BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A pregnant mother 21 shot and killed - yeah right- yet again another reason why god cannot exist

There is absolutely no possible way that god according to the horrific bible exists unless you believe in pure 100% hate and evil. Today with headlines reading here in Orlando (where else) "Pregnant woman killed, 2 kids wounded in Pine Hills shooting, sheriff says" Now this supposed christian god is good for only two things... 1. Hate. 2. Evil. Religion is and was created to explain the unexplained. Then through the unexplained comes power, then fear and then comes control. This christian god is giving all the power to the killer to take the life of the pregnant woman. And obviously there's the absolute fear that the killer instills. Of course with that fear there is the almighty control of the subjects and in this case the death of the pregnant woman and the fear he decimated, oh yeah that control with the surrounding subjects as two kids were also wounded. god KNOWINGLY created this killer knowing what was going to happen trillions of years in advance which is 100% pure evil and hate. Well that's only true IF and only IF god is god. god KNOWINGLY created this pregnant woman TO BE SHOT AND KILLED and knew what was going to happen trillions of years in advance. Of course that's only true IF and only IF god is god which is 100% pure evil and hate. This god also knew that that two kids would be wounded by some bullets trillions of years in advance which is 100% pure evil and hate that is IF and only IF god is a god. god KNOWINGLY created the families, friends and loved ones to grieve, and who knows how long they will grieve as there's no time limit on grieving, and this god knew that this was going to happen trillions of years in advance which is 100% pure evil and hate that is IF and only IF god is a god. Oh and oh yeah with a very big "duh" sign pinned to those who believe - there's proof that your god even exists. One thing that is for sure is that ALL guns from around the world are needed to be gotten rid of. No exceptions. None. Its a step in the right direction, just as ALL religion is, that is IF and only IF you want worldwide peace. There are a few other things that need to happen. Rules: Prove that YOUR god is a good guy and does not give the go-ahead in allowing others to kill each other and is a loving god. DO NOT bring in the "free will" issue. I'm really tired of that truly idiotic lame argument. Free will does not exist if you believe in YOUR god. Besides, you'd only hurt yourself here especially as free will favors and empowers the evil and hate, just as your god wants it.
The US government should be secular.

My opponent is suggesting that we accept to consider two words that are nearly synonymyous to be actually synonymous.This is logically absurd, kool-aid is almost the same as water, i mean it's close, but if i promised you kool-aid, and then gave you water - you'd feel robbed, especially if I want on to say "Hey, it's almost the same thing, which is the same as theres no difference!" I'm not even going to extrapolate further that spiritual is not synonymous with religious (because it's not), that's not what this debate was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about Government should be X (secular), and he gave a STRICT definition for X=not spiritual. So it should have been perfectly valid and fair for me to interpret his argument as "Government should not be spiritual" And I made my argument accordingly.Then he goes on to refine spiritual to meet his own end by focusing solely on one interpretation of it listed in the dictionary, this is called a semantic drift.My point was clear and logically valid and that was my only agenda.His agenda on the other hand was obviously to denounce and attack religion the whole time, he should have made that his point from the beginning. (it took ME to bring up the word religion, read my argument in round 2)Now the debate is moot and he still wants a vote!, which means if you feel inclined to vote for him then do so, it's only insulting to his own intelligence and yours, I didn't want a victory, i wanted a logical debate, if it takes me to lose this in order to remain logical, than so be it!Oh and by the way, his definitions to the words in the preamble I pointed out, are correct, and they still are in align with my point, because none of those definitions pertain to anything material, which was my point from the beginning, which was only fair of me to assume because HE is the one who proposed a definition of secular.If he wanted to talk religion, he should have said so. Religious people can be extrememly unscrupulous, evil and non spiritual. Spiritual people can be sages and amazing humans beings, and not necessarily religious.Yet he wants us to treat them interchangeably. I argue this debate is moot.Discern of this as you will, but it's wiser we all just walk away.
The US government should be secular.

My opponent's argument claims that spirituality and religion are two separate matters. However, by definition, spirituality and religion are nearly synonymous. Spiritual- of or relating to religion or religious beliefs. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Using the correct definition of spiritual (relating to religion), my opponent then makes several points that support my opinion. .. Separation of church and state keeps the US government from becoming non secular. My opponent then argues that "perfect union, establish Justice, insure Tranquility, welfare, blessings, and liberty" are all spiritual (relating to religion) references. Perfect- having no mistakes or flaws. Union- an act of joining two or more things together. Establish- to cause something to be widely known and acceptedJustice- the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. Insure- to buy insurance for. Tranquil- unvarying in aspect. Welfare- the state of being happy, healthy, or successfulBlessings- approval that allows or helps you to do something. Liberty- a political right. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)As you can see above, none of these have spiritual (relating to religion) references. I apologize for spewing definitions at you, but my opponent's arguments can be dispelled by simply looking up the meaning of misunderstood words/phrases. I have provided many facts, statistics, and sources that prove that the government should be secular. I also have proved that secular means not-involving religion or the spiritual world, therefore proving my opponent's initial arguments incorrect.
The US government should be secular.

The Founding Fathers meant for US government to be secular After winning the revolutionary war against Britain, the founding fathers had a close look at a government with close ties between church and state. Because of rising conflicts in Europe due to religious differences, the founders wanted a government with "separation of church and state." This is why they made the law of the land (the constitution) completely secular. Not only did the founders omit mentioning any deity, including Jesus, but they also included the first amendment. This states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..."(http://www.archives.gov...) All religious references were omitted in currency as well. "In god we trust" was added to coins in 1864 and paper currency in 1957. This change was clearly unconstitutional, but that is a separate debate. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) And finally, the Treaty of Tripoli clears this issue up the best. It states, "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." The founding fathers created this to be as clear as possible. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Some may argue that there are religious references in the Declaration of Independence. However, the Declaration of Independence does not represent any law of the United States. It was written before the founders created the law of our land (the constitution).Secular governments are more successfulIrreligious- not believing in or practicing any religion (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Here are some of the most irreligious countries by % of non-believers (who also have secular governments) via (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Sweden 88%Denmark 83%China 82%United Kingdom 76%France 74%Japan 71%Canada-61%These countries are consistently world-wide leaders in wealth, technology/innovation, and peace.Wealth- http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)Innovation and Technology- (http://www.theatlanticcities.com...)Peace- (http://en.wikipedia.org...)These statistics prove that secular governments are the most successful in the modern era.On the other end of the spectrum, lets look governments that are non secular (http://wiki.answers.com...)Saudi ArabiaIranYemenKuwaitIraqAlgeriaPakistanThe Vatican(The list goes on, but you get the point...)Except for the Vatican, these countries are the poorest, rank lowest in technology/innovation, and most are the most violent countries in the world.It can be concluded that the Founding Fathers wanted the US government to be secular. Looking at modern day statistics, the founders were correct when they predicted secular governments would be more successful than non secular governments.
Obama has outperformed every modern president in jobs, growth and investments

It is true that Obama had to deal with a global recession that was out of his control during his presidency, but at best, pointing that out merely *excuses* him from some of his economic failures; it doesn't show any of Obama's positive economic accomplishments. Therefore, my original argument still holds: Clinton has Obama beat in pretty much every aspect of improving the country's economy. The resolution is negated. Vote Con. Thanks for the debate, dairygirl! :D
Obama has outperformed every modern president in jobs, growth and investments

the decline started when bush was in office. if you remember the auto industry was in trouble with bush, and obama took over. the great recession is defined to have started.... According the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research (the official arbiter of U.S. recessions) the US recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, and thus extended over 18 months. and if you look at it by smaller segments than years, we see the hugest decline was already exponentially more than half way done by the time obama took office in january 2009 http://data.bls.gov...
Obama has outperformed every modern president in jobs, growth and investments

Pro ignores most of what I have said, instead trying to somehow prove that Obama is more economically successful by saying that change in unemployment rate under Obama was higher than that of Clinton's. Even if we assume that change in the unemployment rate is more important than the actual amount of unemployment itself, we can see that Pro's claim is patently false by looking at the following graph (derived from Pro's own source): It is clearly shown here that from the year Obama came into office to the current year, unemployment has not gone down at all, instead going up 1.6%. This graph also illustrates the fact that Clinton's track record when it comes to unemployment rates and economic health in general is superior to that of Obama's in every possible way, iin accordance with the the statistics from last round. The resolution remains negated.
Obama has outperformed every modern president in jobs, growth and investments

Ah, it is finally my turn to debate the legendary dairygirl4u2c...I would like to start off by noting her extensive plagiarism in her opening argument- she has copied the entirety of it from the following article without citing it at all: http://www.addictinginfo.org...Moving on... Pro is making the positive claim that Obama is the best economic president in modern times; therefore, if I can prove that a single other modern president has accomplished more than him economically, I win the debate. My case will be centered around president Bill Clinton."[Clinton's] strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993... More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.... A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.... Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years." (http://clinton5.nara.gov...)Not only is the source I have offered more reliable than Pro's source, but literally each and every one of Pro's numbers in support of Obama are undermined by one of the numbers provided in my quotation. -- Obama's 63 months of economic expansion vs. Clinton's 115 months-- Obama's 6.1% unemployment rate vs. Clinton's 4.0%-- Obama's 200,000 new jobs created in 6 months vs. Clinton's 20 million new jobsIt has been thoroughly demonstrated that Clinton was a more economically successful president than Obama, effectively negating the resolution.
"should voting be done online"

Thank you for your response. My opponent once again brings up hacking; however what he is speaking of seems conflicting and unsure. forged currency is essentially impossible on the internet and has no relation to this argument. Now my opponent stated "China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited" however, firstly, China is still classified as a third world country, as many parts of China are still below the poverty line. Regardless of this China has grown rapidly in its internet penetration, from 1.78% in 2000 to 46.03% in 2014. My opponent brings up the population of the two nations I mentioned, however my argument wasn't that online voting is common, but it has been successful in other nations.
"should voting be done online"

points well noted...but are u trying to say that young people have no tym...sir they can't remove just 1 hour frm their work time..by they can party ryt...sir I appritiate that u have IT baground but sir do u ssly don't know that nowadays hacking is so simple...sir nowadays it is so simple to do fraud in a currency note so this is just a internet..sir u spoke about rural areas having internet...sir than they are no more rural...coming to connectivity.. Sir China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited,check it out..sir talking about the Estonian and the swiz govt adopting this method..sir first check their population.sir still I say the worlds largest democracy still does not follow this method. HAD A gud debate 😃 😉
"should voting be done online"

My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement "" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote "" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond "a lot of hacking in internet". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...
"should voting be done online"

Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don
"should voting be done online"

Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that "if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away "do not deserve to vote". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks "Old people run the country") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...
"should voting be done online"

No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting
death penalty

I get what you are saying, but if a man had raped or murdered my family, I personally would not want that person dead. I would want that person to stay and rot in jail. Living with the crime he had committed for the rest of his life. I would want that person to be sentenced to life in prison. Plus it is an eye for an eye. He killed someone, so someone kills him, so who will kill the other person. It is a never ending circle. Plus it is very expensive to pay for the death penalty.
Environmental Protection

My arguments:Human actions in favour of the environment are actually in their own self-interest.Non-human species are affected when we neglect the environment.Earth is our only practical home in the near future, so we should protect the environment.Why you should vote pro:Plagiarism: Con's second round argument was blatantly plagiarised, while I made my own arguments and sourced them.Forfeiture: Con forfeited their third round, which leaves all my arguments unanswered, making this debate one-sided.Lack of rebuttal: So far, Con hasn't rebutted ANY of my arguments.Sourcing: There were no sources mentioned for Con's lone argument- making all of his arguments bare assertions.For all these reasons, please vote pro. Thank you, Spem_Redudit for the debate.
Environmental Protection

Environmental regulation in the United States stands accused of causing a broad array of undesirable economic consequences. It is said that environmental regulation is too expensive, reduces economic growth, hurts international competitiveness, and causes widespread layoffs and plant closures. Sometimes, it is said, it even forces businesses to flee to more accommodating countries. The view that environmental regulation seriously harms the U.S. economy is so firmly established that it has become the centerpiece in the series of attempts over the last few years to roll back the very rules that have produced such dramatic improvements in environmental quality. This article reviews the evidence that can be brought to bear to verify or refute these accusations. In all cases, these assertions do not stand up to a careful examination of the facts. First, we do indeed spend a considerable amount on environmental protection, but not as much as we do on health care and national defense " activities that may be of similar significance to many people. Second, we spend about the same amount in terms of GDP as do other nations at similar levels of development. Third, we gain enormous benefits from pollution control, so the issue is not really the cost of environmental protection, but the net benefits we receive. Finally, there is no evidence that U.S. environmental regulation causes large-scale plant closures and job losses, that it impairs our international competitiveness, or that it encourages companies to flee to nations with more lax environmental protection requirements.