BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Scientific surveys should dictate how politicians vote in Congress.

1) The job of the politician is to carry forth the will of the people. The people's will is best expressed through surveys. For example, if 95% of people are pro raising the speed limit from 55 to 60, the speed limit should be raised. 2) A survey system enhances the First Amendment right to Petition. The right to Petition includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation. 3) Surveys are party and ideology neutral. There is no party controlled politics under a survey system. Good ideas stand on their own merit and are not controlled by party politics. Scientific Survey : The polls use a specific statistical method for picking respondents. The method scientific polls use to pick interviewees relies on mathematics, it is called a random sample. All constituents are asked to offer their opinion, whether from the left, right, center, voter or non-voter. I am assuming the survey was conducted fairly by professionals and everyone can agree on the results. Direct Democracy: I am not arguing for a direct democracy, those systems typically don't work. A politician can act as a tie breaker for 50/50 issues or those where people have no opinion. I would be interested in what the other side has to say. Thank you.
Solving the proverty among people should be a higher pirority than the damage to the environment

The motion: THW class poverty as a higher priority than the environment. Before I introduce this debate, please note that this is my first time involving myself in the debates on this website. However, I am looking for someone partially experienced in debating to offer a good debate on the subject. In other words: DO NOT go easy. Be ruthless, harsh, as if you were in a debating final for £2,000 (lets be honest, we'd all enjoy a bit of money). Obviously, let's not make the arguments too complicated, as others who stumble upon this debate in the future do have to be able to understand it. Without further ado, let's begin with the format:Round (1) : Challenge being accepted, and positions being taken. Round (2) : Each side bringing in their main points, beginning the debate. Opposition having the chance to rebut the proposition while bringing up their main points.Round (3) : Both sides rebut the other, trying to convince the audience. Also, points are expanded upon, taking into account the opponent's points. Round (4) : This round is purely rebuttal, with no more points. New examples can be used that back up current arguments, but no new arguments. Round (5) : This round is used to end the debate, in a last bid to convince the audience. Feel free to scrutinize any points as sarcastically as you wish. No new points or examples can be brought up in this round. ALL points made must have been made in previous rounds. Rule Reminder for Rounds:(1) : None, only respect.(2) : Must bring in main points. No completely new points can be brought up in future rounds, unless as brief rebuttal.(3) : Points introduced in last round are expanded upon (new direction, examples, etc.). NO NEW POINTS!(4) : Rebuttal, linking back to points made in previous rounds. NO NEW POINTS/ARGUMENTS!(5) : All arguments, examples, statistics etc. brought up in this round must have been elaborated on in previous rounds, whether in rebuttal or the speech. Main Challenge/reason for this format:I've found that the debating on Debate.Org seems quite simple. Yes, many debates on this site are complex and requires a good amount of knowledge. However, the debater has so much opportunity to bring in new arguments at any point. Anyone could stumble through a debate, not thinking about what they're doing. With this format, the two sides must try to expect what the proposition will say in the future, being restricted to only talking about points raised in the second round. This is meant as a challenge to spice up the debate, not as some sort of advantage (both sides must comply to the same rules).Plea to audience:Please do not vote on your opinion. Please vote on who had the most solid arguments and who backed them up most efficiently. Feel free to express your opinion in the comments, but do not vote on your own opinion. Vote on the strength of the arguments. Final Note:I hope to have a good debate with whoever decides to accept. Until then, happy debating!
The Existence of the Lochness Monster, and other monsters

God's creation I'm not really sure why you brought this up. This isn't a debate on beliefs around religion. You could've said it was already existing but I don't think you should bring god into this so I choose to drop this argument You used conditionality which is unfair. Plus, your most recent argument has zero uniqueness. Since you dropped your old argument, I guess all I have to respond to is this. Species This has no evidence as to why Nessie exists or not. None WHATSOEVER. You're just claiming that there's a huge amount of species not discovered. Not only does that not prove whether or not Nessie exists, I already said that Nessie was claimed to live in Loch Ness. That's where she's "located" and that's why it's an attraction. Your argument has no stance because you're talking about the rest of the world and my argument was that she wouldn't be able to fit in the Loch Ness and she can't adapt to the space. Dropped arguments You dropped: 1. Adaptation 2. Alternative sighting 3. Misindentified sightings I look forward to the next round
The Existence of the Lochness Monster, and other monsters

Ahhh... my opponent lacks belief of God"s creation. We don"t necessarily if know if God didn"t create Nessie. Up to two thirds of the plant and animal species in the world's oceans may be undiscovered, according to the largest study of the oceans' biodiversity ever conducted. The new estimate, which suggests that there may be as many as 1 million species of non-bacterial life in the world's waterways, is based on research by 270 experts from around the world. The estimate is considered to be the most accurate yet, and is far lower than some previous estimates. "Ten years ago, we thought there were at least 10 million species in the ocean, now we think it's less than 1 million," says Ward Appeltans, a marine biologist with the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). "It means that eventually, we might be able to describe most of the unknown species. If you consider fish, we estimate there are 5,000 species still undescribed. We're discovering 150 new species of fish every year " 30 years at that rate, and it's mission accomplished." June has been declared National Oceans Month, via a writ from the White House a few days ago, and this week communities around the planet will mark World Oceans Day. The flurry of recognition seems appropriate for a region that covers 70 percent of the Earth's surface and provides about half the air we breathe, courtesy of the microscopic, oxygen-producing phytoplankton floating in it. Yet much about the planet's oceans remains a mystery. As of the year 2000, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated that as much as 95 percent of the world's oceans and 99 percent of the ocean floor are unexplored. Exploring these regions deep below the ocean's surface is difficult, time-consuming and expensive. Which hasn't stopped people from trying " and making incredible discoveries along the way. Light refracts off a comb-jelly, a species found in the Arctic, producing stripes of rainbow color. Polar waters are home to many species seen nowhere else on earth. Light refracts off a comb-jelly, a species found in the Arctic, producing stripes of rainbow color. Polar waters are home to many species seen nowhere else on earth. Credit: Kevin Raskoff, MBARI, NOAA/OER. Known unknowns Shallower parts of the ocean, and those closer to coastline, have understandably gotten the lion's share of investigation. What's been fairly well explored is about one Washington Monument down into the ocean " about 556 feet (170 meters) " said Mike Vecchione, a veteran scientist with NOAA and the Smithsonian Institution. Impressive, perhaps, yet the average depth of the planet's oceans is 13,120 feet (4,000 m), the height of many peaks in the Rockies and the Alps. [Infographic: Tallest Mountain to Deepest Ocean Trench] https://www.livescience.com... https://www.usnews.com...-
The Existence of the Lochness Monster, and other monsters

Once again, my opponent usd quotes but had no link to their evidence, let alone where he found it. I'm aware that people have claimed many sightings of the Loch Ness monster. I'm here to prove that what they saw is not the Loch Ness monster. Nessie was made in Scotland as an attraction for tourists, so when people claimed they saw Nessie, they were either faking it or saw a different animal. Most of the sightings weren't convincing enough In 1852 someone claimed to have seen Nessie, but it turned out it was just a horse taking a bath in the water. The "monster" people could have really seen, was possibly a surviving plesiosaur, which is a very popular and reliable theory. The Loch Ness lake is not big enough to hold Nessie. Nessie has been described as a fairly big creature, but the lake is only so big, you would see the creature wayyyy more often. Nessie has often been described as a reptile, meaning she's cold blooded. But the Loch Ness would be too cold to sustain Nessie if that were the case. Most sightings are misidentified subjects, and the way Nessie has been described, I don't think it's possible for this "monster" to be real. Like I said, this was a creature that was made up to attract tourists and most sightings could easily be another thing. https://www.thesun.co.uk... http://hoaxes.org... http://thescienceexplorer.com...
The Existence of the Lochness Monster, and other monsters

Hey, I have tons of evidence there were multiple sightings, pictures, and videos. Here is the latest sighting. Wednesday 15th June 2011 Foyers shop and cafe owner Jan Hargreaves and her husband Simon believe they caught a glimpse of "Nessie". It was while taking a break on the store's front decking, looking out to the loch, when Mrs Hargreaves and kitchen worker Graham Baine spotted an unusual figure cutting a strange shape on the loch. "We were standing looking out and saw something that looked bizarre," said Mrs Hargreaves. "I said to my husband to come and have a look. "We stand here all the time and look out and see boats and kayaks but it didn't look like anything we have seen here before." Despite the unidentified creature being quite a distance from their vantage point, Mrs Hargreaves said it had a long neck which was too long to be that of a seal and it was black in appearance. "It went under the water and disappeared for probably 30 to 40 seconds and then came back up again," said Mrs Hargreaves. "It was around for a good four to five minutes. It was just so strange." Keen to stress she is not seeking publicity, Mrs Hargreaves does firmly believe what she saw was the Loch Ness Monster. "It was so exciting," she said. Nessie hunter Steve Feltham said he heard about the possible sighting when he popped into the store and believes because it was from residents rather than tourists, it is more credible. "I'm excited by the fact it was locals who had seen it," said Mr Feltham. "It's quite a distance from the shop to the water and they watch everything that goes on there." What particularly excited Mr Feltham was that it was from the exact same vantage point where Tim Dinsdale shot the best footage of the legendary creature back in 1960. "I'll put the sighting with the other sightings," said Mr Feltham. "I will also continue to carry out surface observations." The sighting was recorded between 2.30pm and 3pm.
Child Beauty Pageants

Sorry about the "yes or no" part, my brother likes to tamper with my computer while I am away. Observation 1- Throughout my opponent's arguments, she repeatedly says how mundane the pageants are. She tries to make it sound like every child that participates in these pageants wears "false eyelashes, lipstick, and a fake tan." This is not the case. A child will only wear this if they like the way it makes them look, much for the same reasons that my opponent chooses to wear makeup. Why does my opponent sometimes wear makeup? She wears it because she likes the way it makes her look. Contention 1-Banning these pageants is impractical First of all, there is no specific government specified in the resolution. As there is no government that is in control of all of the countries in the world, every single government would have conform to the resolution. We can't even get all of the countries to get rid of nuclear weapons, but we somehow think that they will ban something as petty as child beauty pageants? Contention 2-These pageants are legal, voluntary activities, and therefore should not be banned. Simply put, these pageants do not force children to participate. They do not pull children from their homes and demand that they participate. The pageants can be compared to driving a car. Both are voluntary, and both have their risks. Did you know that in about 15 people die every day in the United States from a car accident? That equates to over 5,000 deaths every year. Well, under my opponent's logic, we should ban the act of driving a car. Is driving a car voluntary? Yes. Does driving a car have risks? Yup. Then we need to ban driving a car, right? In conclusion, the resolution cannot be upheld because it is impractical to impossible, and because it really doesn't make any sense to ban these pageants. Therefore, I urge a negative ballot. (Or affirmative rather due to the orientation of the sides) http://www.car-accidents.com...
Child Beauty Pageants

Okay ... I will answer 1 and 2 together, it will make more sense. I can't answer yes or no...they aren't yes or no questions. 1 & 2) It can be a legal activity among consenting adults, not parents who push their children into a beauty pageant. Children do not understand how society today views appearance. As I said before, we are sending the message that beauty a main factor in getting what you want. It isn't fair to teach our children this. These girls usually have a dream of being a model or an actor... and the chances of them actually achieving those goals are slim to none. The government should be able to ban something so negative for our children. What will happen if they do? Will we have "underground" child beauty pageants? 3) I do believe it is important for children to develop social skills and make friends, but they can do that in school and at other activities that encourage skills and teamwork. 4) It is important for children to develop character. Do you have character? Did you participate in a beauty pageant to develop your character? 5) Yes, I do wear make-up. I am an adult who chooses to wear makeup, but not to the extent that I have false eyelashes, lipstick, and a fake tan. Some days I don't wear makeup.
Child Beauty Pageants

Since there is no official resolution, I will assume it is my opponent's opening statement. Resolved: Child Beauty pageants should be banned. Let me ask you a couple of questions. Please answer with either yes or no. I will post a full argument in the next round. 1) Who is going to ban these pageants? 2) Under what conditions do you believe that a government has the right to ban a legal activity? 3) Do you believe it is important for a child to develop social skills and make friends? 4) Do you believe it is important for children to develop character? 5) Do you wear make-up? Thank you, and I look forward to the debate.
Child Beauty Pageants

Child Beauty Pageants: Child beauty pageants should be banned. It causes children, especially little girls, to use artificial means to boost their self esteem. People were born as-is, not with makeup, spray tans, big hair, and false teeth. Not only does it cause low self esteem in young girls, but it also sexualizes them. It seems that our society has overlooked the fact that there are sexual predators (pedophiles) who are not incarcerated. Placing children in a child beauty pageant is only making the children a target for these types of people. Any parent placing their child in these types of pageants, based solely on looks, is giving their child the attitude that appearance can get you anywhere in life. It is wrong to teach children that looks are the most important asset to possess. I am not stating that children shouldn't be encouraged to develop a talent or skill, and compete with that talent or skill, I am stating that competing over looks is sending the wrong message to children. William Pinsof, a clinical psychologist and president of the Family Institute at Northwestern University said, "Being a little Barbie doll says your body has to be a certain way and your hair has to be a certain way. In girls particularly, this can unleash a whole complex of destructive self-experiences that can lead to eating disorders and all kinds of body distortions in terms of body image." (http://www.minorcon.org...)
Child Beauty Pageants

Contention 1: The banning of child beauty pageants is necessary Every child in these pageants does, in fact, wear makeup. There are, however, natural beauty pageants, which are not quite as bad, but still forces the child to look at themselves in a more negative light if they do not win. What other children of a very young age do you see wearing makeup? Young girls start wearing makeup at around 12-13 years old. I choose to wear makeup because the society around me has made me feel that by enhancing my appearance, I can become more accepted by others. The pageant contestants let their parents apply makeup because they are merely trying to please their parents, and have their parents be proud of them. Contention 2: In many cases, the pageants are not voluntary on the children's behalf, but the parent is responsible for the child's participation. We have banned child pornography haven't we? The United States government has banned child pornography, and continues to prosecute those who create,distribute and partake in the viewing of child pornography. One can compare child beauty pageants to child pornography in the way that children are being exploited by being made to perform, and obviously by "dressing up" the young girls. Take JonBenet Ramsey for example, a child beauty pageant princess who ended up murdered in the basement of her home. Also, MANY parents of these girls are forcing their children to compete. The parents coach them in what to say when asked a question, and if the child were truly competing by his or her own will, the parents would not need to coach them. By dolling these children up like this, they end up looking like little women, just a pint size version of a supermodel. As these children grow, they are likely to develop eating disorders and body dysmorphic disorder. Beauty pageants are killing the self esteem of the children involved. My opponent cannot possibly think comparing a car accident to a beauty pageant is logical. "They" do not pull the children from their homes, but the parents often do. Driving a car is a form of transportation, and is often necessary to get where you need to go. As I stated before, these pageants often lead to eating disorders as the child grows. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.(http://www.state.sc.us...) If left untreated, the ultimate prognosis is death. Not to mention the sexual abuse that goes hand in hand with child beauty pageants. Driving a car doesn't exactly sexually abuse a child, does it?
Time Travel is (theoretically) and will eventually be possible

My opponent's contention is inherently flawed in several places. "Time is defined as the numerically induced events between point 'a' and point 'c' where 'a' is infinitely in the past and 'c' is infinitely in the future" A point cannot be infinitely far away. Infinity is not a quantity. "point 'b' is the now (which philosophically is described as '.0000...1 (with the '0' recurring infinitely))" This is also impossible. One cannot have an infinite sequence followed by another number. The one does not exist, since it only appears at the end of the sequence of zeros, and the sequence of zeros never ends. Therefore, my opponent's mathematical representation of time is flawed. "We do not need time to exist, because we have defined it for ourselves." The word "time" is a pointer to a metaphorical construct that we call "time". This metaphorical construct is itself a representation of an actual physical force or entity. Though the metaphorical construct is not real, it is used to represent something real. "Time" the construct is not real, but "time" the actual entity represented by the construct IS real. "When the first homo sapiens came into being, they did not have a concept of time." They did not have a concept of time, i.e. they had no metaphorical construct to represent time. But time was still a reality. Time the reality still proceeded, we just didn't measure it in terms of the metaphorical construct known as "time". ======== "if we have the ability to take atoms and destroy the energy that is between them" We don't. Energy cannot be created or destroyed [1]. "we have the ability to take those atoms, rip them apart, and rearrange them" This requires a large quantity of energy, causing an imbalance between the "new" old universe and the "old" old universe. "why not rearrange those atoms in a copied order that looks like the original 'data' but a younger or older version that is approximated." Atomic decay cannot be reversed by any known means. Therefore, it is impossible to make atoms look younger. "we could restructure a person through transportation technology and make them look younger by recconecting the energies to outline a copied form of it's original person" 1. We would have to know what the original person looked like, down to the atom. 2. We would have to find atoms that were in the exact right stage of decay and then assemble them into a person. "we can take things that lay outside of [time]" How can something lay outside of time? ======== Resolution negated. [1] http://www.cartage.org.lb...