BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America's Two Party System.

Rebuttal: Pro fails to justify any of his statements. Heessentially says “It is good because it’s balanced,” which it is not. It shiftswith the will of the people, as it would without the parties. And later: “It adds variety because people can’t changetheir views without a party to guide them,” a statement that is blatantlyincorrect. I will proceed to argue that the party system inhibits a person’sability to adjust their ideologies. Oppression of thought- Political divisions essentially stop democracy byshutting down independent thought. Effects upon thought the legislative branch: The recent budget planpassed through the house with no Democratic support. This not to say that noneof the 190 democrats in the House of Representatives would have supported thebill had it been presented without any predisposition; I firmly believe theopposite. Rather, the Democrats were afraid of voting against party lines;afraid to piss off their base. Many fewer republicans may have supported thebill also, but they feared the onslaught of negative press that they would havereceived had they would receive for voting for what they would truly believe tobe best. Political parties essentially bully representatives into forfeiting their votes. Subscription- Effects on the general populace: News organizations rule over ourcountry’s democratic process in that they have a stranglehold over many votersin the same way that drugs control addicts in that once a person has been inductedinto a school of thought they only look to confirm their beliefs. Republicans watch Fox and become even more conservative; Democrats watch NBC and become even more liberal. This continues until bothsides are hopelessly brainwashed, incapable of fairly considering the opposingview. When neither side is willing to consider the view of the other,conversation fails. This breads misunderstanding, which breads hatred and division. Effects on progress in the legislative branch: Like the generalpopulace, Senators and Congressmen quickly become incapable of considering theopposite view due to their political orientation. Debates in the legislative branchare often worse than useless: blind posturing that accomplished nothing: thewords of the deaf landing on deaf ears. Made worse with Filibustering and otherwasteful tactics, the Senate and The House of Representatives are two massivegarbage bins into which we throw taxpayer dollars, dollars that could be usedto fund honest, open minded conversation if America abandoned the party system. Conclusion: Political parties do nothing but divide America,closing ears and destroying thought.
America's Two Party System.

it is in my opinion that the American government's democrat and republican parties is a very good thing in the constitution that sets balance to the American Government. for example, back when the american government was first set up, their were three parties, Democrats, Republicans, and the Whig. if your views were not democratic, or you didn't agree with them, you could go over to the Republican side of the government. Whig is not imporant because they are basicailly neigther party. it balances out the government and help gives something both parties are happy with
America's Two Party System.

Con will argue that political divisions in America are detrimental and should be abandoned for for a non-partisan system. Pro may argue that the Democratic and Republican parties are beneficial. Rules:First round not acceptance, though final round is a 500 character max closing statement. This is so each side gets 3 full rounds to debate.No semanticsNo trolling Reminder: Other governments should not be referenced in this debate; no other country has a comparable mentality. This goes for both sides.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

I understand the point you make in your argument. However, consequences are not important as much as the causes and the process that lead to the consequences. For example lets assume we throw a ball in the air far away and someone else that is far for you catch the ball. However, the person that catches the ball has no idea that you was the one that threw the ball. The person must not assume that the ball came from the sky. If we assume things base on our believes or our actions we would left out so many things just because we do not know them. Therefore, it is very important to show the causes of the actions or why the action occurs. But here is my point. Let us assume we throw a pen in the air. There are many forces acting on it and not only the force that we exert on it. The pen would also exert force against gravity in order to come back down. Therefore, it is erroneous of us to assume that the pen would come back. It is not certain that every human action have a moral consequence. We are not certain that nature would always be with us and doing things the same way. We cannot assume things we do not know and we definitely do not know the course of nature. As you well mentioned that we cannot control nature; then what makes us think that there is some possibility of us knowing the future. In addition, sometimes actions do not have a moral consequence but people try to enforce it. For example, Aristotle was accused of corrupting the youth. The moral consequence that he was kill did not happen because God wanted it but because the people did not agree with their believes. This makes me think that the "moral consequences" do not just happens because of people's actions but because people force things to happen. Therefore, if we are the ones enforcing this "moral consequences" then are they really happening because is nature? I do not think so.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

I believe every action does have a moral consequence. Everything we do has an effect, right? So there must be a consequence following every action we do. This must be the case because of the fact of cause and effect, and nature as well. We do not control nature, it just happens on its own because of science. What we can control are the causes we do to produce a certain effect. That effect can be a positive or negative outcome. Most of us would obviously like a positive outcome to be the effect, but if nature's course does not produce a positive outcome, then there is nothing we can do about because we cannot change nature or science itself, we can only investigate why it happened to be that way. All of our maneuvers as a human must be followed by a consequence, good or bad. Not all consequences are bad, as they can be good for us too. For example, sacrificing your summer to take a couple of classes to be ahead of the game. That is an action we chose to do that, in the end of it all, will produce the positive consequence of finishing the course, getting a good grade, and getting that course out of the way so we no longer have to deal with it. Sure, we wouldn't get to enjoy our summer as everyone who chose not to do summer courses would, but it would all pay off at the end. So, considering that example, all consequences aren't always a terrible thing. Now, if you choose something that you know is not morally right in our culture, then that is when you will receive a punishment for that action you have chosen to do, resulting in a negative consequence. But, that all happened because you chose to do something morally wrong. See, without these consequences, again we wouldn't be able to distinguish what is right from wrong. When we do good, we would know because of the positiveness that comes out of our action. The same goes for when we do wrong, we see the negativity of the consequence we receive. These help us know right from wrong, and help our society function properly with the right moral codes one should follow.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

We assume that just because something happened before it would happen again. However, this is not the case. Nature keeps changing. Therefore, we do not have the certainty that something would happen again. But you are talking about science. We cannot study science without understanding the causes of things. A good scientist would not believe a fact but would try to understand the reason behind it. However, you cannot determine the effect without the cause. For example.: you might see a ball moving. However, you cannot just assume the ball is moving and that's it. In order for the ball to move some force most be produce. Then the consequence would be that the ball move. Yet, why did the ball move is more important to know. We cannot assume that things happen and that's it. There most be a cause for everything. But back to my point, let us assume I throw something in the air and it breaks in pieces. It is erroneous to assume that the cause of the object to break is because I throw it in the air. Then, my action did not have a consequence on the pen but the pen had a action of its own. Then my action was not responsible of causing the moral consequence. But again you would be assuming that the object would come down. Yet, we do not know if this is true. You would only assume that because that is what most of the time happens. Then, there are some actions which would not have any moral consequence.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

NAture can not make us believe anything, due to the fact that nature is pure science. Nature cannot be judged by believing in things like miracles. Science must be done in order to know the real cause and effects of why things happened. I understand that if someone believe that their action may have suddenly caused the world to end, but that is why science is in place in the world. In science we make inferences, then test them to see if they are true. We must use science to let us know what is morally right from wrong, and why thing happen they way they happened. Moral codes are also based on science and its causes and effects. We need to understand that thing do not happen for a reason, rather they happen because it was meant to be that way due to the course of nature. I'll use my example of murder again. Someone killing someone is a cause and effect thing. Then, science comes into play to determine what were the cause of the killers actions, and how the effect happened the way it happened. Detectives cannot just look at a body and say "she's dead because someone shot her". They must do further research as to why the whole thing happened.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

However, not always you would be able to determine the causes of an action and if you dont know why something happens then it would be wrong for you to think that the action would have the same effect. You can infer something but it is because nature makes us believe this. However, by doing this nature is fooling us because not because an action had an effect before would necessarily mean that it would have the same effect the second time you do it. For example, what if you are doing something and the world comes to an end. Does it necessarily follows that the reason for this is your action. I dont think so. And i know my example is a little too dramatic. But if i prove to you that one action does not have a moral consequence then im attacking one section of your argument which implies that there is something false in it. Not all = some not. Then it does not necessarily follows that an action would always have a moral consequence. Then, again, we need to know the causes of something to determine the consequences. Then we cannot assume an action would have a consequencebecause we do not know if it is true or not.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

Good point. Although I must say, where there is a cause, there will always be an effect. An effect is basically the moral consequence of an action if you put it that way. If we are to commit a wrong action, we know a bad effect would follow. For example, killling someone is a cause, and the effect thereafter would be someone dead, and loved ones of that person emotionally hurt. We should then know that it is a bad thing because we see people emotionally hurt, which is where moral codes would come into play. See, without these moral codes, everyone would commit wrong doings as a person and never realize there mistake. We need those moral consequences in place to help us see right from wrong. As I said, where there is a cause, there is an effect. I'm not saying the consequences are universal, because moral codes are not universal themselves. As said previously, all culture come with their own moral codes, so they can know what is right from wrong. Sme cultures see killing an innocent person who is useless in there life as morally right, as our culture would see it as morally wrong. Not every consequence can be universal due to the fact of these moral codes. We receive the consequences due to our actions as a person. And, not ever consequence is the same. Since moral codes are different in every culture, killing someone can be a rewarding thing to some people, making that a positive consequence, while in our culture, that is a negative consequence, receiving jail time, or every a death penalty for our wrong doings as a person.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

I agree with what you are saying about moral codes. However, my point goes in another direction. Not everything we do has a moral consequence that would follow. It is important to know the causes of an action rather then know the consequences. By knowing the cause is the only way you can know what the consequences would be. However, we cannot assume things just because of past experience. By saying that there is not possibility of human action without moral consequences, then you are assuming that the consequences would be universal. Therefore, the consequences for an action would be the same for every time we do the same action. However, we know that this is not the case that just because an action have a consequence it is not necessary the case that the effect would be the same. We cannot assume something we do not know and we do not know if an action would have a moral consequence at all. By assuming that every action has a consequence, then nature would be fooling us. My argument is the following: (1) I cannot assume that an action would have the same consequences the second time I do it just because of previous experience. (2) Nature can sometimes can fool us to think that something would happen but it wold not. (3) However, it is important to understand why something happens first to understand the consequences. (4) Therefore, we should focus not on the consequences but on the causes of the action.
There is no possibility of human action without moral consequence.

There couldn't be a way to do something without a moral consequence following thereafter. People from different societies do things according to their own moral code. Without these moral codes, there would be chaos among the culture. If someone is to commit murder in our society and there is no moral codes for anyone to follow, then out society itself would be too crazy for us to even live in. If there are no consequences, then one cannot learn from there mistake, and learn what is right from wrong. There couldn't be a possibility of human actions without a moral consequence by the following reasons: (1) people should follow moral code in order to live a safe life. (2) without moral codes, there would be chaos among the cultures (3) there must be consequences with every action so we can know right from wrong. (4) therefore, there couldn't be a possibility of human actions Sioux moral consequences.
Immigrants (in general) have always been beneficial to America

If you meant the country you should have a said the country not America. You do realize that your argument basically is saying that Native Americans do not count as part of America. That sounds stupid, you know it. I was giving an example. But, how different is having a somebody come here and take my job than having my job go there? "Lower pay for jobs might not be beneficial" is all I need to win the argument. The caveat that "at a time of Industrialization" is rather worthless as we are currently not at a time of industrialization. The point of an analogy is to make reference to something without actually referring to it directly. My point is not that immigration is stealing. My point is that your argument is clearly flawed as I could be happy with a stolen five dollars and *STILL* not recommend it to others. The core of your claim was that "your family is immigrants, therefore you know immigrants are good" -- that's a horrifically bad argument. The idea that paying ten people four dollars rather than ten dollars costs the roofing company forty dollars rather than the hundred dollars increasing there profit instantly means benefit for America. How did you get there with the logic? Somehow I don't think having an immigrant send forty bucks back to Mexico for his family helps America as much as putting a hundred dollars into the local economy would. You offered a couple arguments which were absolutely flawed. I offered a counterexample that made you look downright foolish. I admit that the affirmative might actually be right, but I don't see how you came close to proving the case. * I don't believe you showed why getting paid less for a job is better for me or anybody. * I contend that you're absolutely wrong that being the great grandson of an immigrant and liking living in America (where I've lived my entire life) means that I should be forced to recommend immigration. I could steal five dollars and be happy with it and not recommend it to everybody (I'm not comparing immigration to theft I'm showing that the logical structure of your argument is clearly flawed). * And further, as one group of immigrants to America actually murdered the residents of America in a very clear and organized campaign. I think by this counterpoint your clearly wrong. Thank you for the debate.
Immigrants (in general) have always been beneficial to America

When I said America, I meant the country. Therefore, Native Americans are not eligible for an argument. When jobs are moved to Mexico. Well, those aren't exactly immigrants are they? Also, lower pay for jobs might not be beneficial, but at the time of Industrialization, we wouldn't have enough people to work the blue collar jobs if we didn't have all those millions coming in from Ellis Island. Almost all of those immigrants took the blue collar jobs, boosting many Americans up to white collar workers. Comparing immigrating with "stealing 5 dollars" from a store is inaccurate, because immigrants are not stealing, they are contributing. They pick more fruit than they can afford to eat. They sow more buttons than they're allowed to buy. They take 4 dollars an hour to build a roof. The money their bosses (Americans) get from that roof is way more than the money they paid those roofers to do it.
Immigrants (in general) have always been beneficial to America

"The inhabitants of America from 1492-1900 had a rather constant and continuous campaign of genocide and murder waged against them at the hands of immigrants." -----------------You're not saying WHICH immigrants nor providing any specific facts or evidence "Your claim that immigrants have always been beneficial is amusing when you look at the fact that immigrants wiped out the American population in a couple hundred years. These immigrants did not work jobs for cheaper. Though they did routinely murder large tribes of American natives and take sections of their scalps in order to be paid." ----------------- I said beneficial to America as in, the United States of America. Those were times before the U.S.A. was a country "Immigrants have not always been beneficial to America. In fact, history shows, they might just murder you, rape and kill your wife and children, steal your land and treat you like crap. Though occasionally they'll give you some blankets (with smallpox)." ------------------May I say... Innacurate and unnecessary?
Immigrants (in general) have always been beneficial to America

Sure. Immigrants have not always been beneficial to America. The inhabitants of America from 1492-1900 had a rather constant and continuous campaign of genocide and murder waged against them at the hands of immigrants. Your claim that immigrants have always been beneficial is amusing when you look at the fact that immigrants wiped out the American population in a couple hundred years. 1) These immigrants did not work jobs for cheaper. Though they did routinely murder large tribes of American natives and take sections of their scalps in order to be paid. 2) Yes, my family did immigrate here. My father was born in Chicago, his father in Copenhagen. However, this argument doesn't *always* apply as you can tell from my exception. Immigrants have not always been beneficial to America. In fact, history shows, they might just murder you, rape and kill your wife and children, steal your land and treat you like crap. Though occasionally they'll give you some blankets (with smallpox). *Mikegj1077 is a guy, he has a picture of his sister for some silly reason.
Immigrants (in general) have always been beneficial to America

I want to make it clear to anyone who has a doubt that immigrants are and always have been great to our country. Number One: Many immigrants work jobs for less money than Americans. And at the time of Industrialization when they came by the millions, they helped this country be what it is today. Number Two: Traditionally, this country is all about immigrants and the difference of culture. Earlier I saw a debate.org member (mikegj1077) saying she is "anti-immigration". Anti illegal immigration is arguable, but how can you be an American against immigration if you are an immigrant yourself? So basically, America would be nothing without its immigrants. We should all just admit we're all immigrants to a certain extent and help those who came to the country most recently, so that that immigrant will help other immigrants in the future and we can keep building up this great country.
America is not capitalist

"cap"i"tal"ism G2;kapədlG6;izəm/ noun noun: capitalism an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. synonyms:free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture "the capitalism of emerging nations" antonyms:communism" -Google Search A specific definition you may have quoted, and upon Adam Smith you may have doted But rest assured cite I shall too, With the added benefit of having more than a few Private owners we all are, and from what I see we've gotten pretty far I'm not paid fair for my labor? But I seem to make more than my dumba** neighbor I make some profit in a strange way, I found this place called the "e-bay" This invisible hand that you may have mentioned, Doesn't seem like a strange new invention A closed down sign on the waffle house, where no one would eat not even a mouse. There's a CVS next to our Walgreens, and by now we should all know what that means Walmart pushed people out you say? Yet you refute the invisible hand to my dismay A monopoly exists is your claim! Yet you cite the law it breaks which I think is quite lame I can start a business at my will, even if the battle may be uphill So before you say calling it capitalism is crazy, take a trip to the mall and things will be less hazy