BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the electoral college should be abolished

Hello. As we all know, a republic is defined as a system of government in which the people vote for and choose their leaders. It is not defined as a system in which the people vote for electors who then vote for presidential candidates. A "democratic" system in which voting is done by a small group of electors as opposed to the population as a whole is fundamentally flawed. It means that it's perfectly possible for a candidate to win the popular vote yet lose the electoral vote, which has happened. It also discourages voter turnout, as people are inclined to avoid voting since their votes don't actually decide the victor in an election. It also makes it much more difficult for small parties to win, since electors in entrenched "red" or "blue" states will always vote for Republican and Democrat candidates, respectively This means that even if a significant number of Republicans vote for their candidate in Illinois (or any other entrenched Democrat state), their votes won't mean anything. The only states that receive significant attention during elections are swing states, which do not have a specific voting tendency. This lack of a party allegiance means that swing states are some of the only states in which the vote of the people actually matters, and there were only 12 in the 2012 election. Lastly, It's perfectly possible to win the entire election just by taking 11 states, or just over 20% of the entire country. This is caused by the "winner takes all" voting system in all states (except for Maine and Nebraska), in which all electoral votes of a state are distributed to a single candidate. In conclusion, the electoral college is a flawed system that needs to be replaced with one that allows smaller parties to have a chance at winning and keeps larger parties from easily winning certain states.
Theism is more probable than atheism

Opponent brings argument for atheism. Burden of proof on both sides, avoid fallacies. While there are good arguments for theism (cosmological argument, teleological argument, moral argument, etc.), I will defend that there are no good arguments for atheism. 1. There are good theistic arguments for theism. 2. There aren't any good theistic arguments for atheism. 3. Therefore theism is more probable.
Rap Battle: theLwerd goes down.

I challenged you to this debate; you accepted it. If you don't start next round, then you forfeit. And remember, if you wanna win, then you better wreck this sh*t. Go. And please don't bring back that whack -- Dr. Seuss stuff. Let's take it to the streets where you actually actually have to do stuff. No rep, no nothing. Just me and you -- let's call it lyrical flaunting. You're probably too afraid to even say nothing. Your little two-liner ain't gunna get you no where; not here. Now begin, I don't feel like arguing again.
Rap Battle: theLwerd goes down.

I've got about an hour to write this -- Believing Pro's crap is so wack you know I didn't even want to ignite this flame cuz he's lame but I hope that he likes this; takes this and bites this for dropping my name then came and disrespected me. He thought he'd test me but didn't best me despite trying to be like me. Put up a picture of my dead dog to spite me and I didn't take it lightly. He wanted to fight me though he couldn't out write me -- He's chump change but the range of my Trump wage gives me sure wealth, so I'm gonna own this as you're about to see for yourself... =========================================================== You start this battle like you got BEEF with me but you're a little CHICKEN How you gonna f-ck me deep, you see, when you can't even get your d-ck in? Then come back with what seems like some bad teenage poetry I spit with mean rage and still give em wet dreams - you know it, G I'm lyrical flaunting? Well you're lyrically fronting My rhymes are daunting -- you c-nt, see you're clearly nothing But I got something; besting this Country like a do-see-do So I take my flow in and ride it like it's a friggin Rodeo What I'm spittin's beautifully written like Juliet and Romeo You're a fool, forget dutifully that you don't even know me though Then go stealing my avatar thinking that it would get you far But my rhymes get deeper than a worn scar and yours suck harder than a porn star A gay one - that's what you amount to - Only a f-g would bother us This is your fake account, dude - your real name's Protagoras Just look in the comments section - You're not keeping it Private but I'm a Lieutenant Your mom shoulda used condom protection or died the day she got pregnant You can't jack my swag - try harder - so why don't you go jack your father I got this in the bag so I'll take it further with words that hurt ya: verbal murder slaughter LV's for L' Victory - Even Louie Vuitton can't get it on like me (ask the pundits) See this battle's like the marathon with the way that I run this Someone call a doctor, mon, cuz you make me sick to my stomach I'm glad your account's gone -- Challenge me? You shouldn't have done it My rhymes are doper and so it's OVER MAN, Mr. Overman You're just a P-SSY (cat) but you know that I'm a Doberman That's a fact so that's a wrap with this rap and it is what it is You put up a picture of my dog cuz I made you my B-TCH. ===========================================================
The communist experiment

Lets start off by saying that every government in the history of mankind has been an experiment. The experiment was to try and create a working and stable form of government that would benefit the people. Now obviously this has not always been the case and many have failed. One such experiment was communism in Russia. The hypothesis was that if communist leaders were put into power with the intentions of creating a perfect communist society that it would be so. This is what communists predicted would happen. Communist leaders with the intentions of creating a perfect communist society were put into place in Russia and the beginning of the tests began. The Russian experiment lasted for 74 years and the results of the experiment were stark different to what the hypothesis predicted would happen. Instead of creating a communist utopia, as promised by the creators Marx and Engels, what was created was a totalitarian regime that killed millions. However, as with all proper experiments it must be tested numerous times to see if the results are consistent. Other tests were carried out in Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and south America. In all, 26 nations have experimented into communism under the same hypothesis and all nations have received the same results. A totalitarian regime that has killed anywhere from thousands, to millions. Because the hypothesis is different to the results, does that mean that the results must be wrong? No, the hypothesis is often times different to the actual results because it was only a prediction. A conclusion of such an experiment is then drawn form the results of the experiment. However, some communists would argue that the reason why these nations all had the same results was because of the Soviet presence in the world. In order to see what a communist state would look like without the Soviet Union we must look at the very first communist state, the Paris Commune. This was the first attempt ever at a communist society in Paris. Not only did it lack the Soviet presence but it also had at the time a living Karl Marx and Engels. The Paris Commune lasted 72 days and managed to kill 12,000 people and destroy 1/3 of Paris. Every time communism has been experimented it has proven the exact same results. We can now draw the conclusion that communism when implemented by governments will prove only to create totalitarian murderous regime even when the leaders have the intentions and of creating a utopia.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

You claim that Leonardo is the best Ninja Turtle period. WRONG. The other turtles are better than him at a lot of things. Raphael is stronger, Donatello is smarter, and Michelangelo is well... funnier. You say he is the best because he is blue, that is purely opinionated as you have not proven it. Here is a definition of blue. Blue: sad or depressed. See that? Blue is the color of the depressed and sad. Red, Orange, and Purple are not. Now is where I shall unload the Burden of Proof crap on you. You claim that Leonardo is the best Ninja Turtle without giving any proof, so now you must prove it according to the Burden of Proof junk that everyone uses. I await the proof you have for me.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

you say that Leo beats Raph countless times, and yet you have not given any examples of Raph losing, all you say is they wrestle, not who won. At least be more specific. As you said, swords are more common, which means people would most likely be more prepared to combat them. Sai on the other hand aren't so common, and they are stronger as they broke both of Leo's swords. I am not saying specifically the Turtles' enemies wouldn't be ready as they fight them alot, but for someone who had never fought the turtles before, they would be less ready to fight someone with Sai than with Swords. Blue is just a color. There is nothing specialer about it than the other colors. Just because blue is the "boy" color does not mean it is the more popular color. Some boys hate the color blue, as some girls hate the color blue. You have not proven that blue is a better color as you claim, making me the winner of this argument in our debate. Names do not matter. Someone could have a horrible name but still be the most popular person in the world. Names have nothing to do with which turtle is better. You don't see kids going around saying "Ooh, Leonardo is my favorite turtle because he has the same first name as Leonardo Davinci!" You do have the burden of proof because you made the debate, and you made the initial claim, done. He is not the BEST turtle, he is a good turtle no doubt, but the others are just as good. I already went over Leo's weapons, color, and name so I won't go over it again. Even if you proved that Leo is better than the others in one aspect, it does not prove that he is the overall best, for each turtle is better in they're own way. It seems to me that you have failed to thuroughly prove your topic, making me the winner.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

"True he's the leader of the Turtles, but that does not make him the best" Quite to the contrary, he is the leader because he is the best. In the TNMT movie you cite, Master Splinter explains this to him in detail. While Raph may have defeated Leo, Leo defeated Raph many times in the cartoons and live action TNMT movies. If you recall, in TNMT 2, Raph runs off in similar fashion and Leo goes after him wrestling him in battle and will to come back to the turtles. Raph defeated Leo in the newest movie because Leo was distraught and Raph was filled with rage. History says Leo is consistently a better fighter. There is no reason to expect people to be more prepared for swords, you give me no reason to think so. All of the TNMT villians are well acquainted with the team and would be equally aware of all their skills. Leo has the most advantageous weapons because they are blades and are longer and more effective, probably why they are more common in the martial arts community. Blue is the best color. You haven't disputed this. You simply say that everyone likes all colors and people have different opinions. My demographic argument refutes this directly. While all colors may be liked by all people, the turtle demographic is typically boys and boys typically like blue. This hasn't been refuted and at least wins me the benefit of the doubt on color. Also, Leo is named after the best classic person. Da Vinci contributed more than either of the other three, to be sure. Just because other debaters claim a burden of proof doesn't mean it exists. I explained to you in detail why I don't bear a burden. If you had made the claim that all or some turtles were better than Leo, would you bear the burden? The only distinguishing factor is that I started the debate. While I make my claim, you are simultaneously making a claim to the contrary. Just because I stated my position first doesn't mean I bear the burden. Refer to my civil court argument, its highly correlative. I have explained why I don't bear the burden of proof. You have just cited shaky precedent that is unfounded and unconfirmed. Even if I do bear the burden and lose this argument it is still possible for me to win the debate. Leo is the best turtle. You haven't given me reason to think otherwise. You haven't pointed out any turtle that would be better, except Raph beating him once out of a dozen times they have fought. I don't argue that Leo is the best superhero or doesn't need his brothers. He definately needs the team, but is the most vital part of the brotherhood. He is the leader with the best weapons and color. He is named after the best person (Da Vinci). Leo is the well-rounded leader that can contribute in all areas. Leo is the glue that holds them together. Master Splinter values him most highly, as we saw in the March movie. You haven't given me any alternatives, just tried to prove that Leo is equal to all others. This means, if I win one argument and can prove that Leo is better than the others in at least ONE aspect, I have proven that he is better than the others, if only by a small margin. Thanks.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

True he's the leader of the Turtles, but that does not make him the best. If you have seen the TMNT movie that came out last March, you would know that Leo and Raph fought, and guess what, RAPH WON. He broke both of Leo's swords. So what if Leo's swords are longer, they are not as strong as Raph's sai, if they break like that. Plus, more people are probably trained to block swords than they are Sai, so they are more unready for a fight with Raphael. Blue is not necessarily the best color. Sure it is the stereotypical boy color, but that does not make it the best. Just because blue is the boy color does not mean it is most popular among them. Everyone has their own opinion about colors. Some people like red, or green, or orange, or yellow, or purple, or any other color more than blue. The Burden of Proof actually does exist in these online debates. Most of the best debaters on this site use the burden of proof and win (Logical Master, Yraelz, etc.) Just because you deny that you have it does not mean you do not have it. You started this debate, so you have to prove your point. Leo is not the best Ninja Turtle. He is a good turtle no doubt as he is the leader, but he would be nothing without his comrades. If he is so great, why does he even have teammates? Why not just go off on his own and be a one-man hero? The reason he doesn't is because he needs his brothers. Without them he's dead-meat and vice versa, and vice versa, and vice versa. Sure he is the leader but that does not have to do anything with being the best, he was chosen as leader because he is the oldest. All of the turtle are equal with their own unique talents. Mich=Funny, Don=Smart, Leo=Leader, Raph=Strong.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Other ninja turtles have other good qualities for sure. But, Leo is definately the best all around turtle. He is the leader of the other turtles. Master Splinter will tell you that. Leo is the mix of all those great qualities that you listed plus leadership. While the other turtles may be specialized, Leo is a jack of all trades, making him most valuable. Blue is not an opinion, blue is the BEST color. Fact. -Words have multiple meanings. However, blue is the steroetypical color of boys. Cartoons in the time TNMT were created were even more geared towards boys than they are now. This means blue is the most appealing color to TNMT's demographic. I could say the same about all of the other colors as well. Purple is the stereotypical gay color. Red induces rage. etc. You forgot about his weapons. His ninja swords are by far the deadliest weapons. They are blades, which trumps don's stick and mike's nunchucks, and they have more reach than raphael's sai. Burden of proof is just as you describe it. We are taking equal sides of an issue and should bear equal weight. In civil court there is no burden of proof. Only in cases where criminal rights hold sway does burden of proof exist. I'm not accusing you of anything, you have chosen to take part in an equally weighted conversation. I say Leo is best, you say he is not. Explain to me why I should have the burden of proof. If you started a debate that said a particular turtle or all of the turtles were better than Leo, than by your rules you would bear the burden. Just because I started the debate doesn't mean a bear a burden. Anyway, even if I do bear this burden, I have provided factual cause for my claim and therefore have logical ground to stand on. Leo is the best ninja turtle, hands down. He is the well-rounded leader. He has the best weapons and his color is typically the most appealing to those who watch the show. Even if I lose the burden of proof argument dramatically, I have provided factual proof of my stance and done enough to win the point anyway.
Should TV be banned

This is, as shown in the sources above related to the polls, a matter of generation versus actual presentation. With many networks like MTV moving their programming online (http://www.mtv.com...) younger persons and television garnered towards younger persons such as teens is no longer on "The Tube" but instead on media that encourages movement and on-the-go intake such as a tablet or a phone even. Humans are declining in their willingness to continue to make television shows as ratings drop (http://www.nytimes.com...) and competition gets worse (http://www.forbes.com..., http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) there's no real reason to believe that TV is anything more than simply technology that the older population is keeping on life-support. Whatever television offers is not worth it, it requires more equipment so it's not ecologically as friendly, it's really not a multi-purpose object as "Smart TVs" were created in response to, not as a forward presentation of, current media demands (http://www.howtogeek.com...) but they do not hold the water they need to. Television should simply be removed or at least allowed it's way out for the elder generation and the Baby Boomer. Once they are gone the majority of watchers will have died with them and so such the television age just as the radio age majorly died with this group itself where radio is still kept around but has suffered major declines but whats worse is that television, unlike radio, serves no purpose in competition with the internet since the medium and mode for presentation are the same but with greater limitation (there is no such thing as truly wireless widespread TV).
Should TV be banned

1. "It keeps us entertained". Any form of media can maintain a person's attention and entertain them therefore the universal nature of the scenario somewhat weakens the point. To make matter worse TV is often duplicated online and more accessible as well so for instance via NetFlix you can watch entire seasons of shows versus television where you can only watch one episode at a time. While TV contracts make sure they have the newest episodes and freshest content very little of it is exclusive to TV alone and cannot or will not be streamed or shared (legally) via the internet. 2. While true (http://www.med.umich.edu...) the amount of television children, namely toddlers and preschoolers, are to watch is very limited: "The [American Academy of Pediatrics] recommends that parents establish "screen-free" zones at home by making sure there are no televisions, computers or video games in children's bedrooms, and by turning off the TV during dinner. Children and teens should engage with entertainment media for no more than one or two hours per day, and that should be high-quality content. It is important for kids to spend time on outdoor play, reading, hobbies, and using their imaginations in free play." (http://www.aap.org...) rendering the need for television itself obsolete since most of this media can be streamed off the internet or bought on recorded devices (such as DVDs) for far less without a recurring price considering that the total value of time children should watch television as recommended is less than 60 hours a month on average making it a total of less than 3 whole days. At $20/mo. you could buy a DvD or two of educational programming that will easily span this amount of time over the course of at least two months. 3. The Internet is hands down the winner for keeping people updated with the news (http://www.people-press.org...) for the new generation as seen in the section of breakdown by age. It is unlikely that TV will make a comeback and it's popularity seems to only be present within those further away from the Internet Age itself. This trend is an indication that it will not suffice alone and cannot survive on this as it is impractical. In the US alone this article shows that the source of news is beginning to become majorly irrelevant but it contains all ages and is not particularly a strong source for current trends just actuality: (http://www.americanpressinstitute.org...) In 2013 American's used alternate forms of entertainment than Television (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) combined with it's redundancy over Internet there's no reason to keep it.
Should TV be banned

Television should be banned for being obsolete, costly, and inefficient. 1. Television is obsolete with the institution of more complex and multipurpose computational machines such as a terminal you are likely sitting at right now. "WebTV" or "streaming", whichever is preferred as a title, has ousted the need for television, specific terminals, specific jacks, specific signals, and specific channels as most if not all of the items watchable on a television through a cable or satellite signal can all be steamed through, often at better resolution and with a more stable signal, the internet. 2. Television is costly on multiple fronts. First I'd like to note that Netflix, which has over 1,000 movies and shows and therefore hundreds of hours of entertainment is inexpensive at $9/mo. (http://www.usatoday.com...) with Amazon Prime sitting at $99/yr. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) meanwhile using Comcast/XFINITY, one of the country's largest cable suppliers, the monthly cost for basic service is $50 (http://www.comcast.com...). Dish Network sits at $20/mo. with it's lowest package (http://www.infinitydish.com...). In essence for even Amazon Prime at $99/yr you would save compared to Dish Network over $140 or ~59%. 3. Television is inefficient simply by being a redundant service. Since internet and television are actually all the same product (Streamed Telephony) utilizing different frequencies and signal signatures having all of them combined and pay each is truly inefficient. The reason VOIP works is because the internet is just telephony (http://www.unc.edu...) no different in process for the most part for the average user. There are no advantages to using a television with digital or satellite signals to that of simply streaming your items online or using a VOIP. Though they do work differently mechanically the end user will see no difference.