BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America should bomb, colonize, and drain the Middle East(not Israel)of oil.

Sure, and while we're at it why don't we backstab our friends in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and especially Turkey since they have some of our nukes. Heck lets "eliminate" terrorism by destroying the Middle East and creating bitter people. Lets Destabilize Syria even more so that the chemical weapons stockpile gets lost. Lot of good that'll do for the US economy by pumping billion dollar bombs into a region that we have to rebuild from scratch again. In fact why don't we just commit another holocaust like our old nemesis Hitler since the bitter people will become terrorists... (catch the sarcasm yet?) Lets not forget those Stinger toting Mujahideen in Afghanistan, after all we put them back in power after kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan. If they can beat the Commies in their (mujahideen) home turf when the rest of us was playing chicken with nukes, I have no doubt they'd be able hold their own against billion dollar bombs. Have you forgotten that there are other nations that are a part of OPEC that don't belong to the Middle East? Heck this is like how to get the rest of the world to hate America by screwing up the oil economy.
America should bomb, colonize, and drain the Middle East(not Israel)of oil.

If we do this, terrorism would be virtually eliminated because the terrorists would be eliminated Fewer of our soldier's lives would be lost because America would not have them running around enemy streets randomly. America could drill for oil in the region. Sell it at home for a nickel a gallon and sell it to the rest of the world. The revenue from selling the oil could pay down the debt and America could eliminate one of its major problems, oil. Furthermore, when oil is no longer an issue, America could us extra money, since the debt is gone, to pursue Hydrogen power.
America should bomb, colonize, and drain the Middle East(not Israel)of oil.

This will help to reduce the national debt from oil sales, eliminate OPEC, lower fuel prices, prevent loss of soldiers' lives, and prevent terrorism. This is just my background Round 1 is acceptance and short statement of reasoning(no evidence) Round 2 Will be a common sense argument, no facts, data, numbers, or history lectures. Round 3 Will be a rebuttal of any previous argument and include final words, limited facts please As you can tell, I want this to be about sense, not fact. Please use simple language for the voters. No innapropriate language please. Please follow these guidelines.
God is real

I understand that it could be translated wrong, but if God was really all powerful, wouldn't he have every language have a 1 to 1 translation? I know that he caused multiple languages to come to the earth as a punishment for humanity building a tall building, but couldn't he make all of those languages a 1:1 ratio? It would take a long time for people to eventually understand each other, so God's wrath could be fuffiled for that generation.P.S. You might want more rounds so this could be discussed more in depth. What if I'm offline and you post a 30 min round? Then I might forfeit due to me simply not being online. More time allows for better arguments.
God is real

With translating the bible, if God loved humanity and wanted them to get to heaven by God's rules, then he would have to have scribes/prophets who were perfect at scribing so this way when he got them to record stuff, they would have recorded it perfecctly.No one is perfect at everything, but everyone can be perfet at something. Many people get perfect scores on some tests. A few people even get perfect on the SATs. If they can be that perfect at something as hard as an SAT, then shouldn't God's chosen writers have been perfect at recording the detail of an all powerful god and not make mistakes when doing so? If they weren't perfect, then God should have created somebody who could preach his word perfectly.P.S. Next time, give you and your opponents more time to argue. It will make their responses better.
God is real

I don't think what you said was accurate because although the abrahamic religions say that earth was formed about 6000 years ago, it is because they all came from a similar source. And not all religions say the same thing about the age of the earth. I think most eastern religions say the world has been around for longer then that.The reason why I don't believe in God is because of biblical contradictions. I control a copy of a list of about 100, but one contradiction is: When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?Yes (Acts9:7)No (Acts22:9)How can both verses be correct? I wish you good luck.
A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

Okay, we both forfeited one, now we are even for the voting to start. Since I have nothing to counter in this argument, I will sum it up quickly: A tea party president would not be disastrous for America. He or she would actually be beneficial. However, if you continue to believe that the tea party president would be bad, he or she would not be "disastrous", just not good.
A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

I'm sorry, I thought I hit submit. Society Immigration: The tea party members support strong border control and little to no amnesty for illegals. As illegals make up much of the work force for farms and construction, their deportation would result in the opening of an entire new area for employment. Furthermore, our resources will not be wasted on illegal immigrants who do not pay taxes. Gun control: The tea party members support little gun control. They do tend to want the small amount of gun control enforced however. In America, cities and states with strong gun control have statisically higher crime rates. Cities and states with little gun control have lower crime rates. The tea party supports people's right to defend themselves, and when someone is trying to kill you and your family, you will want a gun. Healthcare: By giving people forms of healthcare from the government, privately owned healthcare costs rise, making it harder for businesses to supply healthcare to employees or for people to buy healthcare for themselves. Traditional Family Values: The tea party supports traditional family values. They simply do not want the defintion of marriage to be changed or the importance of marriage to be changed. Politics Taxes: By lowering taxes across the board, rich and poor alike, the people have money to spend. A person who really makes 60,000 dollars will only be able to keep 40,000 dollars after taxes. Every dollar counts. Many tea party members support entirely different forms of taxation to replace income tax, such as fairtax and flat tax. Sorry for the forfeit, I thought I hit submit, but I guess I didn't.
A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

From what I understand, your definition of Tea Party coincides with Conservative republican and I will use them interchangeably. A conservative is both socially and economically conservative. A libertarian on the other hand is economically conservative but socially liberal. I am only saying this for basic clarification and for my opponent to address any discrepancies in round 2. Now that I have gotten definitions out of the way, on to the debate. A tea party president would be good for America. In my argument I will basically address two sides of the party, economics, which I will address heavily through issues like spending, taxation, and distribution of wealth. My second topic will be society, which I will most likely address less but will include areas such as military, family, and immigration. I will not address religion in any way during my debates as people will undoubtedly have different beliefs on the topic and a tea party president would not have the power to change how religion works in America, so the topic is irrelevant anyway. At this point, I will let Pro take the debate floor. I look forward to his response and may this be a good, clean debate.
A Tea Party President Would be Disastrous for America.

We'll start the proper argument at R2, this is just an intro with a paragraph on the end summarising our positions. The paragraphs' content will be repeated in one form or another, so no C/A until R2 please. Pro agrees with the motion that a Tea Party President would be disastrous. Con disagrees with the aforementioned motion. The Tea Party represent the extreme right of the Republican Party. They claim to be libertarians, although they are pro-life, pro-family values, pro military and anti-immigration. Its stance on religion and politics is rather inconsistent, with many key figures in favour of secularisation, and many others in favour of turning the United States into more of a theocracy. Their principle 'Defecit spending must end' is contrary to the nature of modern economics, and they are naive to think that the supposed state tyranny would not be replaced by private tyranny. As a socialist, I believe that the state has a fundamental obligation to help those that cannot help themselves, and the values of the Tea Party appear to be a series of reactionary destructions of the institutions designed to stop people from living in abject poverty; and establish a canis canem edit world of individuals, not societies.
Believing someone is a certain way will make them change

There is a yes and a no.It really depends on the person.Some people just need someone to believe in them and some don't.We have no control over the outcome,we ,might be able to predict it,its just a matter of time until they realsie what they have done and what they are doing and what they will contine to do.Man changes depending on what they are exposed to,people the environment and other factors play a huge role in this matter.
Believing someone is a certain way will make them change

First off, let me elaborate on the topic; if you knew someone was generally morally bad, but treated them as if they were good for a long enough time, would they become better? Now this can go not just for bad or good, but also other traits such as (confidence, shyness, outlook, etc). Here is my stance: We all know that, generally speaking if people treat us like we are dumb for instance, we will eventually believe it and it will shape us. However are some people immune to it? I for one doubt it, they simply haven't had a long enough exposure to a certain kind of treatment. What others think of us, we will become.
Con argues better

As Con, I argue that Pro has presented no arguments, and will not present future arguments. Pro agreed that he "presented no argument in round 1." Because no arguments have been presented by Pro, Con cannot argue "better" than Pro. The word "better" implies a relationship to something which is "worse." Because no argument was presented by Pro, no argument in this debate is "worse" than Con's, and therefore, Con's argument cannot be "better." As such, Con did not argue "better." If Pro refutes any of the above claims in any way, Pro will have to do so by presenting an argument. Therefore, Pro will necessarily present a "better" argument because Con's argument will be refuted. Because the conditions for a "better" argument are that it is either more convincing than the other argument or that it refutes the other argument, Pro's argument, by refuting Con's argument, will be "better." Con will not have argued "better." Pro is stalemated. Con wins. Thank you.
Con argues better

I presented no argument in round 1, which Con spotted, points to Con in error of noting my lack of argument. Again cudos to Con for being courteous to inform me that Con will be forfeiting round 3. This is good form from Con and should be noted as a decent way to proceed. However, I will not be a good sport about it and will post a '.' in the last round to have my post count, though it will be a negative to myself as it does not denote anything.
Purushadasa is not a good debater.

This challenge is open to anybody who thinks that a fellow DDO user, Purushadasa (http://www.debate.org...), is a good debater. The goal for Pro (me) will be to demonstrate why Purushadasa is NOT a good debater. The goal for Con (you) will be to demonstrate why Purushadasa IS a good debater. Burden of Proof is shared on both sides. It's hard to prove is someone is "good", but at least attempt. I know this debate might be a little cold-hearted, but I'm really fed up with Purushadasa. Once this debate is done, I will send him the link to try and demonstrate how he can become better (however, he might already be good at debating- that is for you to show!) I will not directly challenge Purushadasa, but if he feels like accepting, he can. But keep in mind this is open to anyone. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals and New Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals to Rebuttals (No New Arguments) Failure to follow this format can cost you in conduct points. Ad hominem will be allowed in this debate because it deals specifically with arguing against people, not their arguments.
Purushadasa is not a good debater.

Con has sinned against the out-of-context guardians of debate, and they have judged that he should receive the same treatment for his crimes. "I agree that...you...won this debate!... I lost this debate hard... I...not... a...intelligent...debater. I've... not... convinced you." Well, thank you for that concession. We all know you are not the most intelligent of debaters, but it's understandable. Kind of. https://answers.yahoo.com... Douitashimashite, heh heh.
Purushadasa is not a good debater.

I agree that Purushadasa does... understand any logic and lives in ...reality. Agreed."he's a robot."I'm Glad I could convince you of that. :) "he is... a good debater! Agreed.I mean, we all know how biased the voting system is on this site, and how it clearly is the fault of the site for not providing intelligent unbiased voters that haven't been previously harassed by him in the past week!Also agree. Glad you are quoting me perfectly too. "All... evidence." So I've convinced you right? "I admit that the circle is one of the most mystical shapes"I seem to have convinced you.Purushadasa does not use Logical Fallacies.Agreed. [I] lost this debate hard, (and with your help! [it's spelled arigato]) Thanks for your time!Hahahaha I have won this debate!
Standardized Testing is beneficial for students K-12 in America

I believe that Standardized Testing is not beneficial for students K-12 in America. Standardized testing is not beneficial to students. All it does is take away from class time and cause unnecessary stress. Standardized testing does not affect student's grades grades. All it does is provide the state with how much students at different schools are learning. I think that this is an ineffective way of calculating a school's efficiency. The state should look at students' overall grades instead of forcing them to take a long test where their focus is usually lost within the first half hour. Students don't especially care about how well they do on the test, because it won't affect their overall grade. Therefore, a solution would be to (as I said before) use the students' overall grades to calculate data, or make the standardized tests part of their overall grade. Also, it usually takes around a week to take the tests. This time could be spent learning.
Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

"The logistics of operating a government based on user fees is, in practical terms, ridiculous (at least for a nation as large as the United States). In order for it to work, individuals would have to pay user fees for just about anything, or would have to pay ridiculously high prices for services that do have user fees. " Ridiculously high? Why exactly? Considering that people could actually economize, skimping on the purchase of those services they don't need (impossible when everyone is required to purchase every service), there would be less for the government to do-- it would surely be cheaper than taxes, and if your argument is comparing the price to anything but taxes it is irrelevant. " However, I believe I've strayed from the point. As for whether or not taxes can be considered "stealing," your explanation as to why taxation is, in fact, a form of stealing, is beyond sufficient. Nonetheless, this explanation can only be applied to certain types of taxation, such as income tax or property tax. Keep in mind that the term "tax," in noun form, means "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." (as defined by dictionary.com (specifically http://dictionary.reference.com......) ). I would also like to take note of the somewhat more detailed definition of taxation provided by Wikipedia: "To tax is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state" (http://en.wikipedia.org......). Both of these definitions state that taxes are imposed BY a government (or a functional equivalent). This basically means two things: (1) user fees are no less a type of taxation than any sum of money levied upon privately provided products or services is" User fees are not "Demanded," per the first definition. They are not "Imposed." A man with a gun "Demands," "Imposes." What someone asking for user fees does is "Offer something in exchange for them." To "Demand", or for something to be an "imposition," obviously implies not leaving open the option of refusing such an offer. Even if your definitions did include user fees, which they obviously don't, such definitions would not be in common usage-- no one refers to the money placed into a government-owned vending machine to acquire a soda as a "tax" for example. "(2) Despite your assertion that taxes existed before government, taxes could not have existed without some sort of governing influence. " I think you misinterpreted, I do not recall stating taxes existed prior to government. Perhaps you are confusing it with the issue of money being prior to it? I do not hold that taxes are possible without government :).
Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

The logistics of operating a government based on user fees is, in practical terms, ridiculous (at least for a nation as large as the United States). In order for it to work, individuals would have to pay user fees for just about anything, or would have to pay ridiculously high prices for services that do have user fees. However, I believe I've strayed from the point. As for whether or not taxes can be considered "stealing," your explanation as to why taxation is, in fact, a form of stealing, is beyond sufficient. Nonetheless, this explanation can only be applied to certain types of taxation, such as income tax or property tax. Keep in mind that the term "tax," in noun form, means "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." (as defined by dictionary.com (specifically http://dictionary.reference.com...) ). I would also like to take note of the somewhat more detailed definition of taxation provided by Wikipedia: "To tax is to impose a financial charge or other levy upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Both of these definitions state that taxes are imposed BY a government (or a functional equivalent). This basically means two things: (1) user fees are no less a type of taxation than any sum of money levied upon privately provided products or services is; the only difference, of course (as you've noted), is that taxation on the latter is stealing, whereas taxation on the former (or "user fees," as you put it) is not. (2) Despite your assertion that taxes existed before government, taxes could not have existed without some sort of governing influence. By the way, on an awkwardly related note, I found an article concerning the earliest known system of taxation on the University of Pennsylvania Almanac website (http://www.upenn.edu... (found through Wikipedia) ), and found that Egypt's was the earliest. It was imposed by the Pharaoh, so there was, in fact, a firm government already in place. However, I'm sure that, when defined more loosely, you could find earlier forms of taxation. I'd be interested in hearing your examples. Nonetheless, I still maintain that their could not have been taxes without some sort of governing influence in place. So, the following should serve as a reminder for both of us, so as not to distract from the main point: the debate does not concern the issue of what TYPE of taxes should exist; the debate simply pertains to the issue of whether or not ANY taxes should exist. And as I've more or less stated, all you've really done is provided another form of taxation; you haven't explained why taxes should simply not exist.
Taxes Should Not Exist in the United States

" Aside from the fact that taxes are necessary for our government to even exist (let alone function)," This is not true. It is entirely possible to operate a government based upon user fees. "As a universal rule, the term "money" refers to a circulating medium of exchange. When someone earns money, it is in their possession only until they decide to exchange it for something else. The fact that money can be used in this way is entirely because the government recognizes it as such; currency is sponsored by the government, and therefore, any given holder of any given amount of money does not OWN that money. The fact that the government lets them hold it is entirely in recognition of the fact that they are entitled to any product being sold for equal or lesser value." The problem with this argument is that money existed prior to government, and taxes exist ontologically prior to any acceptance of paper money. The only reason we use paper money is because the government requires by law that taxes be paid in it. If someone produces something, and sells it for gold, with no help from the government, they will be required on penalty of prison to pay taxes in paper money, despite not possessing any paper money (They are therefore required to give up the things they created in "exchange" for paper money, which they then must give up.) It is thus irrelevant who owns the "money", because the "money" is not what is at issue-- the real values the individual owns by virtue of his having created them are being stolen. Adding the extra step of Federal Reserve Notes only serves to mask this fact, not eliminate it. If someone points a gun at me and demands the keys to my car, he is stealing from me. If he "offers" me a worthless piece of paper in exchange, this does not turn the theft into consent-- since I have no option to refuse the "Trade." It just introduces a confusing element. Indeed, even if I did consent to accept Federal Reserve Notes in exchange for my real property (which I would never do, nor would any sensible person, it is a worthless piece of paper and nothing more when you take the government's guns out of the equation), that would STILL not offer an excuse for then taking the money back from me. If a child trades his Charizard card for someone's Blastoise, and then threatens to stick the other child in a cage if he does not return the Charizard, no one will regard this as a fair trade, especially if the second child doesn't even get the Blastoise back.