BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
mitt romney is a better candidate for president then mike huckabee

You say you want specific facts well here you go. 1. Huckabee has been investigated by the ethics comittee 14 times and charged with 5 violations involving his campaign money. He used senate campaign money to pay himself 14,000 dollars and did not report it to the comittee. He then used 43,000 dollars in Leut. Gov. campaign money to buy himself a plane and when he reported it, he hid that fact the HE actually owned the plane. If he had owned the plane, it would have been a violation of campaign laws. He refused subpoenas of the ethics comittee. He did not report recieving 23,500 dollars in donation. Huckabee sued the ethics comittee twice so they would lay off. he also spent some of his 60,000-a-year business funds from the state on personal things, specifically, pizza, a dog house, a bbq grill, and panty hose for his wife. 2. When he left office, he spent 13,000 dollars to destroy the hardrives of almost 100 computers. SOmething to hide??? Most think so. Maybe campaign budget fraud. 3. This is about those pardons. You asked me to name one pardon with no reason behind it. I can name a few. James Maxwell- killed a church of christ minister. Huckabee reduced his sentence because he worked at the governors mansion. Samuel W. Taylor- was convicted on drug charges. he was pardoned because Taylor knew Huckabee's sister in high school. There really werent any other reasons anyone could find. Don Clark - convicted of theft. Pardoned on a pastors recomendation??? Thats no reason to release a thief. (Fun fact: Huckabee released many many people on pastorial recomendation.) Denver Whitham (my personal favorite) - beat a man to death with a lead pipe. Was released on parole by Huckabee for unkown reasons. Wayne Dumond - convicted of rape. Was released after Huckabee heard Dumond had been "born again". Gov. Jim Guy Tucker - forced to resign office, Huckabee took his place as governor. After 21 days in prison Gov. Tucker was pardoned. Huckabee gave his reason to be that holding Tucker would "cost too much". Huckabee granted clemency on average once every four days. The three previous governors of arkansas served almost twice as long and still only granted half that. Now do you want anything else?
mitt romney is a better candidate for president then mike huckabee

you say romney has lied and twisted facts? huckabee has talked on how 80 percent of arkansa voted to raise taxes for new roads. what actually happened was huckabee raised taxes by an absurd 46 percent. then 80 percent of people voted on making better roads. they never voted to raise taxes. huckabee has bashed romney multiple times for being mormon and not once has romney made a personal attack on huckabee. huckabee pardoned a murderer because he used to work for the state gov. huckabee pardoned another man and no one knows why. huckabee pardoned a murderer because a minister said the guy was a good guy 2 weeks later that same man killed another person huckabee has said that he wants to take people with aids out of society. Mitt romney brought massechussetes out of a 3,000,000,000 dollar deficit WITHOUT raising taxes. huckabee took campaign money to buy himself a jet. he took gov. money and bought himself a grill. huckabee is not a moral man and must not be president.
mitt romney is a better candidate for president then mike huckabee

mike huckubee does not have what it takes to be president. he makes personal attacks on people beliefs and has made too many unfair pardons. he makes pardons to people just becuase he knows them. he has said that god wants him to win. his speeches are based more on religion than politics. he brags about bringing Arkansa out of a 2,000,000,000 dollar deficit. Mitt Romney brought Massechusetes out of a 3,000,000,000 dollar deficit without raising taxes.
Abiogenesis

This debate is impossible to accept. Message in comments if you are interested in participating. I am Pro Abiogenesis. I am looking for an opponent somewhat knowledgeable in science and would rather not have a pure philosophical/theological discussion, even if there are such motivations. 8,000 characters. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments, Con may rebut me Round 3: Rebuttals/Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusions - No new arguments/brand new rebuttals That is all, good luck!!
Infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is delight to moralists. That is why they invented hell

Hello and good luck to you! I believe I will be arguing that this is not true so I should actually be the con side. A few things about your opening statement. 1. Bertrand Russel is an atheist who has no direct exposure to Christianity- without a primary observation, Russel is not qualified to make a statement. 2. Where is the evidence that people have continually mistranslated scriptures? Christianity and other religions like it have been recorded with the same teachings for thousands of years. If one will argue that translations are inaccurate, one must go all the way back to the beginning and make an assumption there is no evidence to back. 3. The God of the Bible is not only loving but just. To use a common analogy, would it be acceptable for a judge to let a man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder to go free? Of course not. In this way, God punishes people for their wrongs as justly as is fit. This makes it fair for good people to be loved. 4. You are trying to prove that this statement is true while there has been no evidence (nor evidence of the existence of evidence) presented besides a single quote.
Infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is delight to moralists. That is why they invented hell

[T]he infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists. That is why they invented Hell." This is a quote written by Bertrand Russell. While it is true that due to the advent of hell, crime must have been reduced but Hell, as we currently understand it, is the product of several snowballing misconceptions and irresponsibly translated scriptures. Many Christians believe that the God of the Bible invented or designed Hell.The concept of a torturous, demon-governed "underworld" must not be what a loving and merciful god would make.
Infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is delight to moralists. That is why they invented hell

Why should I give up? As of right now, all of the evidence points in my favor. Moralist (n): a person who teaches or promotes morality. a person given to moralizing. a person who behaves in a morally commendable way. Is it moral to enjoy the suffering of others, even with a good conscience? No, which is why Bertrand Russell is wrong. A true moralist will not enjoy the righteous suffering of others but understand its necessity- Hell is a just punishment. Any person who understands morality understands that suffering is punishment for bad actions; just but not enjoyable.
The NSW selective schools system is beneficial

http://www.eduqna.com... 1. You say that it "is a mixed bag". Well even if I were to accept your argument, that the good and bad cancel each other out, you have the burden of proving that the NSW system is beneficial, which means supporting that it is moot is a viable option for the con. The con does not have to prove necessarily that they are detrimental, only that they are not beneficial. Also, selective students with their special abilities benefit from being a minority not a majority, because they are able to realise the reality of how the rest of society actually works. In comprehensive schools, during their schooling they will be associating with all types of people in all types of intelligence levels which allows them to understand how to effectively deal with people who will not understand everything as well or in the same way as they do. 2. Comprehensive schools still allow for higher level students to be in higher level classes without throwing them into a different school, and therefore they can still have their educational needs met within the comprehensive schooling system. Also the "extra help" that the other students need does not have to come from the teacher. If the higher level students have indeed already learned the material, then a competent teacher would allow these students to help the lower level ones who need help, thus creating a symbiotic relationship which allows all parties to benefit, instead of one suffering, and the other benefiting. The middle students who learn at the pace the class is taught are not harmed either by allowing students who would be in selective students into comprehensive schools. Pro has failed to say that the more qualified teachers do not go to selective schools, or that this is not a detriment to comprehensive schools. He must do one to refute my argument. 3. I still refute this argument because I know from experience that this is not the case, and I challenge Pro to find proof that people who know the answer are more likely to to try. 4. Pro has failed to provide any sources as to how he knows that these students are not disappointed. Isn't it logical that by human nature when you fail to achieve something, you feel disappointed? 5. By Pro's concession that there is some need for their to be only partially selective schools, he admits that comprehensive schools have benefits which selective schools lack. I am running out of time so must elaborate later. 6. It's okay con, I just hate wasting precious character space on refuting arguments that are irrelevant. re: Rebuttals 1. Gifted Students and Mentally Disabled, or Socially Disabled, are all "special needs students" [1] So your rebuttal is flawed. 1. . http://books.google.com...
The NSW selective schools system is beneficial

Pre- Debate / Terms/ Clarification The term 'NSW selective schools system' refers to the Selective Schools in the Australian state of NSW (New South Wales) . Selective refers to both fully selective and partially selective schools [1] . The term 'selective' in this context refers only to the governmentsystem, not schools with entry via scholarship or schools that select based on certain talents (eg. music) . As for the term 'is beneficial' , the resolution is asking whether having selectvie schools is a positive vs. a comprehensive only government system. There are to be no semantics regarding this term. Also, no new arguments should be posted by con in the final round. Finally, the person who accepts this debate is to argue not simply against the selective system, but for the comprehensive (eg. If I'm arguing A and my opponent attacks A successfully, without alternative B, A is the only system standing) system. Failure to do so should be seen as a forfeit by voters. Arguments 1. Those who would otherwise be in a comprehensive system (selective students) benefit from the lack of misbehaviour of lower achieving students and the resulting different social dynamic, among other things. 2. With classes of equal student abilities, teachers have a greater ease in teaching, and can concentrate their focus to specific student levels of ability. 3. Students who remain in the comprehensive system are made to engage more with their teachers as the students who typically answer questions and such are gone. 4. It instills a greater sense of pride in the school for the selective students, as they have had to try in order to get to the school they are at. 5. Selective schools typically make for greater multiculturalism at said schools [2] 6. Selective does not mean elitist. These arguments will be expanded upon in greater depth later. 1 - http://www.schools.nsw.edu.au... 2 - http://www.smh.com.au...
The SN 1006 Supernova is the cause of World War II

The Third Premise As I explained at the beginning of my previous argument, rejecting the third premise invalidates Pro's conclusion. Whether the third premise follows naturally from the second is irrelevant. Pro bases his (my apologies if you are not a male) argument on his own reasoning, as opposed to evidence. Pro ultimately lacks any actual evidence or empirical arguments. In lieu of empirical evidence, Pro insists on attempting to overwhelm voters with quantum physics and imaginary concepts, and has yet to do anything but dance around the original topic. The "conditional syllogism" that Pro's reasoning relies on is a method commonly used by advertisers to spread a misconception without lying outright. Pro's reasoning holds no truth, only ideas and assumptions. http://changingminds.org... The Cow and Turkey Sandwich example Pro states "They do not even attempt to justify this, instead making an argument from incredulity, in effect claiming that it just feels like the death of the cow has nothing to do with the decision made by the man". Pro attacks my example because it doesn't abide by his equation. Folks, I implore you to use common sense to determine whether the death of the Indian cow would truly determine what the German man would choose for dinner. Pro's impractical quantum physics equations provide absolutely no empirical evidence, and hold no value in this debate. However, I will play Pro's game of imaginary concepts. According to Pro's argument, It can be argued that the actual cause of World War Two is the battle of Carrhae. The battle of Carrhae occurred in the year 52 BC. Pro states that "Any event occurring on a timeline is the cause of all subsequent events". Because the battle of Carrhae occurred before the Second World War, the battle of Carrhae caused World War Two. Since Pro claims that the SN 1006 supernova is THE cause of World War Two, it is reasonable to conclude that Pro's claim contains only the SN 1006 supernova to be the cause. I have established that the battle of Carrhae is the cause of World War Two. Therefore, according to Pro's argument, the SN 1006 supernova is not THE cause of World War Two. Back to you, Pro.
The SN 1006 Supernova is the cause of World War II

Pro's argument is largely sound, but Pro's assumptions contain a grave error that invalidates his conclusion. Premise Three: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent event. This is not true. True: being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false Some events have no impact on subsequent events, such as the death of a cow in Vietnam and what a German man chooses to eat for dinner five minutes later. The death of the Vietnamese cow may precede the German man choosing to eat a turkey sandwich by five minutes, but the cow's death does not mandate the occurrence of the German man choosing to eat a turkey sandwich. Whether the Vietnamese cow dies or not, the German man will choose the turkey sandwich. Therefore, not all events occurring on a timeline mandate the occurrence of all subsequent events, so not all events on a timeline cause all subsequent events. I have proven above that not all events on a timeline mandate the following events. Unless Pro is able to explain the series of events caused by the SN 1006 supernova that caused the second world war, there is no reason to believe that the SN 1006 supernova is the cause of World War Two. If Pro is unable to explain how the supernova caused World War Two, it has no more causation of World War Two than the death of the Vietnamese cow to the German man's dinner choice.
The SN 1006 Supernova is the cause of World War II

Here is my short and simple argument.Premise One: A timeline is an ordered sequence of events.Premise Two: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent event.Premise Three: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of all subsequent events.Premise Four: Any event occurring on a timeline is the cause of all subsequent events. (Premise Three, definition of cause)Premise Five: The SN 1006 supernova occurred before World War Two.Conclusion: The SN 1006 supernova caused World War Two. (Premise Four, Premise Five)JUSTIFICATIONS:Premise One:This is essentially how a timeline is defined. As far as structural models of the progression of time go, this is as best as we can come up with. Time is made up of events occurring, and so this is the best way to define it. In addition, the order of events is important, as time is directional (this is shown to be true be properties such as entropy).Premise Two:Also part of the definition of a timeline. Time cannot progress if events do not trigger subsequent events. The only way to argue against this is to posit Parmenidean Monism (the idea that all time is one and does not change). A quick rebuttal of PM is that while solipsistic barriers dictate that we can never know whether or not physical reality changes, what we can know is our own experience, which is always changing. Even if physical reality is static, our experiences do change.Premise Three:This follows naturally. If the first event occurs, it triggers the occurrence of the second event by definition. The second event thusly triggers the third, etc. as a domino effect sweeps through the timeline.Premise Four:We're just matching this up to our definition of cause now. We've already proved that the occurrence of any event mandates the occurrence of all subsequent events, so by definition it causes all subsequent events.Premise Five:This is historical fact. The supernova was observed in 1006 CE, but due to light travel delays, it most likely occurred much earlier in the past than that. WWII on the other hand, began in 1939, over 900 years after the observation of the supernova.Conclusion:Follows from the premises.With that I hand it over to Con.
The SN 1006 Supernova is the cause of World War II

I am arguing for the statement that the SN 1006 supernova is the cause of World War Two.DEFINITIONS:SN 1006 supernova: The supernova that occurred in the constellation of Lupus and was recorded in the year 1006.World War Two: The war occurring between 1939-45 between the US, UK, France, the Soviet Union, and Germany, Italy, Japan, as well as other minor powers.Cause: Event A causes Event B if the existence/occurrence of Event A mandates the existence/occurrence of Event B.
Zero to the Zeroth Power Does Not Equal One

The fact that the form 00 is an indeterminate form (in the sense that gives you no information about the limit) does not prevent us from assigning a value to the expression. It merely means that exponentiation cannot be a continuous function in any neighborhood of that value. The limit can be manipulated to this advantage. Take and solve: = = = = = = =e0 =1Therefore, because =1, 00=1. There is a second proof behind this idea. The geometric series, binomial theorem, power rule, Jack Huizenga's answer, and other formulas in mathematics reuqire 00=1. If we can't prove from limit analysis what this expression equals, we can find it another way. This is an example of how the binomial theorem requires 00=1. Using this equation: After expanding the binomial power using the binomial formula and further manipulation, we get at: Pulling out both K=0: Further manipulation of the equation results in: At this point, we must consider whether 00 equals 0 or 1. Indeterminacy is not an option, since the situation is real and is required to continue the simplification. If we take 00 to equal 0, the final formula for Sp(N) is off by a linear constant –N. Choosing 00 to equal 1 yields the right answer. For example, for S5(10), if 00 equals 0, we end up with the erroneous answer of 220,815, while is 00 equals 1, the verified result of 220,825 is determined. In general, the sum ∑n=0->∞ an(x-c)n is problematic at x=c, and this can be fixed by defining 00 to equal 1, which arrives at the verified correct answer, whereas defining 00 to equal 0 produces an incorrect answer. Either way, indeterminacy is not an option because the equation needs to be solved. In conclusion, the limit my opponent cites does not prove anything. Using another limit and reveal that 00can equal 1. In addition, many proven rules and theorems in mathematics require 00=1, such as the binomial theorem, which only yields a correct answer for 0 when 00=1. Overall, 00=1 for kj where k and j are discrete variables. ________________________________________________________________________________________________. http://www.askamathematician.com...;http://www.quora.com...http://mathscitech.org...;
Zero to the Zeroth Power Does Not Equal One

My basic argument is that there is no way to assign a value to the function 0^0. If we determine the limit as x approaches 0 of 0^x, we get one; if we determine the limit as x approaches 0 of x^0, we get 1 - this concludes that we get two different values for the limit of x^x as x approaches 0, therefore we cannot assign it a value of one. 0 to any positive power is 0, so 0 to the power 0 should be 0. But any positive number to the power 0 is 1, so 0 to the power 0 should be 1. We can't have it both ways. Think of it another way. If the two functions (x^0 and 0^x) were placed side-by-side, there would be a discontinuity at all places. It is only reasonable to assume that the same discontinuity applies at x=0. 0^0 is undefined.
Donald Trump Colluded with the Russians

Please accept only if you plan to complete the debate. Thanks and good luck! Please use the first round to acknowledge and accept the scope of argument and challenge respectively. The arguments will begin in round 2. This is an all-out war of evidence! Show me what you got! Let's keep this cordial. I understand that this can be a heated topic but let's have a good and thorough look at the available evidence and judge the facts with an open mind. I will maintain an open mind if you will. For the record, I am arguing that the available evidence does not show that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian Government to throw the 2016 US presidential election. Pro will argue that there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians. Also, if the debate includes information about there being evidence about other people doing something nefarious during the election to compare and contrast an opponent's argument and to possibly point out a hypocritical point, that is fair game. We should approach the debate as if we are politicians on opposite sides of the aisle arguing about this issue in a house or senate comity hearing. I am not suggesting that we settle this national debate right here and now. I am merely suggesting that we get all of the evidence in a centralized location to have a measured look at the available facts, enabling us to judge whether the level of hysteria shown by individuals of both sides of the aisle in DC is justified. Thanks and good luck! This should be fun!