate today! I believe it should be entertaining, enlightening, interesting, friendly, and good fun! One last -and rather important - thing then. What is the debate resolution, exactly? A fair question! Each debater must put forward contentions. Con as to why the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is flawed and should not be considered a scientific theory. Pro as to why the the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is scientific.Good luck to all! If one has any questions, please post a comment! Allez!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1]http://www.debate.org...
Does God exist

Definition of God: sentient being that is metaphysical and creator of physical universe Arguments: 1. Argument from nessecity: the universe is contingent, Though it exists, It didn"t have to exist. Or it could have existed in a different form. The fact the universe is contingent, It requires an explanation for its existence. The ultimate explanation for why anything exists is a nescessary being who exists by default and doesn"t require an explanation for its existence. If all beings are contingent then we have an infinite regress and we wouldn"t exist. The fact we exist proves a necessary being exists and that is God Alhumdulillah 2. Ontological argument: God is by definition a being of which no greater being could be conceived. If God didn"t exist we could conceive a being greater who does exist. Therefore God exists by definition. 3. Argument from possible worlds: is it possible for God to exist? If so then god exists in some possible world. Since God is infinite he exists in all possible worlds. Therefore God exists in this world. Therefore God exists. Alhumdulillah 4. Argument from conditioned reality: in order for the universe to exist it needs it"s parts to exist. Matter needs atoms to exist which needs smaller particles to exist, Which needs smaller particles to exist. . . True reality must be indivisible. That reality is God. Also universe is changing. The universe can"t be eternal because it would go through infinite changes then. So an infinite changes would take before we exist so we wouldn"t exist. We exist so an unchanging eternity created this ever changing world. 5. Absolute truth exists otherwise all truth would be relative. If truth was relative truth A could say truth B is false and truth B could say truth A is false and both statements would be true, Which would be a contradiction and inconsistent. Therefore absolute truth exists therefore absolute being exists. Second question, Is God sentient? Since he created this finite world, He must have had a choice if he had no choice he was preprogrammed. A preprogrammed god would require a programmer hence another creator creating an infinite regress. So God must be sentient since he chose yes to create the universe. Therefore God exists as defined Alhumdulillah
Does God exist

Based on the complete lack of evidence for a god, There is no god or at a very minimum no logical or sound rationale to believe in the existence of a god. To rebutt pro's arguments. 1) The universe is not contingent as per our most sound understanding of physics. While it's understandable you'd think so because causality effects everything in ordinary life based on the current structure of the universe, The creation of the universe did not happen based on standard physical parameters and occured when the laws of physics acted entirely differently. Einsteins theory of relativity explains how space and time are linked and Stephen Hawkin's development of this goes further back in time and explains how when all space was compacted into a singularity at the Big Bang that means time ceased to exist and the beginning of the universe has no cause according to the laws of physics. "At this time, The Big Bang, All the matter in the universe, Would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, A singularity. At a singularity, All the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, After the Big Bang, Will not depend on anything that may have happened before, Because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. " [1] The universe is not contingent, Your claims is false. 2) No, If God doesn't exist but you conceive of him as existing and begin omnipotent, Then you can still conceive of no greater being than this God regardless of his non-existence. You are assuming the premise and the conclusion is a non-sequiter - it would just mean you were wrong to claim god existed. 3) Your argument assumes that it is possible for this God to exist with no evidence to support it. It also assumes the existence of parallel realities with no proof for them. 4. Simply a random claim with no evidence or reasoning. No rebuttal needed, You could have just as easily finished the paragraph with "That reality is elementary particles such as the Higg boson, The quarks, Leptons, Etc. " The only differences if you wanted to you actually could have backed up those claims with evidence. [2] 5. You're getting muddled in semantics and getting confused. Two truths being contradictory and impossible is a problem if they are absolute truths. What is the distinction between a relative truth and an absolute truth? By relative truths we mean "a fact or belief that is accepted as true" or basically "a really really strong opinion". Neither of those means it is factually certainly 100% true in reality. It is therefore not impossible or irrevocably inconsistent to have relative truths contradict each other - that is in fact the entire point of them being relative. Why are you treating relative truths like absolute truths? Also you offer no explanation of why absolute truths existing would mean absolute beings exist. Your "second question" is irrelevant as it presumes that a god exists, Which it does not. [1] http://www. Hawking. Org. Uk/the-beginning-of-time. Html [2] https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Elementary_particle
The British should have the right to bear arms

My fellow British Citizens and I should have the right to bear arms, just like our cousins in the United States of America have. Here’s why: 1 – If the Queen dismissed the democratically-elected Government and announced that she would run the country herself, and demanded that British Citizens in future pay all their taxes directly to her, as she is entitled to do [1], the British people could form a militia in order to overthrow the Monarch and declare the country a republic, using their guns to fight the combined might of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army of which the Queen is the sovereign head and has, therefore, at her full command. [2] 2 – British Citizens would be able to use firearms to defend themselves against would-be attackers and intruders (unless, of course, the attackers and intruders also exercised their right to bear arms and were carrying guns as well). 3 – Guns make men look cool and hard in front of the girls. [3] In conclusion, if Americans have the right to rise up against an oppressive regime and overthrow it in an armed coup d'état, and to go down the pub tooled-up in case it all kicks off at closing time, or to take pot-shots at people trespassing in their gardens, or to impress girls by shooting road signs, tin cans, etc., then British people should hold those same rights. Thank you [1] http://www.republic.org.uk... [2] http://www.royal.gov.uk... [3] http://www.debate.org...
The British should have the right to bear arms

1-----Firstly, it is true that Britain run by the Queen may not be a worse than the country being run by a coalition of over-privileged, Old Etonian Tories and their fawning, forelock-tugging, unprincipled, back-stabbing Liberal Democrat turncoat cronies as it currently is, but the point is that for better or for worse (for worse) they were democratically elected by the people and if the Queen seized the reins of power for herself, an armed populace would have a better chance of overthrowing her in a desperate struggle for freedom from tyrannical oppression (although it may well be a benign oppression with very little in the way of tyranny).---- (In the statement my opponent has stated still has not address the point in my argument of why the democratically elected should attempt to take control of a country which is the rightful ruler of the land and as well as she may improve society, as well we are talking about basic handguns, im sure even if guns became legal im sure the government won't sell fully automatic assault rifles and grenades my opponent clearly don't know what it takes to start a civil war.) 2-----Secondly, criminals can and do acquire guns illegally – their whole lifestyle is based on breaking the law so owning an unlicensed firearm to them is the least of their worries. If the general public had access to guns at least they would be able to protect themselves until the police arrived------ (I agree with this statement However getting guns legally and illegally are totally different when you get guns illegall you can get all types of guns p90's, AK-47's, and so on legal weapons is limited to hand guns no high that a certain calibur, or a simi auto rifle or shotgun. Even if guns were legal they would still have restrictions on the types of guns you own were i live you cannot own a 9mm or higher and shotguns and rifles all semi auto. Still a disadvantage secoundly making them illegal makes it just alittle bit harder to have a 2nd degree murder case an honest man who gets anger at his neighbor and kills him out it with his hand gun legally purchased which if they were illegal he would have had to purchased it illegally. How do you buy a illegal weapon? One you steal it or two you purchase it in the black market which requires connections.) 3----Finally, yes, my remark about guns being cool was intended as a joke, but wait! The NRA in the US says: "Guns don't kill, people do." [1] Therefore, it doesn't matter if some bloke takes a gun into the pub to impress the girls or not, it only matters if he gets drunk, gets jealous because some other punter is chatting up his bird and shoots him. Dead. And as far as my opponent's suggestion of martial arts as an alternative – well that can be equally fatal too – see the YouTube clip.---- ( Ok i really hope that mortal combat refrence was a joke seeing how its a video game and to mention none of the characters use a form of kung fu or and martial art, and yes people kill people but the gun sure helps alot.) My case still stands barely attack and i have attack all his points.
The British should have the right to bear arms

Firstly, it is true that Britain run by the Queen may not be a worse than the country being run by a coalition of over-privileged, Old Etonian Tories and their fawning, forelock-tugging, unprincipled, back-stabbing Liberal Democrat turncoat cronies as it currently is, but the point is that for better or for worse (for worse) they were democratically elected by the people and if the Queen seized the reins of power for herself, an armed populace would have a better chance of overthrowing her in a desperate struggle for freedom from tyrannical oppression (although it may well be a benign oppression with very little in the way of tyranny). Secondly, criminals can and do acquire guns illegally – their whole lifestyle is based on breaking the law so owning an unlicensed firearm to them is the least of their worries. If the general public had access to guns at least they would be able to protect themselves until the police arrived. Finally, yes, my remark about guns being cool was intended as a joke, but wait! The NRA in the US says: "Guns don't kill, people do. " [1] Therefore, it doesn't matter if some bloke takes a gun into the pub to impress the girls or not, it only matters if he gets drunk, gets jealous because some other punter is chatting up his bird and shoots him. Dead. And as far as my opponent's suggestion of martial arts as an alternative – well that can be equally fatal too – see the YouTube clip. In conclusion, if my opponent's arguments were really watertight then the United States would altered her constitution and withdrawn the right of American Citizens to bear arms. Thank you. [1] . http://www.saidwhat.co.uk... . http://www.youtube.com...
Santa Claus and Jesus are Black.

As true as the statement on the mislabeling we see today on people from multiple parts of the world, and the vast diversity within Arabian Areas (The Middle East is a stone throw away from Africa, wouldn't be surprising to see mixing), it simply wouldn't be a "Black" complexion even though many people in the Middle East are considered black. Seeing how there are no records that recorded Jesus's appearance, i think we can both agree that as debatable the topic is, we may never come to a true answer.
Santa Claus and Jesus are Black.

Con concedes Saint Nicholas being black, therefore, I will focus the remainder of the debate on Jesus of Nazareth, born in Bethlehem. Con admits the origin of Jesus as being born of Arabian ethnicity, I will not debate that Jesus was of Middle-Eastern Jewish decent. The Bible presents very little evidence as to the actual skin and hair of Jesus, his true lightness or darkness in skin and hair color is an unknown and the subject is very debatable. Arab, Arabian, Arabia, the Arabic Peninsula, the Arab World, and the Arab Nation is highly heterogeneous (diverse) and includes many countries stretching from far Northeastern Africa including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, to Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, through Saudi Arabia to Syria, and Iraq. Jesus being born Arabian does not indicate any country of origin, only an approximate area of the world. However, a majority of the Arab World is established in Northern Africa. In America, right or wrong, people try to sort others based on appearance as well as ethnic background. Hispanic ethnicity from South and Central America being labeled brown. Caucasian European ethnicity labeled white. Asians are labeled yellow and Native Americans labeled red (they actually own a football team). In this country, Somalians, Moroccans, Sudanese, Algerians........are all referred to as black, no matter how white their skin appears to be, because they are from Africa and Africans in America are not differentiated based on their specific geography in Africa. Being a part of the Arabian World makes no difference, they are still considered by most to be black. However, this statement is not true of Boers or Afrikaneres, as they are still considered to be white by many in the US. In this country we have yet to solidify the color, black, brown, yellow, purple, green......of all Arab people. So are Arabs white?, I would argue, if Arabs were white, Americans would be much more accepting of the Arabs that are currently here. Also a majority of the Arabic World is based in North Africa. While in America, we call Arabs from North Africa, black. Most sadly, in the US, very few refer to Arabs as the horribly derogatory racial slur of sandn*****s, which only gives a small indication as to what color some might refer to an Arab in this country. Currently, in Christian Religion, a majority of Caucasians, would prefer for Jesus to be white, they picture a white Jesus in their prayers, however this is not a fact, nor "The Truth". In America today, if Jesus introduced himself to someone as an Arab, that did not know him as Jesus Christ, he would likely be labeled, black.