BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Debate On The Electoral College

I am FOR the electoral colledge our founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they came up with the electoral colledge and it should never change. The way this nation has picked our presidents throughout history has never been by the popular vote. Our electoral colledge system was based on equality among the states. So that no ONE state could over rule another. Now lets take a moment to think. Today in the United States which states do you think would decide the election every year? Well the answers are California, Florida, Texas, and of course New York. Year after year these four states would pick our presidents without the electoral colledge. It would be unfair because the little rural state's voice would not be heard and would go unnoticed. For example montana its a fairly small state and its people think differantly from people lets say in New York and right now with the electoral colledge in place they're voice is still heard because of the way the electoral points are dished out. But the moment you take away the colledge Montana becomes a "nothing state" and worthless while the people running for president only care about getting the votes in the four states i mentioned. So therefore the people in montana and many other small states across the nation are not properly heard. Now tell me, does that sound fair to you?
A Debate On The Electoral College

Well, I guess for my closing the last thing I'd like to say is that a candidate that strictly only tries to sway one part of the country lets say for example the very populace states like California, New York, Florida, and Texas would cause major social problems in the nation. Mark my words the rural areas will be completely ignored and if you can remember in history the last time the rural was ignored the Great Depression occurred. The Great Depression was a domino effect and the historians were able to link the domino effect by the woes of the rural that the Presidents made promises too, yet did not fulfill. If the Electoral college was eliminated for the national popular vote the rural would be COMPLETELY neglected because the candidates would never campaign in the smaller states knowing the real power exists in the populated areas. Thanks for this debate was fun.
Demonetization is a masterstroke on the part of Indian Government

My worthy counterpart you may not know that all the black money notes consist of denominations of Rs.500 or Rs.1000. Therefore the owners of the money know that they either have to discard the money or transform it into a white one by giving the government one time tax of about 50%.Moreover many people will think that giving tax once to convert it into white is a better option than just throwing it away.It will the Government ample money to buy arms and put a stronger force at each borders and frontiers. moreover thhe Government cannot use it for their own purposes because of the ongoing Indo-Pak war.
Demonetization is a masterstroke on the part of Indian Government

My worthy opponent has said that it will help the Government to get rid of black money stored in Swiss banks. I don't understand how this move of banning currency notes will affect the money stored in banks. No one is going to the banks to find out the details of the accounts. Moreover this move has made the daily wage laborers penniless as their employers don't have enough cash to pay them. This move has brought an end to the small roadside shops as the regular customers are facing shortage of funds in the form of small denominations. As for the black money holders, they have found ways to escape this moves simply by using new Bank accounts or the accounts of all the people they know . How can one explain that this move will completely wipe out black money from our beloved country.
Demonetization is a masterstroke on the part of Indian Government

Well according to me the demonetization is a great work on part of the government . I think this is the best step taken by the government ever . All the black money that had been kept hidden from the government securely in Swiss Bank will all go in vain,thanks to the PM . There had been a steady rise in the number of fake 500 and 1000 rupees note which was almost impossible to trace for the Government . Well this step will help in denying them altogether
Demonetization is a masterstroke on the part of Indian Government

Many Indians are lauding this move but I am in contrast to the masses. I feel that demonetization is a faulty move of the Indian Government. This move of banning the old 500 and 1000 Rs. notes has made work quite difficult especially for those who do not have bank accounts. They have nowhere to keep their hard earned income. Moreover the money which people had collected for marriages has all gone in vain. The Government thinks it will help destroy all the black money but the people with all such undocumented income have seeked the help of their fellow mates to put it into their accounts and thus are able to get away easily. Thus, It is my firm believe that demonetization is a faulty move of the Government of India
On balance, Europe has a moral obligation to take in refugees from Iraq and Syria.

Welcome to Ben2974vsEverlastingMoment's round 2 debate of Hayd's December 2015 Beginner's Tournament. Congratulations to those who've made it to round 2, and to all of those who've participated thus far and have helped make this experience an enlightening one. Thanks again Hayd. In this round, Everlast and I will be debating the European migrant refugee crisis. It's in the news practically every day and has been ongoing for years, making it one of the most salient issues of the decade. As the title says, we'll be debating whether or not, on balance, Europe has a moral obligation to take in refugees from Iraq and Syria. I will be pro, and Everlast will be con. Terms:Moral Obligation: An obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong. Europe: The continent and all its countries comprised. Burden of proof is shared. Rules: 1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. Both debaters accept the definitions of the defined terms7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8.
Mandatory Childhood Vaccines

I do concede that the family moving was a poor example but what of animals or bugs that spread parasites, there are no visas for them. I cringe when the Con said these vaccines would be a waste of resources because he obviously did not study this topic. I will use another example (this will be whooping cough) and this article will explain what happens if you don't get a vaccine because you think the disease is "gone". . http://www.dailycamera.com... This shows that diseases can come back over time and affect those unprotected. The Cons use of the words "wasteful" in the sense of the vaccinations would be received quite badly in places like Colorado. The Con also refuses to answer my arguments so I will go into detail why you should vote Pro and vote Manditory Vaccines. Herd Immunity: This is a proven theory that 94% of the world's population must be vaccinated against a disease for it to stop spreading. If we allow parents to not require their children to get a vaccination it will affect the child's health along with the rest of the world's. Milder Symptoms: As mentioned before (by the Con) it is possible to get an effect from the vaccine like an allergic reaction. And as I mentioned before the chance of getting a reaction are much more rare than getting the actual disease. And if you do (however slim) get the disease you are vaccinated against the affects are much milder (such as the difference between death and a fever). Dangers and Affects: Diseases can also cause other diseases such as Hepatitus B (which the Con says can't be contracted in the US although can due to my previous argument) which can cause cancer if contracted. Economic: The last reason to make it manditory (vaccines) is money. It is shown that on average every one dollar spent on vaccines can save six dollars in later medical costs. Those arguments are not only solid but prove the importance of vaccines and why they must be manditory for everyone. Besides my reasons, the Con side shows little to no understanding of this topic. They also use resources such as Wikipedia which is not very reliable.
Mandatory Childhood Vaccines

There are laws about what vaccines are required for a VISA both to certain countries and from them. Unless the African family hid in a suitcase while going to a country without the disease, taking a vaccine would be mandatory and the proof of vaccination (usually a yellow sheet of medically verified paper) would be required to get the visa. If they ALREADY had the disease they would have failed the blood tests required to get the VISA and/or vaccination in the first place. You seem to not understand that although some vaccinations should be mandatory to make all vaccinations mandatory for children would be most ridiculous and be wasting precious biological resources which could save adults and/or be used to better understand the virus as opposed to worrying about wasting it on vaccinating children in a nation where that microorganism isn't even present.
Mandatory Childhood Vaccines

A very good point you have made but if you realize these mandatory vaccines include a wide variety of vaccines include a wide variety of "disease preventers" so yes although some of the diseases are uncommon safety must always be considered. I hate using what it's but what if a family from Africa moved next door and they carried a rare disease you are not vaccinated against, then you have a high chance of contacting that disease. My opponent also mentions that vaccines pose dangerous threats against human life (and I want to mention the theory that vaccines cause autism has been disproven), the chance of getting a life threatening condition is much slimmer than getting the affects of an actual disease such as polio or smallpox which are highly life threatening and painful. A few arguments I shall pose are milder affects because I know a large portion of people feel like vaccinations don't 100% protect people from the disease they create milder affects so the difference between a fever and death.
Mandatory Childhood Vaccines

Not only are vaccines possible to cause fatal (life-taking) results in certain children http://www.uptodate.com... it's also an issue of wasting vaccine biogenetic material for the mere purpose of vaccinating children.For example no typhoid is found in USA, Canada, Australia and most of Europe and Russia (including its Asian half) http://tinyurl.com..., so why waste resources causing this to be a mandatory vaccination if the family aren't taking the child on holiday to africa/asia Additionally hepititis B is very rarely found in USA http://tinyurl.com....It should be up to parents for the issues their child will face, not mandatory for all children.
Skipping a meal (pro) vs eating junk food (con)

When you skip a meal you are more likely to binge eat the next time you have food. This is because your body is hungry and needs to make up for the loss of food. Skipping meals can also lead to fatigue and deprives the body of nutrients. Having some food in your system is better than having no food at all. It would be quite the opposite than what my opponent has to say, if you skip meals you are more likely to develop and eating disorder because your body will already be used to going without food.
Skipping a meal (pro) vs eating junk food (con)

Skipping a meal is better because even eating junk food causes you to be unable to perform daily tasks. Junk food offers little to no nutrients that doesn't help the body in anyway. Even though you may may a bag of chips every now and again that soon turns to twice a month, then twice a week, then daily, then twice a day. Every now and again is the start of habit.
Skipping a meal (pro) vs eating junk food (con)

Well eating junk food doesn't allow you to obtain the needed nutrition to stay healthy. This causes you to feel fatigued and have a lack of energy needed to complete daily tasks. Also eating junk foods add high levels of sugar the but your metabolism under stress causing your pancreas to produce high levels of insulin to prevent blood sugar spikes, known as a sugar rush. Since junk foods, along with fast foods, don't have efficient amounts of protein and good carbohydrates your body crashes. Junk food also contributes to poor performance and obesity and it can damage you heart and liver. http://www.fitday.com... As an added bonus junk food can lead to depression and addiction. people who eat fast food regularly are 51% ore likely to develop depression than those who eat little to no fast food. http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...
Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

A note on types versus kinds. My opponent claims that there are many instances of freedom’s such as Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Speech. This is true but these fall under the category of political freedom rather than metaphysical freedom. There are two distinct kinds of freedom, not types, metaphysical and political. DDO and This Debate ViolationsMy opponent has violated his own rules by changing the definition pre-agreed on in the first round. He said that no other definitions could be used and then construed Freedom to be what James Bovard says it is. This is not only an appeal to authority but a redefinition which is against the rules by his own standards. My opponent has cited Christian Michael’s blog to prove a point however, my opponent has directly plagiarized Christian Michaels. Not a word is changed, and further he doesn’t put the argument in quotations therefore he is representing it as his own. This is a clear violation of the DDO Basic Tournament Rules as well as the DDO ToS. Even if you don’t think this is significant, he has plagiarized again in the last paragraph directly from the opinions section. Anyone who wants to check this(. http://www.debate.org...), simply click the find key and look for the first few words of his paragraph. He has clearly simply copied and pasted this from someone else’s work. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution The resolution is framed in a universal way and makes no explicit claim to any country. Therefore, the resolution must be taken in a universal sense; my opponent cannot appeal to the laws or customs of any country when trying to prove the resolution because if the resolution were to be true, it would be true in every country not just the United States (even though it’s not true). If I were in China, the resolution would be equally invalid as if I we were in New York or Britain for that matter. The Constitution, although meaningfully asserted, offers no arguments to why we should have Freedom rather than Security. In fact, it’s not supposed too. It’s a rulebook not a justification. BOP and Dropped ArgumentsMy opponent has dropped the majority of my arguments, such as the analogy from Anarchy. In fact he has merely pulled out choice sentences in my case and failed to respond to the main points. Due to him having full BOP this is unbelievable. If he even drops one of my arguments, he loses. However, he has quite literally dropped all three. Therefore, he has failed to meet his burden. ConclusionThis would normally be longer but given the circumstances I submit my opponent should forfeit the debate for violating the rules via Plagiarism and definition changing.
Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

I would like to mention a few things before Con commences his arguments DefinitionsFreedom - 1) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action 2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another 3) The condition of being free; the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraintsSecurity - 1) The state of being free from danger or injuryOnly these definitions will be used. No other definiton can be used. Also, BoP will be shared. Con too will have to prove that Security is more important than freedom.
Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

Alright. A summary -1) A majority of Countries have "Right to Freedom" implemented in their Constitutions. Therefore, it is our Constitutional Right to obtain freedom. 2) Freedom lets you do as you want, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or impair their freedoms. People will keep you in check when you fringe upon their freedoms, but no one will keep you from giving up your own. 3) Freedom should never be sacrificed for security because it is far more valuable than security. A brief look at history would offer a glimpse of the countless people who sacrificed their safety, their lives, and even the lives of their loved ones just in the hopes of gaining liberty; it is costly and difficult to get. Security is rather fluid; what is secure today may not be secure tomorrow.4) One cannot have security without freedom that is, people must have the freedom to provide/receive security.5) An opinion poll on this site : "Is Freedom more important than Security?", has resulted in 67% votes to the affirmative, thereby proving my case.(http://www.debate.org...)6) Con makes a baseless remark about how I have violated the debate rules and that I should forfeit. However nowhere in his opening speech he has mentioned plagiarizing being a violation.7) Ironically, Con forfeits Round 4 thereby giving me an automatic win.8) FanBoy(Con) appears to have left DDO as his account appears to be no longer active.(http://www.debate.org...)Vote Pro.
Resolved: Freedom is more important than Security.

Firstly, A note on types versus kinds. Error from my side, sorry.DDO and This Debate ViolationsLet me repeat the quote "Freedom is the ability to exercise a natural right unencumbered by strictures from the criminal or uncivil aggressions of individuals, institutions or government" - James Bovard Now, My definitions - 1) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another3) The condition of being free; the power to act, speak or think without externally imposed restraintsFreedom is the ability to exercise a natural right unencumbered - Definitions 1) and 3) by strictures from the criminal or uncivil aggressions of individuals, institutions or government - Definitons 2) and 3(without externally imposed restraints)So, where is it that I have added a new definition?This is a clear violation of the DDO Basic Tournament Rules as well as the DDO ToS.My opponent has initiated the debate and in his opening speech(Round 1) never stated anything related to plagiarizing being a violation. Also about the DDO rules for the Basic Tournament(http://www.debate.org...), there is nothing mentioned about plagiarizing.Hence, my opponent is simply making up stuff because of the fact that that he is out of rebuttals.The Bill of Rights and the ConstitutionIf you check, most Constitutions have implemented "the right to freedom" in their Costitution and thus it is safe to safe that the law is universal. some important countries that have "right to freedom"in their Constitution are - South Africa, Australia, Inda, The USA etc.BOP and Dropped ArgumentsCon has not read my deebate properly. In his argument about State and Anarchy, he literally beats around the bush and a single line written by in the previous round, rebuts his argument - "One cannot have security without freedom that is, people must have the freedom to provide/receive security. Freedom without (or with minimal) security, however, is possible."ConclusionCon has used just 2284 of his 8000 characters and thus clearly highlights my point that he is out of arguments. Pro has sucessfull rebutted all of Cons arguments. Thank You.
Should Sell Phones be allowed in class

I feel that cell phones, while it may be resourceful, causes too much distraction. Even as a student, when I have my phone out in class to search for something on the topic, I find myself going to facebook to surf for a bit. I understand that not all students would be like this, but its a large possibility. Also, for the kinds of students that don't really care about school, it'd give them a huge advantage to doing even less work, because they wouldn't get punished for having their phones out if they switch from the app they're on to the web browser, for example, of the google search their teacher wanted them to do. In my opinion, cell phones cause too much distraction and/or temptation to be off-topic in class.
Hummer H2 is a rational choice for a larger person

I recently had the opportunity to drive a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited sport edition as a rental car while my other vehicle was in the shop. While there were a lot of things that I loved about the jeep, it was simply too small for somebody of my stature (barely enough elbow room for me to actually fit my arm between myself and the door let alone be comfortable for any extended period). For reference I am 6'3" tall and weigh in at about 280 pounds. As a result I started looking for slightly larger vehicles that have a similar feel and off-road capability (I enjoy the high stance, stiff ride quality and general out of the box off-road capability). Given my particular desires it doesn't seem like there is anything currently on the market that isn't extremely high in price ( Toyota Land Cruiser for example). The Toyota FJ cruiser is one excellent option but I'd rather have a four-door. This led me to the hummer. At first I thought the hummer was just huge in comparison to the jeep but shockingly enough it's only 15% larger in overall length and width when compared to the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited! Now I realize that the Hummer gets a bad rap as the type of vehicle that only a jerk would drive and similar arguments. I am not here to debate the aesthetic appeal of the car and I am not interested in it because of its imposing appearance. I would like to debate the choice of such a vehicle given so few options on the market that would fit the bill. I would also be interested in debating any suggestions you might have as an alternative vehicle choice. Given that the hummer is built on the Chevrolet Tahoe platform, one could look at it is simply an off-road capable version of the same vehicle. I've been driving to Tahoe for years and while they can be made to be off-road capable they do not come that way out of the box. Furthermore, making the needed additions to the car would likely make it as imposing and inefficient as the hummer itself (not to mention being very expensive out-of-pocket for aftermarket modifications as well as becoming complicated for insurance purposes). While I am interested in debating comparative fuel efficiency between similarly appointed vehicles I would really rather not let this debate turn into one about general fuel efficiency and its merits etc. My argument is simply this: Given that I am a larger than average person and that I am looking for a luxuriously appointed four seater with room for cargo and dogs in the back as well as built-in off-road capability, isn't the hummer H2 a rational choice?