BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Political Parties In The Goverment

I appologize for the long delay in responding. I have been extremely ill due to too infections and havent been able to do much besides lie awake in bed. I thank my opponent for his kind words. The debate has been fun, and a great engagementSince I am still fairly sick, and since this is the concluding round, I will do an overview, with some extensions at the end. All around very brief. OverviewJudges, the reason you are voting for the affirmative is because the concessions, not only unintentional(IE via omission) but also intentional (what was recognized as being dropped by the negation) have given the affirmative the only access to impacts and solvency in the round, and there is unanswered impact-offense against the negative. The negative begs for an esoteric ballot without any framework warranting the use of it in round, or as to what the advocacy of the neg does. First, look to my framework, where I say "1. Whomever can provide the most in terms of net-benefits should win the round, as that way there is little room lent for judge intervention and bias. " This goes conceeded. The negation conceeded that the round should be evaluated using net-benefits, ie real world impacts. Second, extend my impact analysis. The neg offers no impact defense, so you must assume that my impacts occur and occur with a high degree of likelyhood. Then look to the impacts themselves. I claim not only that my case prevents real world harm that is already occuring to a smaller degree from expanding, but also that the world the con constructs would make these problems worse. This impact offense goes conceeded, you must assume the negation side has negative implications for the world, and the affirmative also has a risk of solvency for problems.
Political Parties In The Goverment

Before I even start my response I would like to say... I needed to catch my breath after I read that. You are an extremely educated man or woman and that was simply a phenomenal response. My Response: - My opponent reserves to relying on what the past had for this nation dealing with political parties. I will not deny that political parties have not had their success in the past before. But lets look at things much more close to the present. Political parties may create an organization of the nation representing the people in some sort but it is not the way the people should be represented. As a nation we are meant to be a whole not just faction relying on a representative to cast in our vote. Competition causes destruction, I would know as an investor because once a company has public competition their sales revenue will spike momentarily but crash detrimentally afterward. This is what the future of our government hold if it continues have these "hiccups" in our government. Political Parties are in a way an organization of the normal citizen. But in today's government what political leader is not a demagogue. MY argument may solely be on the opinion of myself and of the future upcoming generation of this country. Though a debate should withheld with only facts, opinion does hold some weight. As the generation usually called the "failure generation" us students have a negative attitude especially when our international ranking falls deeper in the counting. But when looked at politically, what are we doing wrong. I know this is seems like a moral argument but its a valid point to bring up. Political Parties rarely agree with each other, the FED and Treasury don't know where to fund this money cause, hell, when was the last time there was any thought of an educational boost to help our generation become from the failure generation to the generation to succeed. I state this final reason only because political parties no matter which one holds its own innate kind of evil that hold our own nation from advancement. George Washington, arguably the best president in the world, John Adams both despised the use of political parties. Once quoted by Adams himself, "I am a party of one". He had the humble view of saying that he much rather be the VP of Thomas Jefferson than be the President of the United States. Neutrality has been United States strongest pawn on this chess board, that is what makes our foreign trade alive, our foreign policy alive, and our foreign relationship alive. What the use of neutrality when inside our own country we go against our own morals and principals? Thank you very much for your time this was a great debate. This was a desperate grasp from your previous response which I felt was very persuasive and intelligent. As a student interested in Politics and Finance, I would like to know more of what you do as in what your major is and such if you are comfortable with that. If so please message. Thank You for the great debate!
Political Parties In The Goverment

This is a very debatable topic considering that this makes up our government. I stand against this system of parties but I would like to see what other people think upon this issue. Should we or should we not have these political parties governing use. Considering out entire Government Shutdown was because of two political parties arguing and being childish and not agreeing with one another. I feel that parties make us a more... Separated and not a "United" States of America. Please Comment and Vote I would appreciate your points of views.
Testing on animals is wrong!

I have to admit that even though I am against animal testing, you have proven a very strong point. Animal testing is mainly the reason for all of the modern medical vaccines and such that we have today. Although, I believe that testing on animals for those reasons may be alright, I think it is just wrong to use them to test cosmetics (even if I am a girl). I hate putting animals through that sort of torture just so that supermodels can make themselves look 'pretty'. Thank you.
Testing on animals is wrong!

Here are a few reasons why I am for animal testing: Without animal testing medical science today would not exist. Artificial insulin, vaccines, tetanus, antibiotics, organ transplantation, AIDS treatments, and cardiac pacemakers all would not exist among other advancements. We would still be stuck in medicine dating back to before the 19th century before animal testing became more standard. Imagine a world without modern medicine! Viable alternatives for most medical experiments do not exist.
Testing on animals is wrong!

Here are just a few reasons why I am against animal testing: Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in U.S. labs every year.Even animals that are protected under the AWA can be abused and tortured. And the law does not require the use of valid alternatives to animals, even if they are available. In tests of potential carcinogens, subjects are given a substance every day for two years. Others tests involve killing pregnant animals and testing their fetuses.
Testing on animals is wrong!

I look forward to debating with you. Animals are generally treated well and humanely during experimentation (Animal Welfare Act of 1966). I question your opinion argument "If we use animals for experimentation, then they will all die". How would that happen exactly? We are humans and we are at the top of the food chain so that makes us de facto superior. We wish to sustain ourselves and for that to happen we need to dominate the other animal species, but we should be humane about it as well.
technoly is a benefit! pro

It appear my peer does not realize the resolution he put forth. He spends his whole round speaking of technology when he should have been proving "TECHNOLY" was beneficial. Nor does he define this technoly so I shall do so for him. Technoly- The technological process of destroying the world. How may I ask is technoly beneficial if its end result is the destruction of the world? The answer is it is not. Nor does my peer meets burden of proof for why it is. Instead he spends His ONLY round speaking of technology and not technoly. I am quite confused. ..
end of grade testing

I support end of grade testing for a couple reasons. Firstly, it helps students to retain the information they learned throughout the year. Students often begin to slow down and forget about things when it's so close to summer, and by the beginning of the next school year, they've completely forgotten half the material from early in their last semester. Studying for this assignment helps to keep this valuable information in their heads. Second, it is a very helpful way to raise your grade. Nearing the end of the year students are often very stressed out about how their grade is. Although daunting, it may also be reassuring when students realize their grade can improve from a single test. There's no harm in putting in a little extra studying. I'm a student as well and I understand the frustration these tests can cause. However, it's important to recognize that these tests are largely for our benefit.
end of grade testing

no because all it really dose for us students id cause us stress and anxiety attacks. plus, being able to pass the grade your in should be based on the grades for the entire year, and yes there should be a test at the end of the year to se what you have learned, not that the test would count against your grade. and plus, if you don't pass the EOG, you'll have to go to summer school, and most kids have plans for the summer. Summer is our break from school that every student needs.
keep Christ in christmas

Since my opponent failed to makes any arguments, I extend all previous arguments made and will respond to a comment below. "Our Government does NOT "represent one that has no religious involvement". People often misinterpret the establishment clause to mean "Separation of Church and State", that's not what it does. It simply prevents the Government from mandating a state sponsored religion. It does not prevent the Government from recognizing religion and it's importance to our society, however. In short, it is to protect religion from the Government, not the other way around. And our Government most certainly does celebrate Christmas. Did you receive mail on Dec. 25th? Did public school children have to attend classes that day? No. Why? Because the religious tradition of Christmas is recognized by the Government as a federal holiday." If the Government is supposed to protect religion, how can it sponsor one certain religion? I have told you the XMAS is a commercial holiday to many, and by Christianizing it, the government will be endorsing a religion. And if it only endorses one religion, it is not protecting the other religions. The Govt. might celebrate a commercial version of XMAS. That's fine. Most people do. It's when the Govt. hangs crosses, manger scenes, and holds prayer that it becomes a religious holiday. This is what would happen if we put Chrsit back into Christmas. We know the Govt. does not do this. Why? Prayer is still banned in schools, nativity scenes are still banned from public property, and crosses are not hanging on govt. buildings.
keep Christ in christmas

I apologize, I have no idea what you are trying to say. This is what I gathered 1. it doesn't matter your religion 2. doesn't matter when he was born b/c they didn't have birth certificates I still do not know what you mean by keep Christ in Christmas So I will just state many arguments why your position is wrong Christmas is a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus. Jesus is a religious person. IF we make Christmas centered around Christ, the government can not celebrate it. They can acknowledge it. But they can't celebrate it. Why, because it is a religious holiday. Obviously our government celebrates it. So in the government, Christ can not be kept in Christmas. The Christmas that we know today comes from Hollywood, Coke a Cola, and Children's Books. Nothing more. If Christ was the center of Christmas, there would be no more of this commercial crap. there would be no more Christmas trees. No more presents, no more hallmark holiday. It would no longer be anything but a trip to church. Imagine life without Christmas as we know it. The happiest season of the year is so because of all the Bing Crosby songs, pictures with Santa, and presents under a tree. It is a time for family bonding, and with the commercialization of it, the bonding would be gone. But as I said, you still have not told me what you mean by keeping Christ in Christmas. Until you do, you can not win this debate. Because so far, you have not made any points.
keep Christ in christmas

Can you be more specific please in keeping Christ in Christmas. Individual level, Government level, etc. Here are some generic reasons why it doesn't matter 1. Christ, as many scriptures point to, was not born in December. Christmas was placed on December 25 in Ancient Rome to fall on the same date of a pagan holiday so more people would feel comfortable with the new religion 2. Governments should not be celebrating Christmas, because our government represents one that has no religious involvement. So our government should not celebrate Christmas 3. I have no clue what you mean by this on a personal basis. Unless you are talking about Christmas being about presents? Please elaborate.
Votes for third party candidates in US elections are wasted.

Hillary Clinton supporters have often cited Jill Stein and Gary Johnson (third party candidates) as the reason Donald Trump won the presidency less than a week ago. However, that is an absurd argument, because that assumes that if Johnson/Stein/McMullin supporters didn't have those option, they would've voted Hillary without fail, which simply isn't true. Many of these voters likely would've joined the segment of America that didn't vote, and the rest would vote in either direction, which likely would still result in a Trump victory. The claim that these votes are 'wasted' as made by Clinton and Trump supporters is nothing more than a scare tactic used to silence the voice of third party voters and make louder the voice of voters for two mainstream parties.
Votes for third party candidates in US elections are wasted.

Despite claims made to say otherwise, votes for third party candidates are in no way "wasted votes". One of the most popular claims made include the sentiment that "the candidate won't win, so the vote for them is a waste of a vote". However, that statement, upon further analysis, is easily found to be entirely fallacious. Let's begin with the segment that says "They won't win." Well, of course they won't win as it stands in recent years, the last candidate to break double digit percentages in popular votes was Ross Perot. However, if we examine the second portion of the aforementioned statement, it is completely wrong. This is because of the FEC (the federal election committee), and their policy regarding public campaign funding. If a third party candidate gathers just 5% of the popular vote, their party will be eligible to receive up to and over $20,000,000 US dollars to be used in the next election. This election cycle, libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, with his running mate Bill Weld, gathered a record breaking 4,042,291 votes, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, with her running mate Ajamu Baraka, collected 1,207,141 votes. This equates to 3.2% and 1% of the popular vote, respectively. https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com... This equates to a respective increase from the 2012 election results of 300% and 250%. As more and more people learn of third party options, these factions such as those represented in 2016 by the likes of Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, and Evan McMullin, will continue to become more and more influential in American elections by challenging the status quo.
$15 Minimum wage

Hello, I will be arguing that a $15 is good for the economy as well as defending/rebutting my opponents model. Rules: 1:Be respectful. 2:No capped words. 3:Have at least 1 website with your argument per round. 4:Cite your statistics. 5:The burden of proof is split between us. 6:No forfeiture. 7:You must use the structure of the debate below. 8:Failure to follow these rules will result in a loss. Round 1:Acceptance Round 2:Pro makes his main argument and con makes his own argument. Round 3:Pro rebuts con's argument and Con rebuts Pro's. Round 4:Pro defends his argument and Con defends his. Round 5:Respectful thank you, and conclusions.
$15 Minimum wage

This debate should come down primarily to the matter of ethics. What is ethical? To the untrained eye, it seems quite ethical and morally just to have society pay a fair wage to its workers. Unfortunately, the world isn't that black and white, and such naive thinking can be dangerous to our valued liberty and independence. Minimum wage laws are literally established threats to the American people that the military is willing to "enforce" the belief that others are entitled to a 15$ wage no matter what job they are working at. These policies fail to take into account the independent needs of individual businesses and the differing circumstances found in every neighborhood in which these businesses exist. This disenfranchies those in the minority slave class, while working to fullfill the selfish greed of the majority ruling class. Minimum wage laws also dictates that we will live under a communistic belief system, in which all people are entitled to a certain share from others; a certain share which they have earned not from doing actual work, but from simply existing. Such a worldview is harmful, and only furthers the misconception that the human race can only survive by being dependent on the good will and nature of others. This is untrue though, as humanity is quite capable of producing men and women who are strong enough to live self sufficient from the self righteousness of its fellow human beings. Maintaining the sense of entitlement is setting the bar quite low for our own potential as a species. The real world is a harsh place, and we all know this to be true. We cannot always rely on privlege and entitlement to survive, nor is this a way to live in the first place. What kind of message are we sending to future generations, when we indirectly give them the idea that they can get a free ride through life? Even if we are not giving away a complete free ride, we must remember that, "A good bowler never uses bumpers, nor do the world's best dunkers use a trampoline."It is nice to make a good wage and to have a comfortable living, but demanding these things through the use of force is terribly oppressive. Such policies are not born out of strength and empowerment, but rather weakness and fear. We are not a weak people, and we can be empowered if we have no other men to lean on or to expect priveleges from. I try to adhere to a set of moral guidelines designed solely with the intent of having control over my own fate, and while I may slip occassionally, I believe this is the next step on the ladder of human evolution. I can never be the independent and empowered human God created me to be when I demand that others take on my behalf through the use of force, and in this instance, the government serves as a weapon against the minority slave class when it enacts these kinds of authoritarian and oppressive policies.
$15 Minimum wage

My first argument is that even though it will cost employers more to keep the employers hired, they will not fire them for a few reasons: My first reason is that, if I take an example like Walmart, they make $13000 per employee after paying them, and they pay them $8.81 per hour, for one month, that is about $1400 for a regular 40-hour per week employee, I will provide a link to my research at the bottom of my argument. This means that even though they may have to pay a little more, they still gain more then they lose by employing the employees. Also, if a company starts firing their employees, they will have to drive up prices to make up for that net loss, and if they have competition with another company that make's their price the same, that company will get more consumers because they have a cheaper price, as has been shown to be true over and over again in history, I will provide 2 websites that talk about supply and demand. My second argument is that there is such thing as a living wage. This is a wage that people have to have to be able to live properly i. e get an apartment, feed themselves, get healthcare and education, this is painfully obvious because, everything has a price, if you cannot afford to get a proper house, proper food, healthcare, and an education, you do not have the living wage I am talking about. Without this living wage, people do not live properly, and even though they may be payed, they are not being payed enough. . http://www.alternet.org... (walmart employee net profit) . http://livingwage.mit.edu... (living wages) . http://www.investopedia.com... (supply and demand) . http://www.shmoop.com... (supply and demand)
Why television isn't a bad influence on students

I believe that television IS a bad influence on students. I am well aware that there are some educative television programs, but i will debate about the programs that are not educative and therefore DO have a bad influence on students. Picture this, *a student comes home from school, he/she has a lot of homework to get on with, but guess what, he/she doesn't do it, would you? Would you rather do homework or watch tv? * As well as this, some movies or series on tv show violence, this might have an ill influence on the student. A student is in a way similar to a cake. (This may seem absurd, or even insulting, but let me prove my point) a cake starts off with a base, if the base not done properly, then this can have an affect on what the cake will be like in the future. What I'm trying to say is that a student needs to gain their general knowledge etc. .. While they are still young, instead of spending their time watching tv. I hope to see you response, Con.