BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama is posioning to America.

I was going to use this round to troll the logic behind my opponent's arguments... but I decided to take the moral high route and talk to you about our lord a savior, Santa Claus. Then saner heads prevailed and I decided not to do either of those things. Instead, I present you a question and a request. Can a country that does not accept it's problems, but blames them all on one man ever survive? Vote for whichever side you believe won. That is all.
Obama is posioning to America.

Let's talk about America's real problems, as you seem to wholeheartedly believe they all stem from Obama. The Economy:1. As it stands now, we're $18,019,147,853,000 in debt and counting (http://www.usdebtclock.org...#). And who caused this, you ask with a sceptical face? Random Citizen: OBAMA!Yama: No, random citizen. Every country accrues debt overtime, but the politicians (not only Obama) do not continuously raise the debt ceiling. Of which allows us the accrue more debt, and involves raising the cieling over and over again. On note of the war effort, it alone contributes $594,903,282,000 to the total by itself. The war on terror has caused that amount to rapidly increase, from it's original amount of $137,000,000,000 in 1980. 2. The wealth gap continously growing. In short, the economy is getting better. But the benefits are still being felt more by the minority whom consolidate our weath, than buy the minority who need money.
Obama is posioning to America.

This was Obama"s fault and no one else"s. It was he who decided to pull our forces out of Iraq despite warnings from the top generals overseeing the operation, and the Sec Def Himself. They told him Iraq"s military could not stand on its own, and where right. Obama failed to listen to his expert advisers because he wanted to be the President that ended the war in Iraq. Instead he created an even bigger threat and refuses to deal with it. During the time when we (me and my brothers sisters) were fighting two fronts Iraq and Afghanistan his hard cuts on military spending resulted in troop reduction and increased an already deployment high frequency. Military presence there was the only thing stopping the current ISIS problem. I have spoken personal to many different Iraqi citizens during the nearly 3 and a half years I was there. They all invariable told me when asked "if that we were to leave before they are ready". His exec order on immigration, will have to be later. I'm no room.
Obama is posioning to America.

1. "He has cut our Military off at the knees, while creating a power vacuum in the Middle East allowing ISIS to take over." I have made the same argument over and over again with you people. The Senate and Congress are also at fault for ruining our country. It is not solely the current President's fault. Also, the American Military are not the ones responsible for the current crisis taking place in the Middle East. It is caused by The Soviet Union allowing those countries to leave from their control with such weak and poorly organized governments. Said governments paved the way for extremists and dictators to gain power relatively easily. 2. " Now he is trying to force his reCockulous immigration policies on us as well" He's not forcing anything on anyone. He's giving people who are already here and have no felonies a chance at life outside of crime. Of which is completely within his elected power.
Obama is posioning to America.

Obama has set in motion events that are damaging to the delicate geo-political balance of the world and thinks he is doing a good job. There fore he must be the anti-Christ. He has cut our Military off at the knees, while creating a power vacuum in the Middle East allowing ISIS to take over. This has all happen when his biggest concern was his golf handicap. Has forced Obama care on us effectively raising medical insurance for the entire middle class. Now he is trying to force his reCockulous immigration policies on us as well. This has made it easier for some previously hard working Americans to become able bodied welfare recipients. Which is ok by him. He signed a deal with Iran that will allow it to rake in somewhere between 7 and 20 billion dollars in sanctions relief and frozen assets even as it CONTINUES to work on enriching uranium. In other words, the Iranians get billions of dollars, give up nothing of consequence.
proof only agnosticism is true

Since Pro seems to believe I am arguing against Theism, this round is dedicated to explaining agnosticism.Here is a definition of Theism: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world" From Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Considering this definition, here are multiple definitions of agnosticism (besides my merriam-webster one).1: "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." http://www.dictionary.com... 2: " The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3: "An agnostic is a person who believes that the existence of a greater power, such as a god, cannot be proven or disproved; therefore an agnostic wallows in the complexity of the existence of higher beings." http://www.urbandictionary.com... 4: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable." https://en.wikipedia.org... 5: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Now what do these numerous definitions hold in common? That an agnostic doubts the existence of a God, and also can doubt the existence of the universe itself. More specifically, these definitions state that all agnostics believe things to be unknowable. So if I prove that we KNOW something, then I can prove that agnosticism is not ALWAYS correct. It is simple logic.Let me just define Know real quick as well."to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discernb (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of." http://www.merriam-webster.com... These all lend to the idea that when something is actually known (disproving agnostics in that area) then it has to be true. Also listen carefully here. We must set boundaries on what we wish to "be in the know of". If we do not, then we try to know everything which is literally impossible. But if agnosticism is going to be the idea that we cannot know everything itself, then I say the idea is worth bull**** to our daily lives. Also it is completely obvious its true, but it's true because its stating what a universal negative proposition is.Now I've said enough.Awaiting my opponent's response.-42
proof only agnosticism is true

Since I have work today at I would forfeit during that time, I will post a quick response now.First thing to note is that all my opponent provided was clarification of their point of view. In no way, shape, or form did new arguments become presented at any point. There was no evidence that contradicted my evidence.My opponent is simply going off the assumption that I missed the mark. To this voter, I believe my opponent is very wrong.Responses:"agnostic is the i dont know position.."To make this claim, a definition needed to be provided. My credible definition said that agnosticism can be both the I don't know position, and the questioning reality position. It's not just an I don't know matter."your agnostic definition is way false.. i am wearing a green hat on my head on my head or not, so which is it? or is it that you dont know."Numerous things wrong with this. First if my definition was wrong, once again, I would encourage my opponent to introduce a definition of Agnoticisim of competing or higher credibility than Merriam-Webster. Second of all, Science proves that on an atomic level your hat exists and we know how it exists, thus your hat exists. One could still doubt that existence, and that is why Agnosticism can be true ALONG with other viewpoints (due to relativism). But facts are facts, and the facts say Agnosticism is not the ONLY correct viewpoint."the position i am defending is that you dont know, wheather or not i am wearing a green hat right now"Well if you want to do that fine. Just know that your hitting the wrong point."i defend agnostic on the god claim not on math... or science"Vi_spex you must defend it on the math and science as well. This is because my definition expressly proves that Agnostics question our physical reality just as much as our metaphysical. Not only that but you yourself just question your physical reality (the green hat). Therefore if you want to be a part of the whole game, defend the whole game.With that said I have other things to do, and eagerly await my opponent's next response.-42
Tacos are the most superior type of food.

I as a Mexican-American love tacos. You can add Mexican Cheese, langua, chicken, beef, steak, lettuce, etc. There are a lot of things you can add to a taco and make it healthy too(like a taco salad); however, tacos have nothing against the classic, old school, slice of Pizza. Pizza was not made in America(we know that), but it can be customized even more than a taco. A pizza can have pepperoni, sausage, anchovies, spinaich, stuffed crust, flat bread, pan made, etc. The pizza is customized by the user him or herself. You can even use this taco(you are debating with) and make a taco flavored pizza with it. There is a pizza place in Iowa where they will make a taco flavored pizza and it is delicious. Not only can you make the pizza delicious, but healthy too.You can make a healthy pizza with pepperoni, white flour crust, and using skim mozzarella. So not only can the taco be healthy, but the pizza can too(http://www.myrecipes.com...).
Libertarian perspective: states' rights

"state" here will always mean one of the 50 members of the United States. C1 contends that there is a relationship between the desire for a small government and the size of the governed population. I see no such relationship and find Con has the burden of proof that one exists. Being a libertarian, if I were to find myself a citizen of Liechtenstein, population 36,000, my desire for limited government would be the same as it is now. In addition, economic conditions, as decrepit as they are in California, do not have a strong affect on my desire for liberty. P1: What Con misses is that in regards to liberty at the state level, one can easily vote with their feet, which in turn votes the dollars attached to those feet. For example, I would choose to move to New Hampshire1 over California (liberal mania) or New York (taxes, Bloomberg, "stop and frisk"). While Canada or Mexico may be considered reasonable alternatives, they present stronger barriers than a move to another state, have their own monopoly of force and present limited options. Regarding C2, firstly I fail to see the relevance of what Con thinks a state should be. I concede that states may have some influence on the federal government. p2: However,I would argue that states still have the right to say no to said government. We see that battle going on today: Arizona fighting the fed for the right to secure it's borders2 Colorado, Washington and Oregon fighting for legalization of marijuana and stopping federal raids3 New Hampshire accepting jury nullification in a recent court case4 In addition, Tom Woods, an author and historian I respect and admire, agrees with me5. I doubt that I would find many cases where the federal government is fighting for me in a similar way against the tyranny of a state of the republic. In comparing the federal government, with a monopoly on the whole of the U. S. territory, I find a state within that republic a much better option. And, if I happen to make the wrong choice at some point, I have the option to move. 1. . http://freestateproject.org... 2. . http://governor.state.tx.us... 3. . http://the420times.com... 4. . http://reason.com... 5. . http://www.libertyclassroom.com...
Libertarian perspective: states' rights

C1. As stated in my introduction, when the Constitution was written, the United States has a smaller population that almost half of the current states. If the Constitution was written on the principle of a limited government for 4 million people, then the same should follow for the 37 million in California (1). California, however, has a big government, and is suffering economically more than most of the nation. Its unemployment is the third worst in the country. C2. When thinking of states, one must ask if they are a public institution, or a private institution. In a strange way, they are neither. I think the idea of states should be that of a voluntarily created community, formed within a larger country. However, this idea of private states is not what we have. States have political power in the federal government. They are basically lobbyists that are an official part of the way the system runs. States have the ability to steal (tax) and detain (jail) their residents. No private institution could ever get away with this. On a philosophical level, I do not believe the founding fathers wanted states' rights so that they could merely coerce their citizens in situations where it would be unconstitutional for the federal government. Sources: 1. http://www.infoplease.com... (I'm posting it again because I'm using it again) 2. http://www.breitbart.com...
Libertarian perspective: states' rights

For this debate, I would like for my opponent to be a libertarian. Libertarians such as Ron Paul talk a lot about states' rights. I think that the libertarian idea of protecting individual rights goes against this. In 1790 the U.S. population was just 3.9 million. Today, about half of the states have a population greater than that. States enacting policies that restrict individual rights should not be able to justify these policies on the basis of states' rights, and I believe that neither should libertarians. Source: http://www.infoplease.com...
Libertarian perspective: states' rights

1. I would say that state governments would have to be even less limited than the federal government, because they, with the exception of certain cases, can only expand on government oppression. In all my opponent's examples of states saying to no to the federal government, the states have to fight the federal government. It is nowhere near as easy as simply passing a law that expands on federal freedom restrictions. The federal government is not a monopoly. There are other countries. If the federal government is a monopoly, it is only a monopoly of its own land. But then, by that logic, states are monopolies either. 2. The relevance of my claim is that if the federal government is to relinquish power to the states, and the states proceed to oppress instead, nothing is accomplished. Thank you to ax123man for this debate.
Libertarian perspective: states' rights

C1: my opponent's main proposition is: The point is that if limited government is necessary for a relatively small number of people, such as the early United States, why is it unnecessary for a larger number of people, such as modern day California. But I've never claimed that limited government was unnecessary at the state level. My claim is that government will be necessarily more limited at the state level the the federal. You can refer to P1 and P2 in round #2. In addition, to expand on P2, a state is not a monopoly like the federal government. States must compete for business, citizenship, tourism, etc. To win this point, I feel my opponent must refute the generally accepted idea that monopolies result in a poorer service at a higher price. My opponent also continues his desire to connect our debate to population of states. As a said in round 2, I don't see a connection and find this is a distraction to avoid addressing the points of my rebuttal. C2: I believe this argument is summarized with: Giving somebody else the ability to oppress their residents does not protect individual freedom, which I believe is fundamental to liberty. I agree with this statement, but fail to see it's relevance. I hold to my belief that states will never suppress their citizens as the federal government does simply based on the lack of a monopoly. Libertarians may ultimately desire anarchy, minarchy, or some other ultimate outcome. However, in the meantime we desire the freest arrangement we can find: ie states over federal.
Libertarian perspective: states' rights

C1: I agree with my opponent on Liechtenstein. But if Liechtenstein suddenly grew, and divided into communities with more than 36,000 people, where these communities could oppress their people, would his view point be any different? I know my desire for limited government would be the same. The point is that if limited government is necessary for a relatively small number of people, such as the early United States, why is it unnecessary for a larger number of people, such as modern day California. I find it interesting that my opponent chose New Hampshire as an example of a state he would like to live in, over New York or California. New Hampshire has 1.3 million people, as opposed to New York's 19.4 million or California's 37.7 million. A person's say in the politics of their state is much greater in smaller states. Larger states, however, can oppress their residents. C2: Basically, I don't think states should have the right to tax or jail their residents. With the exception of Arizona securing its borders, all the things my opponent mentioned are pro-freedom. What these states are doing is a good thing, but this isn't really the issue we are discussing. The Libertarian position seems to be, primarily, that the federal government, should have limited power. This I agree with, but then they say things along the lines of 'we should let the states decide'. Giving somebody else the ability to oppress their residents does not protect individual freedom, which I believe is fundamental to liberty.
Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

Free-Market Anarchism can most easily be explained, at it's most basic level, as all individual properties behaving entirely as their own independent nations, with the owner as it's ruler. The ruler, who also, has entirely free association with all other individuals as far as his own ability. The state, being the opposite of this, seeks to use coercive force to thwart the will of individuals to the submitting of it's own. I will explain why this is neither necessary nor preferable. What seems to me as being the most contrasting difference between our two systems is that mine would allow competition between private defense agencies and yours would not, correct me if I am wrong. So, perhaps, on this lies the fundamental debate. As I see it, your government is a business which uses force to extinguish all other competition, so to have a monopoly on the product, which is defense. What is wrong with this? It takes under assumption that whoever is in control of this defense system can do a better job than any other. Is this judge, or whoever it is, endowed with some godly powers of acting in the best interest of the consumer? As I would think my opponent will agree; the free-market has proven itself both in practice and in theory to be the only thing which can judge consumer needs with maximum efficiency. Neither a lone individual nor a large group can accurately manipulate the market place with the same amazing ability as every individual involved. I simply follow this logic to it's rational ends and apply it all consistantly to everyplace in the market, including defense. Quite simply, the market, if left alone, will take whatever actions bring it the most benefit. If every individual is left alone to act in their self-interest than the market will have an outcome that is most beneficial for all. Whatever laws are truly more economically efficient are the same laws which will succeed over it's competition. So instead of creating a monopoly and just hoping that your laws will get it right, why not just let the free-market sort out the most beneficial thing?
Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

In this debate I will be defending the stance that Free-Market Anarchy is generally better than Minarchy and my opponent, if he accepts, will be arguing the otherwise. "Better", for this debate, will be defined as which would cause the most happiness, order, economic efficiency and over-all prosperity. The definitions of Free-Market Anarchism and Minarchy will not be confined to independent sources, rather how both I and my opponent describe our own systems to be within this debate. The debating will begin in the second round. I thank Ragnar ahead of time.
WAR GAME SCENARIO: United States v. Chosen Nation

You are striving for hyperrealism but when I give you realism you do not accept it.I tell you that your war proclomation is invalid, yet you continue to fight a non-existant war. None of your actions are valid, because they MUST have a war in order to be started, and there was no war.People pull out stocks because there is a person in the United States who went from $60BILLION to $1TRILLION. This is not a healthy economy.. if you understood how economies worked then you would agree that this massive increase in wealth is not healthy.This is the worst debate I have ever taken part in, everything you are posting is so unrealistic it is unbelievable, but you are using small technicalities to bring down my case. All of your case has been declared VOID because the actions must have a war proclomation and there has not been one. Declare war then fight. You cannot do what you are doing without war.I win this debate for one reason: you have made no points that are even valid. You have taken no actions that are valid, while I have. Liquidation of banks is a valid move, you attacking me without war is not.(I sense imminent bias from those who are going to vote on the debate because they are in the same "group" as you for war-type debates and made the rules. "I ask the debate moderators to check the rules and make the final decision". Okay, cool cool...)