BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justin Bieber is amazing

I am very sorry for my forfeit. I was busy today. However, I feel bad for the affirmative because there is no doubt in my mind that the con arguments are superior. I also happen to have the last word. I allow me to wrap up why my arguments are more convincing despite my inappropriate conduct given the forfeit. C1 - I'm sure any artist that made it big misses hanging out with their family and friends. This is irrelevant and doesn't make him any more amazing than the average pop star. C2 - You conceded my point. You admitted Bieber is more accessible at the cost of lesser quality which would mean Bieber is not amazing, only popular. Brittney Spears appealed to a lot of people so I guess that makes her just as good by Pro's flawed logic. Pro also didn't manage to refute my lyrics comparison between Gucci and Bieber so I guess Gucci is a better lyricist. Bieber is definitely of poor quality and the lyrics comparison shows that perfectly. He is a poor singer and lyricist. He is the one who has been exploited. You say that to some, his songs are "peaceful, catchy, with a great rhythm. " Well, to some, murdering is a great way to relieve stress. Pro's argument is ineffective. C3 - Pro hardly went into this so I shouldn't even consider it a point. Anyway, record sales don't affect the government at all. They directly involve the artist, record label, and RIAA. It is nor a contribution nor a great deal to our government. Conclusion: Pro didn't manage to refute any of my points and did a poor job holding his own. I wuold recommend a Con vote because of my better arguments despite inferior conduct.
Justin Bieber is amazing

My opponent case is totally bogus,if he/she cant see the true talent he possesses it is up to y the voters to actually choose which side, which is why i am still going to go with the affirmative side stating that justin bieber is amazing. I will begin by refuting my opponents case and then gong over mine. in he/she C1 he stated that there is no proof that justin bieber still hangs out with his friends when in fact i have that proof. Note to the link. http://www.bopandtigerbeat.com... In his C2 he states that justin doesnt have any singing talent, unfortunaly he/she is wrong again. Warrel Dane of Nevermore mht be a good singer but he doesnt appeal to most people like Justin does. Sure, he is more sophisticated but in the long run justin biebr will be better. Justin is not of poor quality. I feel it is important to note again that Justin bieber will make a difference and his songs dont just sing about exploiting things. To some they appeal as a peaceful,catchy, great rhythm. C3, any kind of contribution to our government is a great deal. Since, my opponent hasn't really described into detail about how if someone knows what your face looks like or what your voice sounds like? You don't have to live with their reactions in your everyday life because they do not surround you. he needs to do some further explaiing on how this would effect us. Justin Bieber is amazing and my case still stands. Now to go over my case again,
Justin Bieber is amazing

http://www.youtube.com... Amazing: inspiring awe or admiration or wonder (Princeton Wordnet) Justin Bieber is not amazing. C1 - No source is posted as proof of him still hanging out with his friends or his accompanying quote. I will drop the argument until presented with a source. It takes little to no courage to post a video on youtube because the Internet is almost completely anonymous. So what if someone knows what your face looks like or what your voice sounds like? You don't have to live with their reactions in your everyday life because they do not surround you. C2 - Pro simply states that he can sing well. This doesn't prove he has singing talent. Compared to an actual singer like Warrel Dane of Nevermore (see video), he pales in comparison. His age and success have nothing to do with his singing talent. If marketed correctly, poor quality items can become popular. Pop radio, which Bieber is a part of, is a perfect example. As for his lyrics, they are complete garbage. To completely prove my point, I will compare him to someone who many people probably consider to have meaningless lyrics. Refer to lyrics of Bieber's song called "One Time." I will compare them with a section of Gucci Mane's verse off the song "Break Up." Gucci: Now, baby girl have dumped me, She no longer wants me. I'm no longer hired, She says that I've been fired. On to the next one, More fish in the sea. Girls are like buses, Miss one, Next you see one comin'. Bieber: When I met you girl my heart went knock knock, Now them butterflies in my stomach won't stop stop, And even though its a struggle love is all we got, So we gon' keep keep climbin' till the mountain top. I would argue that Gucci has higher quality lyrics here. Gucci is saying that even if you lose a significant other, there are plenty other options available. He is reassuring listeners that even if one person no longer wants you, it doesn't change your value as an individual. You can miss one bus but there will always be another one coming for you. On the other hand, Bieber is saying that even though love is a struggle, it is the only thing his significant other and he have. This makes listeners think that love is all you have in life when this simply isn't true. It devalues self-worth and places value externally which means your own value depends on your co-dependency to another person. This is ridiculous. Furthermore, butterflies in the stomach are a total cliche and they don't really deepen the meaning. Bieber says that despite the struggle of love, he will continue to pursue "the mountain top." This doesn't mean anything. If the two already love each other, what left do they have to find? After all, love is all they have so they should be grateful for even that. C3 - I doubt his sales as an artist will do anything to make a noticeable change in our economic situation. My reasoning is that no artist has ever done this before which makes it incredibly unlikely. I contend that Justin Bieber is not amazing.
Justin Bieber is amazing

Hello, I stand in firm affirmation of this resolution stating that Justin Bieber is amazing for numerous reasons. Contention 1: He stays true to his fans Not only does he still hang out wit his friends back in Canada, but he states," every morning i wake up and know that i am truly blessed. Justin Drew Bieber was discovered by posting youtube videos online. In order to do that it takes a lot of courage. Contention 2: Justin Bieber does have singing talent Some may argue that he cant sing and that he sings like a girl. Well, if you look past that untrue statement Justin can actually sing. Also, his lyrics don't take about corrupted things many artist sing about. His music actually has a meaning. He says what h thinks, and he is the youngest artist with his success since stevie wonder. Contention 3: Justin Bieber will help our economy If you look at it, and realize how much money he makes from selling his albums and singing for concerts or surprise appearances. Most of that money is deducted by taxes. This is true for every celebrity and well what is more amazing than that. I will prove that justin bieber is amazing
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Kalam's argument is now outdated from what we know about space-time and so I would like to modernize the claim that the universe has a cause and state that the dimension of space-time has a cause. Without being tricked into stating that there is or isn't a God, this is essentially a cause and effect argument.- "Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to said forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarized as follows: First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3] Second law: The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass. Thus, F = ma, where F is the net force acting on the object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object. Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body." -Wiki Essentially this is the same argument as the cosmological argument. Everything that happens, happens because something happened before it, that caused the former to happen. Obviously causes and effects in this scenario are the same thing as they would be in physics, this idea can not really be refuted since there is no scientific evidence to show that things just materialize out of thin air for no rhyme nor reason. Every atom and particle in existence was a byproduct of causation. Following this chain of thought to its logical conclusion means that at some point there has to be an effect without having a prior cause, the end point of this train of thought would mean that something had to set all of this in motion and had to exist without having previously been created. The loophole in this argument is that space-time continuum is infinite and the universe is not therefore our universe operates cyclically (expanding until it becomes so dense it collapses in on itself and a new big bang). This would therefore mean that the space-time continuum is the cause of the universe and therefore it must have a cause of its own, just as an inanimate object can't exert force on other objects our current being could not exist without some amount of will on the part an "Unmoved mover" to use Aristotle's term for it, intervening in some way.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Kalam Cosmological Argument1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is a sound argument. My burden is to undermine the argument, and/ or the support for it. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."
Feminism

Since my opponent has forfeited the last round, my argument for this round will be shorter in length, and I will mostly expand on points I have already made. However, there is one point the opponent made that I have not elaborated on enough. My opponent says that feminism is called what it is because, in history, there have been more instances of inequality towards men than women. This is true. However, now I believe society is equal, so there is no need for feminism. Instead, I think we need to pay attention to the larger collection of human problems. Starvation, sicknesses, oppression of women IN THE MIDDLE EAST, murder, and all of the other issues humanity faces should be a priority. Not focusing on a problem that does not even exist. I meant men for my third argument. Typo. But other than that, my argument stands strong. I am curious as to why my opponent forfeited the last round. Was it because they could not provide me with statistics? I wonder if anybody in the comments can. Regardless, thank you for reading.
Feminism

Masculism is the group dedicated to men's rights, and the members are called MRA's(Mens' Rights Activists). However, I believe masculism is wrong in the same way feminism is wrong: It focuses on gender, rather than the individual, which is why I am a humanist. We are not talking about history, where, as you have said, men have been dominant, though, we are talking about the present. Give me evidence that there is a pay gap, and it is not, indeed, women simply choosing jobs that pay less. I want to be proven wrong. Statistics are proven, words are just, well... words. Yes, there is more domestic violence against women than men. However, look up PSA's for domestic violence. I am willing to bet that no where near 20% of the PSA's will portray women being abused, let alone 40%. Personally, I have seen more males being made fun of for weight problems than females, but thank you for acknowledging that men face this problem. If men try to make their problems known, they will be insulted for it. If a man hits a woman, he's a monster. If a woman hits a man, he's weak. Some men do make their problems known, however.
Feminism

"Modern feminism is harmful for many reasons. The first hint at this is the prefix "Fem", or about women. Not about men, because feminism doesn't care about inequality towards men." Well, there has been many times in history where women have been treated unfairly. There has not been any need for manism, (or whatever you call it), as men have been dominant throughout history. I do not believe there has been a time in history where women ruled but men were treated unfairly. (There has likely been small situations like that, though.) "Now, I would like to address the issue of the "wage gap". The wage gap of 77% was a statistic measured many years ago. This is just assuming this statistic is true, which I don't think it is." There is a pay gap, because typically men choose the jobs that pay more while women choose the jobs that pay less. "Next I would like to address the issue of domestic violence. Is domestic violence against women a problem? Yes. Of course it is. However, statistics have pointed out that close to 40% of domestic violence victims are men. Little to no attention has been given to this issue" Although there has been domestic violence against men before, there is mostly violence against females, thus why it is the focus. But I must say we should also pay attention to the violence against men, that is not good at all. "Finally, I would like to address body image. Are women pressured to stay thin? As with domestic violence, yes. They are. But, again, so are men." Yes. But once again, it mainly affects women, thus why it is the focus. But I cannot agree with their suffering either. Although, if men have so many problems, than why do they not try to make it known like the women do? Or at least get help? :/
Feminism

Modern feminism is harmful for many reasons. The first hint at this is the prefix "Fem", or about women. Not about men, because feminism doesn't care about inequality towards men. Now, I would like to address the issue of the "wage gap". The wage gap of 77% was a statistic measured many years ago. This is just assuming this statistic is true, which I don't think it is. Next I would like to address the issue of domestic violence. Is domestic violence against women a problem? Yes. Of course it is. However, statistics have pointed out that close to 40% of domestic violence victims are men. Little to no attention has been given to this issue Finally, I would like to address body image. Are women pressured to stay thin? As with domestic violence, yes. They are. But, again, so are men. If anyone has read this far, thank you. I hope that someone will debate with me to help me shed light on feminism.
Trump should honestly be impeached

First of all, I want to say that I did not mean to click the Take the Challenge button , and I'm truly sorry for doing this to you but because I don't know how to undo this, I will say that whether we like it or not Mr. Donald Trump is our President. It is guaranteed he will mistakes, many past Presidents have. It is guaranteed that he might not be the best President that America has known, but no matter what he deserves a chance and he deserves respect. I think one should know a person before casting judgment.
Trump should honestly be impeached

The nation is now witnessing a massive corruption of the presidency, far worse than Watergate. Indeed, Nixon White House Counsel John Dean has told reporters: "I don"t think Richard Nixon even comes close to the level of corruption we already know about Trump."[1] Given the opportunity of ten full weeks between the election and the inauguration to divest his business interests, Mr. Trump chose instead to announce, just nine days before inauguration, a wholly inadequate plan to step away from operations, but not ownership or income streams, of the Trump Organization. Instead, he has chosen to profit from the presidency at public expense, in violation of the United States Constitution. The violations, the corruption, and the threat to our republic are here now. President Trump"s personal and business holdings in the United States and abroad present unprecedented conflicts of interest. Indeed, President Trump has admitted he has conflicts of interest in some cases. For example, the Trump Organization has licensing deals with two Trump Towers in Istanbul, and has received up to $10 million from developers since 2014.[1] President Trump admitted recently that "I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul."[2] Crucially, some of these business arrangements violate the U.S. Constitution"s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which provides: "[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."[3] The purpose of this provision is to prevent foreign influence or corruption. "Emoluments" from foreign governments include "any conferral of a benefit or advantage, whether through money, objects, titles, offices, or economically valuable waivers or relaxations of otherwise applicable requirements," even including "ordinary, fair market value transactions that result in any economic profit or benefit to the federal officeholder."[4] Many of the Trump Organization"s extensive business dealings with foreign governments, businesses owned by foreign governments, and other foreign leaders violate this ban. A recent legal analysis by Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, Ambassador (ret.) Norman Eisen (former chief ethics counsel to President Barack Obama), and Professor Richard Painter (former chief ethics counsel to President George W. Bush) concluded that Mr. Trump would be violating the foreign emoluments ban from the moment he took office, due to "a steady stream of monetary and other benefits from foreign powers and their agents" deriving from his existing business arrangements.[5] As a result, since he did not divest his business operations before inauguration, he has been violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause since the moment he took office.[6]
The Omnipotence Paradox of God is Flawed

here are some final arguments i made in comments, well before pro posted. i can respect if he wants to abide by formality, but he should have responded to it if he could, but explicitly chose not to. ---------------- here is something i will add in the last round. i'd like to give pro a chance to respond to it, so as maximize our search for truth, while perhaps limiting my ability to win. i do generally side with pro, but not for the reasons he is arguing. if God decides to make the rock, then he cannot lift it. this follows the laws of logic in that he can create an immovable rock, or act as an ustoppable force, but he can't do both at the same time. where we might disagree, is whether God can then lift the rock he created to not be able to lift. it might seem that pro is arguing that God can't lift the rock. i would argue that he could, but that he won't. the main issue is a matter of time and God's own internal consistency. consider if have a ball in my hand. if i say i will not drop the ball, then i won't drop it,... but i could drop the ball. God could create the rock and he almost suely would abide by his own standards, but he could switch gears and lift the rock if he wanted to. the only real limitation i'd set on him is that he can't create both the immovable rock, and act as an unstoppable force, at the same time. ------------- as to con's other points. we simply disagree. again, con is trying to argue that God can act contrary to logic, so by definition nothing we could say could fix what God appears to be contradicting about. this is probably moreso a 'catchall' for pro to win, than a real argument, perhaps i shouldn't be so cynical about it. the only rule and way we have to measure God against is logic. if he can't abide by it, then it's all contradictory... what else can we expect? con tries to argue that the unlimited should, if it's unlimited, be able to limit itself. this is a contradictory state of affairs. again, con had to restort in this section of arguments, to the "God can act contrary to logic" argument. again his scape goat argument. even looking at his argument for its own worth, i would have to again get into my above comments. maybe God would abide by his own rules.... but he doesn't have to. and really i dont need to resort to the above comments, cause he should be able to do what he wants, as i've argued all along, if he is truly unlimited. if he's truly unlimited, he should be able to go against his own standards. if i were to use a cheap argument like con's, it might appear inconsistent for God to do it, but we can't measure him by logic, and so he could. really, though, i don't have to resort to that. as a matter of substance in of of itself, God could lift the rock if eh wanted to, as he is unlimited. it would be to wrongly place a limitation on him to say otherwise.