BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electoral College

Oppositions to the Electoral College usually have one encompassing idea that defines their entire arguement. "The Electoral College in undemocratic." This is preceisly the point. America is by no means a Democracy. America is a Consitutional Republic. The Founding Father feared democracy, and in an effort to avoid such a dangerous system of government they instated the Electoral College.Benjamin Franklin famously said: "Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what is to be for dinner."America assures the freedom and pursuit of happiness of all individuals. In a democracy, however, there is no true freedom, or assurance of such, for the 49%. The majority, the 51%, are the only ones with assured freedoms. Think of it like this; the majority of americans are white. Under a democracy, we could now legally band together and vote to kill off any non-white races. This same idea can be carried over to politics.The top four most populous states in America make up 33% of the entire population. California alone makes up 13.5% of the american population. The Electoral College provides a system of diminishing returns to large states and populations. This way, four states do not represent 33% of the entire nation. (1)In this last 2016 election, Donald Trump won approximately 2,600 counties to Clintons 500. This means Donald Trump won nearly 84% of america's counties. Clinton, however, still received the majority of votes despite this geographical landslide. This means that without the electoral college, 500 counties (16%) would be able to control the remaining 2,600 (84%). (2; 3) Reproduction farms, or large cities if you prefer, are very good at indoctrinating the voter. Voters who live in the same area are more likely to think alike than someone who does not live in their area. Therefore more densly populated areas not only have a higher population, but they're extremely likely to vote the same way. This is why we saw Clinton with 62% of the popular vote in California. The Electoral College is designed to eliminate this echochamber.The Electoral College is designed to give power to geography. Every state, plus D.C., has at least 3 Electoral Votes regardless of population. It is not until these 3 votes have been assigned that more votes are given based on population. This is what causes largely populated places, like california, to have a lower voting percentile; ensuring every state is equal before any move ahead.I have a lot more to add in regard to refutations, however I am unable to perform any during the second round. Because of this, I will end my point here and await my opponents rebuttal.(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...;(2) http://www.infoplease.com...;(3) http://brilliantmaps.com...
Electoral College

I will argue that the Electoral College is an unfair system that is should be abolished or significantly reformed while my opponent must argue that the electoral college is fair and should not be changed or requires only slight tweaks. Debate Structure Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. Round Three- Rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. MUST include sources for arguments. Definitions Electoral College- body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. Source https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
It's time the British Government repealed the 1807 Slave Trade Abolition Act.

The story of the girl in Aberdeen is tragic because it's not unusual for homeless people to perish on the streets. The only reason it made the news was because she was young and a girl. Unfortunately, every other doorway on Union Street has a vagrant sleeping rough in it, society becomes hard-hearted; the public can't take them all in every night. Something else needs to take the homeless away from their miserable existence and since the government and charities can't or won't help, that just leaves the licensed slave traders. From his response, tt seems my opponent is contemplating going feral and living of the fat of the land. Since I assume he proposes to do this in the lush tropical savannas and flatwoods of sunny Florida I doubt he would be at risk from British people-traffickers, who will concentrate their efforts on rescuing the homeless from the inner-city streets in the UK. Good luck to him, if decides to go ahead with it, by the way. With a few tools and weapons it should be easily possible to survive – wild fruits such as prickly-pears and paw-paws abound (and he can always go scrumping in Tropicana's orange groves as well) and he could hunt swamp rabbits, wild hogs, raccoons, alligators and ducks for meat. I suggest, however, he doesn't acquire a taste for manatee, though, as this may land him in trouble with the authorities! In answer to my opponent's question regarding families: as far as I know, there are no families living on the streets of Britain because the local authorities have a statutory obligation to house them, no matter what their circumstances are or how much it costs. For example, it was revealed last week that one particular single mother from Afghanistan receives ï¿½170,000 ($340,000) a year in rent and benefit payments from the local council. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk... Regarding my opponent's question regarding unwilling captives. I'm sure he has seen wild horses being broken in, well; similar tactics will be employed to help unco-operative homeless people see how futile resistance would be. With reference to the Red Indians, it was a great disappointment to me when I first visited Florida to discover that the Seminoles were no longer living in wigwams, dancing around totem poles, chucking tomahawks about and generally whooping a lot, and had instead turned their attentions to fast food outlets and gambling emporia. Still, most of the traditional double-decker buses and red telephone boxes have disappeared from London's streets in a similar way. What a shame. Still, life moves on, I suppose. Anyway, if my opponent decides not to become the Wild Man of the Everglades, perhaps he would like to help me start a licensed slave-trading company instead? How about: Land of Lackies Ltd. - "Your first choice for serfs, coolies and slaves". What do you think?
It's time the British Government repealed the 1807 Slave Trade Abolition Act.

This archaic Act of Parliament is now over two hundred years old and no longer reflects the reality on the ground in modern Britain. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that privateers should be allowed to send ships over to Africa to round up the natives, transport them back to the UK and force them to work in miserable conditions for no pay; that would be very wrong indeed. Instead, what I propose is a scheme that would make real improvements to the lives of the tens of thousands of financially and socially disadvantaged people who currently sleep rough on Britain's streets and who have to beg passers-by for money to survive. By providing homeless people with secure accommodation and decent meals in return for an honest day's work, these unfortunate individuals can restore their sense of self worth and begin to look forward to a brighter future. Licensed companies should be allowed to tour the streets, round up all the vagabonds, tramps and other vagrants and transport them back to holding centres to be sorted and processed before being auctioned off to the highest bidder. Not only would this scheme be of enormous benefit to the homeless people and their masters, but also make Britain a more attractive and less intimidating place for tourists and business people to visit. Naturally, these forced-labour traders will have to invest some time and money in their stock before selling them on. New arrivals in the holding centres will have to be stripped, hosed down and given a clean uniform to wear before being fed and watered. Some may also require medical attention or have to be treated for drug or alcohol abuse. Once the inmates' health and fitness have been restored to a reasonable level and they have been made to look presentable, they could be offered for sale at adapted cattle markets around the country. Potential purchasers could include prosperous families seeking domestic help, farmers looking for agricultural workers and factory-owners requiring affordable labour in order to compete with companies from China, India and the Philippines. Britain is falling behind the very many countries around the world that take advantage of the competitive edge that slavery gives them (1) and it's high time we started to catch up. In order to do this, however, the British Government must first repeal the 1807 Slave Trade Abolition Act and I hereby commend this long overdue proposal to the House. Thank you. . (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk...
The User Known As "Bluesteel" is a girl

This is clearly the most pressing issue on the site as of this moment, so a debate about it is clearly in order.Resolved: The DDO user known as Bluesteel is a girlDefinitions since this is going to become necessary:DDO - Debate.org, the website we're using right nowBluesteel - http://www.debate.org...girl - of female gender or identifying with the female genderThe first round will be for acceptance. No new arguments will be presented in the final round. This is an entirely serious debate here people, as this is a topic of dire consequences and deserves to be treated with solemn respect.
Marijuana should be legal in the United States

I believe that Marijuana should not be legal in the United States or even be considered to become legal. I believe Marijuana should not be legal for two reasons. One reason is that there are too many long term effects of Marijuana. Another reason is that if you legalize Marijuana and try to illegalize it, it would be too hard to do. I would like to set some ground rules: 1.) Support your reason with facts for evidence 2.) No opinions are allowed
Marijuana should be legal in the United States

I agree we should stick to marijuana but i was just pointing out that marijuana is relatively harmless when compared to cigarettes or alcohol. I can see short term effects from second hand smoke from marijuana but not long term effects. If marijuana is taxed and regulated which is what I believe we should do we could regulate it like we regulate cigarettes. In most states you cant smoke smoke indoors. Medical marijuana in a pill form would be great as well but i also believe that people should be able smoke marijuana for medical reasons as well. Im going to be honest with you. I was very confused with that last paragraph so i wont respond to that.
Marijuana should be legal in the United States

I agree with you on how alcohol is a worse drug than Marijuana, but that is a totally different topic. Let's focus on Marijuana. Though cigarettes are very harmful and dangerous, it is not considered a drug. Marijuana is considered a drug. Like I said, let's stick to the Marijuana topic. You say that you are not going to smoke Marijuana and not worry about the long term effects, but have you thought about second-hand smoke? Many people die a year from second-hand smoke from cigarettes. You could get the long-term effects (possibly) and the short-term effects from second-hand smoke from Marijuana. What a growing kid gets second-hand smoke from Marijuana? Also, you say Marijuana has a lot of medical purposes. You are right, but they should not be smoking Marijuana. They should be taking Medical Marijuana pills because it still helps you in many ways such as treating pain and helping with seizures. Another reason why you should use Medical Marijuana instead of straight Marijuana is that it does not get you high. It will also not result in as many of the long-term or short-term effects as straight Marijuana. Lastly, what good is a world with a bunch of dumb police officers and dumb firefighters trying to keep our country safe? Firefighters are not even allowed to smoke anything! You do not want a dumb police officer dealing with your situation and getting him/herself killed.
Marijuana should be legal in the United States

I believe those long term effects that you listed are not as bad as the long term effects of cigarettes and alcohol so should we make those illegal as well or should we give people the freedom to destroy their body with whatever they want. I don't think anybody wants to become a psychopath or to have reduced sexual capability but its not my right to say that people cant use marijuana. I wasn't asking how it would be hard to illegalize it again but why that is a good reason not to legalize it in the first place. It is all about freedom and I believe that people should have the freedom to smoke whatever they want. I'm not going to smoke marijuana so I don't have to worry about the long term effects of it but if someone wants to use marijuana and they don't care about the long term effects then its their own damn fault. Also marijuana has alot of medical purposes. Marijuana can help with glaucoma by relieving the pressure in the persons eyes. Even George Washington smoked marijuana to relieve his tooth pain.
Marijuana should be legal in the United States

In fact, there are a lot of long term effects. Here are some long term effects of Marijuana: reduced resistance to illness (basically weakens your immune system), growth disorders, increase or start of abnormally shaped cells in the body, reduction of male sex hormones, fast destruction of lung fibers, any injuries to the brain can be permanent, reduced sexual capacity, unable to retain information as well (reduced ability to learn), lack of motivation, drowsiness, mood changes, personality changes (could become a psychopath), and inability to understand things as clearly. Those are just a few of the long term effects of Marijuana. I mean, who wants to become a psychopath?! I mean who wants reduced sexual capability? Also, you were asking me how it would be hard to illegalize Marijuana after it has been legalized. Well think of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and the early 1930's. Alcohol prohibition became the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution in 1920. It was repealed in 1933 because of one reason. That one reason was that it was too hard to control the consumption and sales of alcohol because it is basically everywhere. People drank, produced, and sold alcohol illegally. It did not reduce crime, it actually increased it. For example, in Los Angeles, California, crime was the most it had ever been during the prohibition of alcohol. More police officers at that time got killed than any other 13 year time period. What I am basically trying to say is that the same thing will happen if we legalize Marijuana and then try to illegalize it because Congress or the state government will realize how bad of a drug Marijuana is.
Marijuana should be legal in the United States

I am going to start by saying i am against using marijuana I don't believe that i have any right to take someone elses right to smoke weed away. People go to jail everyday because of marijuana. Marijuana is a relatively harmless drug so there is no reason that people should go to jail because they got pulled over and there was a little marijuana in the car. You say there are to many long term effects of marijuana. Well what long term effects? You say that we shouldn't legalize it because it would be to hard to illegalize it again? That is a piss poor argument. I used to be against legalizing marijuana but when i looked at the facts i went full libertarian.
The Bible is Fake and Fairy Tales

My opinion is the Bible is fake and full of Fairy tales. How can any body know the beginning and the end? There is no Factual basis or scientific or Archealogical proof for the events that happened in the Holy Bible. Faith and belief is the only excuse. There have been many different versions of the Holy Bible , so many in history have rewrote and manipulated the supposed bible.If a book is that holy it shouldnt be tampered with.
Should more hunting oppurtunities in the Suburbs be Allowed.

That last line was rather amusing, as this guy has no basic knowledge of grammar."there has never been a documented case of a human contracting Lyme disease through the handling or consumption of venison. The disease actually is caused by bacteria and is spread through certain species of ticks. Deer, other wildlife and domestic animals often are hosts for the ticks that carry Lyme disease and may expand its range."-A quote from his source http://mdc.mo.gov...;So, no this would not stop a diesease which is "actually is caused by bacteria and is spread threough certain species of ticks."Food for others, there are large areas payed for by government funds that are for hunting, there are giant tracts of land devoted to farming.Thus food from hunting animals is not needed.Don't get me wrong, i am a gun and hunting rights respecter/activist.This may contribute to the increase , however the frightening of deer by shooting at them[yes, when you shoot at a deer, it runs] Now imagine this, you are sitting on your front porch, maybe your young children are playing in the yard. Suddenly shots ring out, and a wounded deer bounds out into the street, limps down the road a bit and stops infront of your house. At that point the deer stops infront of your house, and your young, impressionable children. And as they watch, this deer stops, and dies. Next, a hunter walks up, picks the deer up , and walks away with it, leaving your children there freaked out and crying.
Should more hunting oppurtunities in the Suburbs be Allowed.

You betta not ever tell me what to do again or there will be a proble. We got that straight? Deer do carry lime disease fool..... so this would help end infection if we get more hunting oppurtunities http://mdc.mo.gov... You killing deer would add food for others which is right, but if you kill a doe, that mean you kill the doe and it future babies which would help limit the population. Deer crashes only increase during hunting season because it is the rut... which is when the deer go whaco in the head chasing the ladies. If we allow hunting in the suburbs we could help crack down on the population and save lives, bills, and time. As you can see this guy is clueless and has no basic knowledge so vote for me
Should more hunting oppurtunities in the Suburbs be Allowed.

Firstly, I'll forgive you for that insult , and beg you to look to the bottom of my beginning argument where I cited the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as my source for that definition. If you have any problem with my definition, find another well reputed dictionary and give that definition. Secondly, for the convince of myself and our voters, I would request that you at the least provide a list of basic arguments instead of forcing or voters to visit every on of your links, and spend hours reading. Now, from what I can gather, your only argument is that deer hunting in the suburbs would lower the number of car accidents involving a deer, this is not true as we see deer-car collisions increase during hunting seasons. Another common belief among proponents of suburban gun hunting is lime disease, however hunting deer would not solve the problem of lime disease, which is spread by mice. Another argument is that it would reduce populations of deer in Suburbia, this is not true either. As deer are killed, it provides more food for each deer. When this happens the chance of giving birth to triplets increases for the deer.
Should more hunting oppurtunities in the Suburbs be Allowed.

Your dumb dude.... a suburb is obviously a neighborhood type thing. Someone this ignorant is not deserving of debating me, but i shall let u go anyways. Betta get yo facts straight cuz im bout to win this won 63-0 Deer hunting in the suburbs would help end car related crashes, and the destruction of crops. Many states right now donts allow hunting in the city limits, but this is where most deer related car collisions occur. Bow hunting would be used which would be much safer than gun hunting. http://www.biggamehunt.net... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.sportsmansguide.com... http://www.huntingtheoutdoors.com... http://adventure.howstuffworks.com... http://suite101.com... http://www.wickedlocal.com... http://www.jstor.org... http://www.city-data.com... http://www.backyardwhitetails.com... http://www.dnr.state.md.us... http://www.chron.com...
Should more hunting oppurtunities in the Suburbs be Allowed.

First off, I'd like to get some definitions out of the way, for the convenience of our voters. Suburbs 1 a : an outlying part of a city or town b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town [1] Now according to this definition, by the Merriam-Webster dictionary the suburbs would be a populated, residential area. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The universe is made of only one particle

I am referring to sub-atomic particles. Didn't I say positive, negative and neutral which are the properties of all fundamental particles. All sub-atomic particles are either positive, negative and neutral. I can't remember if I have discussed this issue with you previously. I was assuming that you were familiar with the subject matter of the discussion. But, alas, it looks like I will have to explain everything all over again. I can't show you any peer reviewed articles because I am the originator of this concept. The nearest you can get is to study Robert Distinti's website. The universe appears to be complex because of the arrangement of the 3 states in orbit and rotation. Space is simple because it doesn't contain any neutral or no spin particles. It's the neutral or no spin particles which creates matter and differentiates itself from space. Thus, from one particle in 3 states - all matter is made. The cycle starts with a large body like a sun which compresses the ether particles and stops them spinning. (Note- Ether particles spin at the speed of light.) This satisfies the equation E= MC2 because 2 particles of ether stop spinning which creates M (matter or mass). The sun's compression causes the particles to stop spinning which releases heat and light. This energy is carried via the ether medium away from the sun to the Earth. This energy is transferred via spin torque and waves. This spin torque energy may be called the photoelectric effect.
The universe is made of only one particle

The many particles theories are a total illogical nonsense which destroys theories such as E=MC2That is the simple formula for finding energyE being the energy of the object in questionM being it's massand C being the speed of light in a vacuum.They want you to believe there are hundreds of different particles because there is more money to made from a complex universe than there is from a simple universe1st problem I have with this statement, you have no evidence to back up the thesis. If you could show me an article that is scientifically recognized and peer-reviewed that shows that there is only 1 particle in all the universe the scientific community would crack.2nd problem I have with this statement, saying that there is only 1 particle, mind you I still never received a definition for particle, neglects the unique properties and reactions of other particles to other things. I am assuming by saying that there is only 1 particle you are saying that the Periodic Table Of The Elements is a false narrative forced upon us by the scientific community.3rd problem I have with that statement, nothing about the universe is "simple", if it were your thesis would not withstand itself.Thus, the universe is simply designed and easy to understand. But, unfortunately, scientists don't like a simple design, so they ignore it and image a complex design which suits their agendas.I would like you to give me a reference point or some sort of supplementary evidence for your claims, I don't think I could name 1 thing that is really "simple".