BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

Creating a great world where Justice, equality, fairness are observed, opportunities are given, everyone is educated, diseases are annihilated, and violent conflict is eliminated requires serious effort. It is my position that those who don't want to improve the world and establish equality and justice for all shouldn't expect this for themselves! Ultimately this philosophy would justify a "Dog eat dog world", where technically everything is justified and morality fails to have any weight. Con will argue that justice and morality exist independent of human action and purpose. I will argue that humans decide what is just and moral, and that if humans want to live in a just, kind world they should work hard to see justice and kindness EVERYWHERE. My position is that justice and morality are decided by humanity - and do not exist independent of human wants and concerns! Ultimately it is what we strive for collectively that decides what is moral . . . thus morality does not exist independent from our collective wants. Con should begin his argument in ROUND 1; ROUND 4 will be designated for our final statements on this topic.
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

Pain and pleasure are rudimentary impelling forces used by the body (and evolved over hundreds of millions of years) to motivate us into action.Indeed.It therefore serves society (and all members in society) to promote Equal Justice, Equal Fairness, Equal Rights under the Law, ample (employment) opportunity for everyone, equal access to a great education because only with these conditions can people experience a sense of genuine comfort, where each member also understands that everyone else is comfortable with respect to legal social arrangements.It does serve society. Sure, safety does indeed serve the individual. However, one does not need to actively create safety for society in order to stay safe. It is perfectly reasonable to hide until someone creates safety for everyone, or for him to create safety for himself.What if people want fairness, equality, etc., but they don't believe that this possible to acheive. Many people would desire utopia, but believe that it would be impossible to achieve, or that the means necessary are unjustifiable.
It"s Better to be a Dumb White Person Than a Smart Black Person

***Outlaw Tournament***** Contention: Being a stupid white person is far better than being a smart black person. It is far more socially acceptable for a white person to be stupid. They readily receive any help when ever needed. In court, lawyers use the “idiot defense” as a legal argument as reason for an occurrence of a crime; lack of knowledge. White and stupid is socially acceptable, and even lauded, especially amongst the fundamentalist religious sect. It is number one criteria for becoming a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Smart black people don’t get any recognition, have to work too hard and are stereotyped in a negative way. v
Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

You are right that there was graft in the "good old years," particularly in regards to the tariff. In fact, we had a war over it. But the more power government has, the more graft, bribery, and other chicanery there is. This is self evident! There is very little bribery at a local Village Hall because the Village Council has little power. The more power government has, the more graft there will be. How can you justify a law written by the two parties to protect the two parties from outside competition? This is the foxes guarding the hen houses. Why not let the government investigate itself for corruption -- oh wait, it already does. And what kind of results does it produce? You say your system is voluntary. Are the taxes that fund it voluntary? If not, then it is plainly immoral. My neighbor may not care about politics, so why should he be forced to contribute to a candidate he may not even agree with? If you're ready to move to a regime of fully voluntary taxation, I'm with you, but if not, no way. Secondly, let's say I strongly endorse a candidate. Imagine his name is Paul Ron. Paul Ron, unlike Ron Paul, accepts public money for his campaign. As a result, he cannot accept any private money, right? Well, what if I decide to take up collections and fund, I don't know... a blimp with Paul Ron's name on it. Would that be legal? Would it be legal for me to run a full-page ad in USA Today (like one of Ron Paul's wealthy backers did)? Would it be legal for me to create a Web site all about my candidate, Paul Ron? How about a YouTube channel? How about a TV show? And if the answer is YES, then what is to stop corporations and other special interests from doing the same thing for their candidates, "independently"? Nothing. Only crude, draconian, anti-free expression laws that would ban all political discussion could do what you're aiming to achieve.
Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

Most of these ideas are based on Senators Dodd and Specter's Fair Election Now Act. Under a system of voluntary public financing, candidates have to meet certain prerequisites designed to make sure that they are relatively mainstream. In return for promising not to use any private financing or their own money, they receive money from the government to run for office. If their opponent uses private funding, then they can receive matching funds to keep them competitive. Currently, money has way too much influence in politics. In this election cycle the presidential candidates alone are expected to spend over a billion dollars. The people who donate the most do not represent America. Overwhelmingly big donors are affiliated with industry and corporations, particularly the pharmaceutical, health insurance, student loan, and oil companies. This has many negative side effects, but I will focus on three. First, it opens the potential for straight out bribery on votes. While academic research on this is murky, there is strong evidence for certain types. Anecdotal evidence from the California legislature suggests that big donors will ask for one or two important votes a year or session, while not holding them accountable the rest of the time. Additionally, evidence suggests that donations from an industry will often discourage opponents from continuing to be as vocal as before. There is much stronger evidence demonstrating bribery in exchange for access. Generally, it is much more difficult for ordinary voters to be able to meet with Congressman than people that donated to their campaigns. This access limits the people that they interact with and the information they receive to representing industries, etc, rather than a broader American experience. Finally, there is the influence on what kind of candidates can get elected. Essentially, unless you are favored by wealthy special interests, you have no chance to get elected. This prevents a broad spectrum of people from having a chance to run for office- teachers, police, firefighters, nurses. This means that bribery may not even be necessary because the people that get elected are already affiliated with and dependent on those special interests. Global warming, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, clean oceans, affordable higher education- there is a wide swath of issues on which a broad consensus agrees, but nothing happens largely because of the influence of the special interests they would harm. I have a lot more information I can bring out, but I'll wait for my opponent.
Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

There are a lot of strawmen constructed in your closing argument. A) The public financing in Maine is not the same as the bill you're supporting. In Maine, the minor parties are considered equally with the major parties. THIS IS NOT THE CASE with the bill you are touting, so you cannot use Maine as an example of how fair public financing would be. Furthermore, what you are suggesting is unfair to principled, libertarian parties (such as the Libertarian and Constitution parties) which are against big government funding elections to begin with. You are forcing a political view -- "elections should be publicly funded" -- on anyone who wants to run; and that view is abhorrent to libertarians, who are thus, victims of discrimination. It would be no different from having voting on the Sabbath so that practicing Jews couldn't vote. B) Here is what would happen under your system. So Rudy McRomney is running for governor. He agrees to the public financing scheme and gets a fat check for $30 million or whatever to fund his campaign. His opponent, Paul Ron also gets $30 million. But then a consortium of special interest bankroll a new "Independent Committee" called the "NEVER FORGET 9/11" 527. They pool together $200 million and staff several offices with phone bankers, they run ads on TV and radio, put up billboards, send direct mail, etc. Nothing can stop them from doing this, and you admit it. So Paul Ron still gets to run, but he's drowned out by $200 million in special interest money, just as he would have been if there were no public financing at all. How is this not obvious to you?
Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

1. There would still be bribery, abuse, and fraud under your reform. No, I was saying that under the old system you were talking about there would still be all of these things. Well, I imagine there still would be some form of bribery, abuse, fraud, etc, because there is under any system, but it would be much less rampant. 2. Your reform was written by the two parties and is discriminatory in favor of the two parties. It is discriminatory, but still better for third parties than the current system. In 2004, 8 of 11 third party candidates (Green Party) in Maine qualified for the same level of public financing as other candidates. 3. That special interests would still be 100% free to spend as much money as they wanted on "independent expenditures" -- including advertisements, mailings, phone calls, etc.... So what would be the point? The point is to make it easier for people to run, so that not only people who follow a corporate, industrial message can run. You're ignoring over half my arguments in your simplification here. While special interests still could use independent expenditures, these expenditures have proven to not be nearly as important as direct expenditures through campaigns. Once a campaign has enough money to reach a certain threshold, it is viable regardless of how much money is spent against it. This reform would result in more people getting into office that would not be able to run under the current system. This is PROVEN- in Arizona, the number of Native American and Latino candidates tripled between 2000 and 2002. The biggest hurdle for minority candidates has always been the incumbency advantage, which centers around having tons of money channeled their way. With public financing, these candidates were able to stand up to the incumbents and win, despite their almost certain monetary advantage in independent expenditures.
Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

Okay, so you're admitting the following: 1. There would still be bribery, abuse, and fraud under your reform. 2. Your reform was written by the two parties and is discriminatory in favor of the two parties. 3. That special interests would still be 100% free to spend as much money as they wanted on "independent expenditures" -- including advertisements, mailings, phone calls, etc.... So what would be the point? Public financing takes my tax dollars and gives them to George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton, both of whom I despise. It takes my pro-life tax dollars and gives them to someone who will spread a pro-abortion message. It takes my anti-war tax dollars and gives them to a candidate who supports imperialism. And it does the opposite for people with opposite views. It is immoral. In addition, it is ineffective (#1), discriminatory (#2), and entirely pointless (#3).
Sufficient voluntary public financing should be available for all elections. Fair Election Now Act

It's true that more graft is available now, I was merely denying your point that there would be no bribery under that system. I'm not saying that the bill is perfect. However, I am arguing that under this proposed system, third parties would have more of a chance because it would be much easier for them to collect signatures and $5 contributions rather than the normally millions of dollars it takes to run a campaign. umm...you're basically arguing against the entire taxation system and that is a completely different debate. But I will say this in regards to cost. In the end, this has the potential to save money. Currently we spend or until recently have spent seventy billion dollars on subsidies to oil companies, several billion dollars on subsidies to the student loan industry and Medicare part-D is hugely profitable to pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the federal government. With less people dependent on these industries, these subsidies will most likely disappear over time, saving money. That's a good point. This proposal does not address independent expenditures. It is not perfect. However, assuming that we leave the rest of the campaign finance system the way it currently is, this reform would still leave us with a far better system. No staff affiliated with someone's campaign would be able to raise these independent expenditures which downplays their effectiveness. The candidate would be freed up to spend more time with voters, which studies have shown is what happens with clean money politicians in Maine and Arizona. And most importantly far more people can be competitive than before. Independent expenditures do not have the decisive role that candidate expenditures do.
Atheism is a world view.

Atheism is not a world view. Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. In other words, it is the denial of a world view, not the proposition of an alternative. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider theism a good example of a world view, what defines it as such?A collection of beliefs and values.A particular theism can be defined as a world view as it outlines a series of beliefs and values which encompass all that is met by it's proponents and dictates it's proponents interpretation of all s/he encounters and considers. When discussing 'religion' or any particular religion in contrast to atheism, I often find that the religiosity finds itself somewhat neglected, and in substitution I often find myself involved in a conversation about the possibility of a prime mover. Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably. What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist. A-theismRoot of ‘a-’http://membean.com......This idea of a god, and god's 'design', his 'master plan' etc, it has had more than a little influence on our species. We have developed various strict codes and guidelines which must be adhered to in order to be in keeping with his plan (as interpreted and illustrated by which ever culture/decade/country/family you happened to have landed in at birth). So vast and permeating are these ideas, so insidious it has been, that we wonder, as Neitzche does, if it is a human requirement, if we can function successfully in its absence. Do we need substitute this ancient conclusion with a relevant religiosity which accepts our ever sharpening perspective on nature? Do we need satisfy this primal reasoning with a universally agreed moral imperative and complimentary standard of ethics?Perhaps we do, and of course these questions are all very interesting, but atheism is not this. Not X does not = X. or Y. or Z.My opponent must offer a case for atheism as a world view, a collection of shared beliefs, values and standards.
Atheism is a world view.

Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. In other words, it is the denial of a world view, not the proposition of an alternative. Perhaps it would be appropriate to consider theism a good example of a world view, what defines it as such?A collection of beliefs and values."According to the websters dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in God, or the doctorine that their is no God.from Greekatheosgodless, froma-+theosgod. I would strongly beg to differ with Con on the fact that he said that Atheism is "not the proposition of an alternative." Atheism is an alternative. It is the complete opposite of Theism; not only that it is a default position so it changes.Atheists see the world differently without God. They all believe they are an accident through evolution. They don't believe there is an ultimate purpose or meaning for human beings. They differ on Morality whether it is subjective/objective. They don't believe in an afterlife or destiny. Every Worldview has four questions that are commonly proposed and held to: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. Atheists believes differently on all four than someone who is lets say a Theist."When discussing 'religion' or any particular religion in contrast to atheism, I often find that the religiosity finds itself somewhat neglected, and in substitution I often find myself involved in a conversation about the possibility of a prime mover.""Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably. "What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist."It sounds like Con could be moving towards Agnosticsm or at Best Deism. Again Con is showing that even though he calls himself an "atheist", he tends to differ on atheists in terms of God's existence being possible. I think his second paragraph is also again another commonly held belief in atheism. All atheists don't believe in Transcendence.I don't see how Con has refuted my position that Atheism is a worldview; in fact I think Con has refuted his own position, since he shows how he has differences of opinion as an Atheist.Sources:http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Idiot Republican vs. Democrat Debate

First of all, I would like to point out something very important...Pro is NOT BEING IDIOTIC ENOUGH! Each of his contentions are actually backed by typical conservative reasoning, with only the rhetoric being somewhat silly. The resolution specifically states that this is an *idiot* politician debate, so displaying rationality and sound logic is completely unacceptable! This is a conduct violation on Pro's part that should not be overlooked by the voters.And with that out of the way, I shall move on to rebuttals...R1) Flat TaxPro thinks that the rich help the economy.... WRONG! Again, we can refer to highly reliable sources such as Dilbert comics to see that rich people are mostly dumb, selfish, arrogant, and hot-headed. Do we really want to help these people out by giving them tax breaks and empowering them to fund more @#$% Republican political campaigns? No! If anything we should steal all their money and use it to pay the Mexicans (ref: contention four).R2) Gun RightsPro claims that "guns don't kill people; people kill people". In that case, let's ban people too! Then, afterwards, we can just turn to contention 6 and legalize everything, effectively returning things to normal. And remember, since gun control isn't the same thing as a gun ban, gun control laws would still be around even after the pans-legalization. R3) AbortionCross-apply my abortion contention here. So what if babies are humans? Rapists are human too, and women can still kill them for trespassing on their bodies. It makes no difference. The analogy I presented is absolutely unbeatable. R4) EducationLOL! Pro actually still cares about our education system!Forget it, buddy. The Asians are smarter than us and always will be, so we Democrats have done the smart, economical thing and just outsourced all the jobs that need an actual education to Asian countries.That way, we save money on trying to "improve" the education system here (pfffft), AND we can continue receiving a constant flow of cheap electronic goods. R5) Foreign RelationsPro claims that all the wars waged by Republicans have been in the interest of the people's safety.However, as Pro himself states, "Democrats had put America into the two biggest wars in history", so we Democrats have contributed even MORE to national security! Ha! R6) ImmigrationCross-apply my immigration contention here. Making sure we keep our glorious title of "Most Obese Nation in the World" is far more important than whatever economic BS Pro was talking about.Democrats win! As usual.Hopefully, NOW Pro will have the sense to offer a full concession next round...