BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reducing the defecit should be the United States primary economic concern

Seeing as this is a five round debate I will use this round to make some general observations and pose questions that will open avenues for arguments against my opponents. General Observations: My opponent seems to be using quite a bit of copying and pasting--his arguments are repetitive and some segments are used more than once if you read his refutation of my case carefully. It appears that he has an opinion, not a case for winning this debate. My opponents runs an inherency argument my case, however generates evidence that address a different issue. There is misrepresentation of my third contention, as my opponents seems to think I am contradicting myself, but I am using an analogy to demonstrate why the United States Federal Government ought to focus on reducing the deficit. Please re-read it carefully if you are still confused. My opponents three main contentions are focused on theoretical, not actual, assumptions (that banks are lending money, which they are NOT, and that public debt increases from one year to the next, which is not ALWAYS true). Questions: Are you familiar with the term Moral Hazard? Are you aware of why the Financial Crisis occurred in the first place? Do you understand the role of banks in the most recent economic crisis? What do you define as "Idealistic"? Is Greece a sovereign nation? Then why are the bankrupt? Would you consider the war on terror the National Interest of the United States in disguise? Do you believe the interests of a few represent the interests of many? Do you feel deficit spending is mandatory for economic growth, or rather necessary according to particular circumstances? Will not continually borrowing money from other countries, considering that the United States global position in the economy is on the decline and about to be overtaken by China in just a few short years, weaken our economy in the long run or somehow provide benefits by being in massive debt to other countries that could potentially call in these debts? That is all, and I hope my opponents answers these questions, and then poses a few for me to answer.
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

a) The Avengers did not create Ultron. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner created Ultron. Ultron did not do what they thought he would do. He did not represent their moral views. b) Ultron did not do what they thought he would do. He did not represent their moral views. c) Vision can still be worthy but he isn't. We would know if he was because then he would have been able to use its powers. The elevator is not worthy and since the elevator is not living it cannot be worthy. Being a non-living object it is able to hold Thor's hammer - like a table and a chair could hold his hammer. I'm not sure if I understand your very last sentence. From my understanding of this statement you are claiming that Vision is dead. Just because he is a class of Android it doesn't change the fact that he is living and has consciousness. You have failed to provide any new arguments that actually provide any relevance to this debate. Sources http://www.quora.com...
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

Okay... Pro's argument is quite strange but I'll try and refute this. I agree that Jarvis didn't want to kill Ultron. We are debating the topic - assuming that Jarvis did want Ultron dead, he would want the Avengers dead too. Technically he is not worthy to wield the power of Thor's hammer. If you did a bit more research you would notice that the reason behind why Vision can wield Thor's hammer is because he is a synthazoid (a type of android named by Ultron). "The Vision is a [type of] android, a sentient machine.. There has already been precedent in the Marvel Universe for androids, who are NOT alive, to be able to pick up Thor's hammer. This loophole does not allow them to wield any of its powers, however, since the hammer essentially does not register them at all. Picking up Mjolnir and wielding its powers are two different things!" Pro says: "I am not saying Vision wants the Avengers dead.. Why do people keep misunderstanding this..." Pro hasn't stated what he is saying so until he does I will continue to argue my own interpretation of this debate. Pro ends his argument with a strange line that makes very little sense to me. Before I cite the sources I would like to point out that spelling and grammar should go to me since Pro has failed to use capital letters throughout most of his argument. Sources http://www.comicvine.com... http://www.quora.com...
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

OMFG WHERE IS YOUR ACCEPTANCE I CANT SEE THIS ROUND... still not clear? jarvis wanted to change ultron not kill him, thats why he is worty to wield the power of thors hammer, he is not a killer, also because if he did want to kill ultron, ultimately he would have to kill himself. i am talking about vision, not jarvis.. in any case, he said himself that he is not a son of ultron and he is not jarvis, but more.. so jarvisEt ye i am not saying vision wants the avengers dead.. why do people keep misunderstanding this... if the moon is made of cheese, a tiny stone will drop on your head as your read this last Word
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

Did my opponent just say that I'm right? I'll post an argument anyway just in case I misinterpreted that comment. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that Jarvis would want the Avengers dead if he wanted Ultron dead. Both the Avengers and Jarvis wanted Ultron dead (they share a common enemy). According to your logic if the Avengers want Ultron dead then they should want themselves dead and that is extremely unlikely. Here is a list of reasons why Jarvis does not want the Avengers dead. Jarvis became vision and helped to defeat Ultron. He had the opportunity to fight with the Avengers and potentially kill some of them but he didn't because he is made up of artificial intelligence he can reason and acknowledge the difference between right and wrong. Vision was what Ultron was supposed to be. A protector of the planet who would assist the Avengers not kill them as Pro is trying to say. Vision was good! "Almost immediately, the Vision rebelled against his creator and joined the Avengers. He become a distinguished member of the Earth's mightiest heroes" Sources http://www.comicvine.com...
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

a) You stated that the Avengers created Ultron therefore Ultron is the Avengers. b) Exactly but Ultron hates Tony Stark. This shows that they have opposing views. Due to the fact that AI was used Ultron developed a personality and learnt to form his own opinions. c) Vision can be worthy but at the time where he lifted the hammer he was not. He was unable to use the full power that Thor's hammer possessed. I said that an android is not alive but Vision is a class of android (a synthezoid). This class of android is an exception. Regular Androids are not technically alive but certain classes are. This is also irrelevant to the debate so I wont go into too much detail. Pro hasn't really provided any arguments that make sense. The arguments that made any sense were refuted by me. Conduct - Tied Convincing Argument - Me Sources- Me Spelling and Grammar - Me Sources http://www.comicvine.com... http://www.comicvine.com...
if jarvisEt wanted ultron dead he would also want the avengers dead

a) i realize that. b) ultron was programmed by stark c) yes, but vision can be worthy, according to morality, not being a killer even thou he can not wield the power of the hammer, and also, vision wanted to change ultron not kill him, but ended up killing him in self defence, which is moral i thought you said the android was not alive, is vision alive or dead?
Religion is plagerized

First, I would like to start out by saying that your title is in someway right, but when I read your synopsis, I realized that this is incorrect. God is real. He had people write the books of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament and He even sent His only Son down to earth so that we may have eternal life. When God created earth, He also created man. With man, He gave each and every person the ability of free will (meaning the ability to choose what they want to do). When He made Adam and Eve, life was good. There was no sin and there was constant communication with God. Then, there was the Fall of Man and sin entered our world and God left earth because He hates sin. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. As the population of the world increased from Creation, more people began to make religion. They made fake gods and idols that truly weren't the Almighty God. That's how Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam were made. They were a perversion of the Truth. So, yes, you are correct that religion is plagiarized, but God does exist. Christianity was made into many counterfeits. God did a LOT to try and prove his existence to us. He performed miracles, sent His One and Only Son to save mankind, and He left us with the most important book in the history of the world, The Holy Bible.
Should childrens have cellphones

Sorry if I offended you... it's simply because your English has some grammatical mistakes, but alright, i'll think those away! Here are my arguments: 1) Cellphones will most likely be used as toys - expensive toys - by children. Talking to people is fun, yes, but isn't this an expensive way to spend your free time? 2) The best-selling phones are obviously the very expensive iphones. By buying those, children will no longer be children as they basically carry something around that would be worth four years of christmas presents back in the old days. Not just the price, also it being a mobile computer on which they can do anything else but play like children should do. 3) It makes them less social. Because they're so fun, they tend to be on them so much that even going out with friends involves alot of phone-checking. This might be considered normal now, but it gets very annoying for the other persons. The age on which a person should be allowed a phone, is in my opinion the age of 13. They should only be allowed an iPhone on the age of 16. A phone should not be a fun thing, it should be a social necessity that stays in your pocket more than that it is in your hands.
Should childrens have cellphones

Your counterargument is safety. I don't think you bought an expensive phone thinking about "safety". You bought it for fun. If you ask someone between 9-16 years old, they most likely won't even know the alarm number in most countries. Also, if you are kidnapped/being forced to do something/attacked you won't have the time to call. Most likely they'll take your cellphone. More and more, people are even robbed BECAUSE they have such expensive phones. The only advantage situation of having such mobile computer is when 1) you're completely lost and need help, and 2) you're always available when someone needs you. I believe children are capable of avoiding such situations and shouldn't need to have a cellphone (let alone a super expensive one!) just for these 2 situations! This is already the end of this debate. I would like to conclude by thanking Nadine for her interesting topic choice!
Al Franken should be issued an interim election certificate

First of all, allow me to apologize for taking so long to respond, I was very busy today. You did make some very good arguments, and it will be a challenge to refute them, but I think I'm armed. I will once again refute your arguments in chronological order. 1) I'm not quite sure what you are getting at there, because one term as senator is six years. No more, no less. Once Norm Coleman's term expired, he's done, unless he's reelected. Norm Coleman's previous term as a senator is 100% irrelevant. Your only point in this argument that holds any water is that Norm Coleman technically won the first count of the election. However, recounts nullify the original count, and Al Franken won the first recount. Right now, Norm Coleman is appealing for a second recount with a few more votes, and I expect nothing less. However, the point is, Al Franken won the most recent recount, which is the "final for now." 2) I will be the first to admit that my last argument had a few holes in it. this was one of them. Obviously it wouldn't work to have a new senator every day. I think I was most likely trying to get the point across that the most recent count should be regarded as truth. 3) I don't know where you get your facts, but the recount is absolutely complete. Don't believe me? Ask the associated press. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Now, if I were Governor Pawlenty, I would pledge to nominate whoever won the most recent recount. But I'm not. If I were a Minnesota state legislator (a democrat), I would vote for the governor to appoint someone. But I'm not. Point being, the heavily democratically controlled state legislature would know that Governor Pawlenty would nominate the person from his party, not the winner of the last recount, so they most likely would vote against the nomination. In regards to my argument, I still testify that really, nobody won anything, because winning entails an election certificate. This has been an excellent debate, and I'd just like to "recall" a few points. The U.S. constitution calls for two senators from each state, and the U.S. constitution also states that it can override anything contradictory in a state constitution. Norm Coleman garnered more votes in the first count, and Al Franken in the second. I maintain that the most recent count should be regarded as the current total, and the judge should issue Al Franken an interim certificate until the second recount is completed, should it occur. You made a great argument, and may the best man win (both the election and the debate, that is).
Al Franken should be issued an interim election certificate

First off, you made a very good argument. There were just a few holes, though. Your first argument, that it is too close to call, technically that is true. However, the state needs two senators, and whoever is in the lead, even if it changes every day, should be the senator until they lose the lead. As it happened, since before the senate convened, Al Franken has had the lead. Should Norm Coleman gain the lead, he should get the seat. Your second argument (that my first argument doesn't hold up) was fairly weak, as you didn't really make your point. Of course not every seat has to be filled. Rarely is there a vote where there is no one absent. However, what the law means is that roll call in the senate should include 2 senators from each state. Your "off topic question" is just slightly off the deep end. I hear what you are saying and trying to convey, but, as I said, senators are allowed to be absent. Your third argument (that mine is illogical) makes a little sense, but it is actually quite a bit off topic. 1. Norm Coleman's previous term has expired, putting them at the exact same level. His previous term means nothing. 2. We're not arguing whether he won. He does, however, have a lead of 225 votes. If he loses that lead, the election certificate can be rescinded, unlike the presidential election of 2000. 3. Norm Coleman has won nothing. Al Franken won nothing either. Franken just happens to have the lead. You might want to read Amendment XVII a bit more carefully. Yes, it does say that the governor may appoint a senator under certain circumstances. "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." What that is saying is that Governor Pawlenty would be able to appoint Norm Coleman temporarily, should the Minnesota state legislature say he can. However, since Governor Pawlenty, as well as Norm Coleman, are Republicans, and both houses of the Minnesota State legislature are strongly Democratic-Farmer-Labor controlled, it isn't likely that they would allow for that. Besides, that part was mostly meant for other things, such as if Senator Klochubar was unable to perform her duties, Governor Pawlenty would nominate a replacement. You make a good argument, but the bottom line is that the constitution calls for Al Franken to be the senator until this is sorted out.
Al Franken should be issued an interim election certificate

Thank you, arbard124. Minnesota should have two representatives in the Senate. Sen. Norm Coleman won the election by a small margin which, by state law, requires a recount. Challenger Al Franken now leads with 225 votes. However, Coleman has won some court battles that challenged the manner in which some ballots have been counted, or not. Now Coleman has asked the court to "set aside" the election, building the case that to many discrepancies in the way ballots were treated created to many illegal votes, tainting the results to a point of "no confidence" in the tally.[1] My opponent's first argument is that the US Constitution requires Minnesota to seat two senators. I do not contend that it could be interpreted that, when Congress is in session, the Senate seats shall be occupied. So, I'll leave it at that with one off topic question. Could we build the case that all the legislation passed by this Congress thus far is unconstitutional due to Minnesota's lack of representation? My opponents conclusion is that, because "Al Franken is the clear leader at this moment", that Minnesota should fulfill it's constitutional duties and seat the challenger. I find this conclusion illogical in light of the facts; 1. Norm Coleman held the seat and was elected without contention in the previous term. 2. Al Franken has not won any election. 3. Norm Coleman won this election. Although it has triggered a recount, that process is not complete. Al Franken has won nothing. Amendment XVII of the Constitution requires that in the case of vacancies, the governor may appoint an interim senator until someone is selected by the people in a manner in which the state legislature may proscribe. This is a vacancy due to the process of an election. The people's selection is yet to be determined, pursuant to state law. Therefore it should be the governor's responsibility to fill this vacancy. In light of the facts enumerated above, the governor of Minnesota should seat Norm Coleman as Senator until the process is seen through. notes: [1]http://news.aol.com...
Al Franken should be issued an interim election certificate

I do not live in Minnesota. I have never been to Minnesota. I don't even think Al Franken is that funny. Federal law provides that every state is represented by 2 senators (U.S. constitution, article 1, section 3). Apparently (although I couldn't for the life of me find it), Minnesota law calls for no certificate rewarded until the election process is through. However, in article 6 of the U.S. constitution, it states, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING." Let me translate that into modern English. "This constitution, and the laws of the United states, and all U.S. treaties are law for everyone. The judges in the states must prosecute by these laws, as well as the state laws. WHEN THE STATE LAW CONTRADICTS FEDERAL LAW, FEDERAL LAW WINS." The U.S. constitution calls for 2 senators from each state. Amy Klobuchar is only one person. Even if the day Al Franken is awarded an interim election certificate, Norm Coleman ends up winning the case, they can rescind Franken's certificate, but the point is that Al Franken is the clear leader at this moment, and Minnesota needs a second senator, even if they are interim. Al Franken deserves an interim election certificate.
There should be equal marriage for all

My opponent is misinterpreting the resolution. It clearly states, "There should be equal marriage for all. " It isn't, "There should be an opportunity for equal marriage for all," but, "There should be equal marriage for all. " My opponent is now arguing for opportunities, but that is irrelevant. "Again, this doesn't really apply to the topic at hand. What I am describing in my resolution is the ability to allow any human the possibility of getting married. By my opponents statement I am somewhat questioning if they are anti - marriage period. " The resolution said nothing about possibilities. It said that there should be equal marriage for all. Had the resolution said that there should be equal marriage opportunities for all, I'd agree with you, but the resolution clearly states that this is not about marriage opportunities, but marriages in general. I'm not anti-marriage. I'm anti-forced marriage. Nobody should be guaranteed a marriage. They should have to work for it. A person should not be told, "Here, pick someone to marry. " They should have to earn the respect of their partner, whether they are gay or not. "I believe all humans should be allowed the opportunity to be married for a few reasons. .. " And I agree, but opportunities are irrelevant. Marriage is relevant. Opportunities are irrelevant. Marriage is relevant. Opportunities are irrelevant. It's in your own resolution. "By not allowing gay couples, or a man who is grouchy not to enter in to a marriage we are infringing upon simple human rights. " Oh, it's not that we're denying a grouchy man the opportunity of marriage. However, if he is very grouchy and has commitment, personality, and financial issues, and nobody, man or woman, is willing to spend the rest of their life with him, he shouldn't get a marriage, because nobody wants to marriage. Marriage is supposed to be voluntary. Therefore, it takes more than just one person asking for a marriage. It takes two people asking for a marriage together. In conclusion, most of my opponent's arguments are irrelevant to the resolution. The opportunity to marriage is not the same as a marriage. People should never be guaranteed to marriage without having to work for it.