BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bicameral vs. Unicameral legislatures

My main argument was not to reduce the number of barriers politicians face. Although it was a reason mentioned in my case. My main argument was explaining how wrong people can be in a country. I used the example of Donald Trump's victory in America as a basis for this argument. I mentioned that ideally a country with a unicameral house should always strive to maintain core tenets upon which the country was founded. Pro simply dropped all my arguments about how self-centered people usually are when voting. Pro just extended all previous arguments round 2, without addressing self interest and progression arguments in my case in round 2. Since there was no challenge against my arguments for round 2, I will respond to arguments put forth in round 3. Pro's argues that more scrutiny in the political process helps a country long term. This is a premise that many people believe that has given rise to many authoritarian leaders. In the 1930s, many European countries had to combat the Great Depression. Many European countries were slow in response to the Great Depression due to frequent political squabbling. Slowness and the inability to adapt to change is what gave rise to dictators like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini. The people were tired of having political leaders continually argue without any action taken. To a degree, Donald Trump presented a suspension of arguing, and much more action in regard to political leadership. I, by no means, am asserting that Democracy and representation is bad. I am saying that to much of it will produce many problems for the survival of the democracy. Pro failed to address the argument put forth in round two about how America ought to limit voting to just the senate and presidency. This is the best course, because presentation of the people is provided with political action. Pro also puts forth the argument that special interests will become too powerful in a Unicameral based society. I counter this argument by saying that special interest groups are still very powerful in bicameral based countries. The average amount of money a senator raises is 10 million dollars. The average amount of money a representative raises is 2 million dollars. Pro's argument is easily resolved if campaign contributions and super-pacs were heavily regulated and limited. Pro failed to explain why equal representation is good, and how an absence of "extremely" equal representation leads to a more powerful government.
Bicameral vs. Unicameral legislatures

Your main argument was that "a unicameral system would reduce many of the barriers politicians face". But why is this good for the country? Con never explained that properly and profoundly. I believe that it is more suitable for a country to take more time in scrutinizing legislation. This will make it better long-term. In the USA, for example the Senate cannot pass legislation without the estimates of the Congressional Budget Office. So, if a bad act has been agreed in the House, the Senate will overrule it. Moreover, the bicameral structure frustrates simple majority rule. Double representation in a bicameral legislature fosters the balanced representation of rival interests, a more just and inclusive goal than mere majority rule. When power is divided and diffused, as it is in a bicameral system, the professional representatives of powerful interests must win the support of a larger number of leaders, committee chairs, and members. The dispersion of authority through two houses makes it more difficult for the paid lobbyist to affect legislative activity by influencing just a few members. In a unicameral system, on the other hand, with just one house and fewer key legislators, managing outcomes is easier. Nebraska bears this out, being known among political scientists as (in the words of one) "almost heaven" for special interest lobbyists.
Bicameral vs. Unicameral legislatures

We live in a world that is becoming more diverse and where access to information is more feasible. We live in a world where people are much more able to form independent political views. We live in a world where people constantly re-consider which political party they side with. We live in a world where politicians, time after time, have consistently communicated with the respective population through emotion, rather than logic. We live in a world where people tend to be wrong. To claim that most people in each country knows whats best is a premise that would certainly delight news companies. The myriad of nuances in politics are too complex for the common man. In Washington DC, perspectives from multiple sections in America are always debated, yet never decided upon. A country should not be run like an art project. A country should be directed by people who are competent, and have a clear set of defined goals for the country. One set of people that are elected ,through whatever means, should be allowed a clear path towards accomplishing set goals when in position of power. In many bicameral countries, equal representation present more obstacles, and more obstacles towards equal rights of all. Unicameral Legislature presents to the country certain advantages more beneficial towards the progression of the country. I believe that each country should preserve the core tenets that shapes its identity, while a unicameral house senators still represent significant portions of the population. Equal representation hinders progression, degrades equality, and provides an outlet for commoners to vote in their self interest. Self interest is why equal representation inadvertently leads to more reductions of freedom. In America, the will of the people allowed for Trump to initiate a short term Muslim ban. Trump and many other conservative politicians in European countries present not only the self interest of people, but self interest at the expense of their fellow man. America's founding fathers always were in staunch opposition against a pure democracy due to how self-serving people are. A unicameral system would reduce many of the barriers politicians face, and would make policymaking much for competently handled.
Bicameral vs. Unicameral legislatures

Before my first argument I will explain the difference between Bicameralism and Unicameralism. A bicameral legislature is one in which the legislators are divided into two separate assemblies, chambers or houses. Unicameral legislature is a legislature which consists of only one chamber or house. My first argument is that time for reflection is important in the creation of laws. A lack of reflection often results in rashly-made, knee-jerk legislation. This is even worse when the executive is drawn from the majority group in the legislature, as in the UK or Israel, meaning that there is no check on rule-making. Having two houses also brings different perspectives to the process of scrutiny, as their members are often chosen in quite different ways, e.g. in the UK the House of Commons is elected, the House of Lords appointed or hereditary; in the USA and Germany, the lower house is elected by popular vote while the upper house represents the interests of different states. Second chambers have a very different job to the primary legislative body. Their responsibility is usually to analyze in depth and in detail the legislation that the primary body produces. For example, the British House of Lords forms committees that analyses legislation line by line. The first body just doesn"t have the time for this kind of activity. It makes for the passing of good law and the avoidance of bad. Rivalry is unusual in reality. In democratic houses, that"s because the houses are normally elected in different ways " it is made clear by longer terms and different geographical constituencies that make it clear that their mandate is different. In non-elected houses the very act of appointment demonstrates the presence of the chamber"s members for a particular task, different to the business of day-to-day government. My second argument is that governments are too powerful in unicameral systems. It might be work well in legislatures such as Nebraska"s, which is supposedly non-partisan " but what of the other, more numerous legislatures such as Queensland"s, which are not? The lack of real opposition gives too much power to the government of the day.
Abortion

As a matter of fact, this will be my first official debate on this website. May the best debater win. 1. Assuming that the circumstance provided by my opponent in Round 1 didn't include rape, incest, or having unprotected sex as I had described in Round 1, this would definitely be a tight-spot to be in, however, this does not mean the mother has to necessarily accept the situation she's in as unchangeable. For instance, couldn't she just move out of the neighborhood if its an unfit place to raise a child? And even If she's unable to afford to move out at the time, she could go to the Department of Human Services to find out what assistance she could receive pertaining to programs for food, clothing, shelter, job-training, day-care funding, college assistance, and other programs that would help her meet her current needs as well as obtaining goals for the future. 2. My opponent had said "Before the fetus gains ANY human-like quality, and lacks the simplest things, such as recognizable body-parts, a heartbeat, a capacity to feel pain, consciousness, the mother has a right to her own body. " I hate to break it to my opponent, but just because something doesn't have recognizable body parts, a heartbeat, or anything else my opponent has mentioned above doesn't necessarily disprove that something is a living thing. For example, cells are biologically considered living things because they can carry out several functions, including but not limited to reproduction (cells can divide themselves asexually), growth (cellular metabolism), homeostasis (cell membranes can control chemicals going in and out of the cell), transform and use energy (photosynthesis and ATP), and more. So far as it comes to consciousness, let's say that (hypothetically speaking) someone broke into your neighbors house at 3 A. M. in the morning and killed them in their sleep, would it be a legitimate excuse for the criminal to claim that since your neighbor wasn't conscious at the time that their actions were acceptable? No, I didn't think so. Not to mention, the fetus itself isn't considered a part of the women's body, because it is attacked by the mothers immune system because it sees the fetus as an enemy, although its not. The chemicals isoleamine and dioxygenase (IDO for short) come to the fetus's rescue, however, and stop the attack from destroying it. So to say that a women has a right to do what she wants with her own body pertaining to something that isn't a part of it is invalid.
Abortion

I personally am opposed to abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child's life, even though I feel that abortion no matter what is morally wrong, I think in those circumstances, in the end, it's the right thing to do. I am also opposed to "partial birth" abortions and "Tax-payer funded" abortions. I would highly encourage building technologies that could take out the fetus of a mother that doesn't want the child and put it into a new mother that is infertile and/or looking to adopt or have a child. And, I would also recommend schools to provide condoms for students, but not to encourage them to have sex, but merely just in case their "feelings" and "Hormones" gets the better of them to reduce the spread of STDs and abortions.
I shall marry the user known as Rogue.

Don't watch the video until I tell you too!Audience, prepare for mind rape. What I have to show you is so shocking, that I must not waste time with introductions. Proof #6: This power that I have may shock you. I can influence people to say, think, act, do, whatever I wish 100% of the time. If i wanted to make Obama promote Ron Paul, I could. I would not use my power on Rogue unless it was absolutely necessary. This point I am making is that Rogue already loves me, but if she didn't, I would just use my powers on her.You are probably thinking, "Koopin does not have powers." Oh yeah? I am going to prove it. I made my opponent talk about Thaddeus EVEN BEFORE HE POSTED! Let me explain. I told OberHerr (my opponent) before he posted round two of the debate, to talk about Thaddeus. Which he did here: "Clearly he can only be one person.....Thaddeus River!!!" I also made him say that Rogue was free spirited, which he also did here: "A free spirited person like Rogue." I told him to do this, but not to remember me telling him to do it. I have proof that I did this. First, see the message: http://www.debate.org...Then Watch the video I made before he even posted ROUND TWO! Refuting:Even though i have already proven that there is now no question that Rogue will marry me, I feel it my duty to address your claim about Thaddeus. He is a great guy, however, he has the hots for someone else. I have a PM that I am willing to reveal. I blocked out the name of the girl as best I could. I am pretty sure no one will notice who it is (I wanna keep their stuff private.) http://www.debate.org...Closing: Well guys, it has been fun. I did this debate for an early Valentines day gift to my sweet Rogue. I invite you all to our southern wedding, where we will drink sweet tea and dance the night away. There will also be an auction held afterwards for the right to marry our children once they turn the legal of 15 (this is the south).http://www.youtube.com...
I shall marry the user known as Rogue.

First, thanks for my opponent for this sure to be funny debate.Please note: THIS IS A JOKE! So, for all you Scrooges out there, go away!*Looks at Royalpaladin*Ok! *comic mode on*Suitor #1Well, I'm not going to directly refute Koopin's arguments, but I would ask, you to click on Koopin's picture. Now look at a picture of me! http://www.myfreewallpapers.net...Now, back to Koopin. Now back to me. Now back to Koopin.Now back to me.Clearly, he is not me, and he never will be, no matter how much he smells like me.And not only am I a Super Sexy Spartan Super Soldier, that saves mankind on a daily basis, but I have this! http://halowiki.net...So, not only will Rogue get the man from someone with way better tastes dreams, she'll get this for our honeymoon! And the best part?Since I was captured at birth b the UNSC and forced into the Army for life, I have tax-exemption for life, free toilet paper, way too much insurance, an awesome health care plan, and money!(How much? Who cares!)So, I ask that you reader, with all this info, look at Koopin.Now back to me.Now back to Koopin.Now back to me.I shall let you decide.Suitor #2But, Koopin, there is one more you must fear. He goes by many names/titles/ such as:Sky-pirate, wizard, British, devilishly handsome, best male dancer 2006-2010, champion lego architect, dragon tamer, giver of marvelous hugs, detective, lawyer, engineer, believer in sentient evil clouds, croquet and cross-country captain, author of four novels (one imaginary), lord of the flame arch-nemesis of Lord Sir Alan Sugar, Dobby, Papa Smurf and ABBA, and much more.Clearly he can only be one person.....Thaddeus River!!!He is not only all the things mentioned above, but he is also a EXTREMELY good spy! How do I know this? Because if he wasn't, I would have evidence besides this photo that he was a spy! http://web.mit.edu...That's how good he is! Cameras just blur when they take pictures of him!A free spirited person like Rogue would feel confined by Koopins way, so why not go with a free-spirited spy/pirate instead?Here is a slightly censored photo of Rogues affections for TR. http://www.debate.org...Clearly, she loves him, and the silly girl cant make up her mind between us! (It's a love square......)And who could forget TR's incredible, spy-equipped, and super sexy, car?http://www.carstyling.ru...End Statement For This RoundSo, Koopin, clearly, you are doomed, and outnumbered, and unless Rogue becomes a polygamist, you are doomed to not being able to marry Rouge. In this tragic love square, you are the last corner that will be picked last.(Note: All statements that Rogue makes about this debate are to be ignored, because either A) Because Koopin hacks her account often or B) Because she is a silly girl that cant make up her mind.
I shall marry the user known as Rogue.

Rogue, as I already describe, is so freaking hot. When I see her, I feel like my heart may simply stop (and it's not the feeling when I over eat at KFC. ) I wish to make that dang damsel my bride! So already we are at 50%. You know that I wish to marry her, and now all we need is some proof that she wants to marry me. Proof #1: She pretty much said so. . http://www.debate.org... As you can see from this picture, she obviously has feelings towards me. There are countless hand written letters I have from her, but they are personal and I would rather not show them. This helps my case like CRAZY becuase we now know she has admitted attraction to me. I censored the message, not because of anything your perv mind is thinking, but because it was so sweet I can't reveal it. Proof #2: I'm hot. . http://www.debate.org... Lot's of girls are attracted to hot guys. Rogue is a girl, so it's most likely she is attracted to them too. The pic says it all. Proof #3: The mental machine part 1. This may sound like a stretch, but it's true. I have the images to prove it. I have a machine that scans people's minds, and shows me pictures of what they are thinking about. I programmed the machine to show what rogue wants most in her life. She wants this: . http://www.debate.org... Proof #4: The mental machine part 2. I scanned her mind again, and found another image. For her honeymoon, she has some odd fantasy of us going to Pandora and being. .. well. .. Take a look for yourself. . http://www.debate.org... Why would she be constantly thinking of these things if she did not intend on marriage? Proof #5: She has already seen me! People have seen her picture, but if you look up close, you can see the reflection in her eyes! It's amazing! . http://www.debate.org... I believe that is all I need to argue with right now. The truth, has been seen.
I shall marry the user known as Rogue.

Official resolution: I, Koopin, shall marry the user known as rogue. This is a comical debate (not really, rogue I love you!) however, please treat it as a serious one. Basically, just do not forfeit, no semantics, and no trolling.I would like to thank the audience and my opponent.=============================FIRST: Look at this picture: http://i40.tinypic.com...The picture above is rogue's future (PLEASE LET IT BE!). Make sure to read her "About me" "Activities" and "News Feeds". Rogue (1), one of the most attractive females to ever exist on this website. Her beautiful hair that I am sure smell like roses, her soft smooth features, and those wonderful innocent puppy dog eyes that stare directly into your soul. She is a twenty year old, and a female if you were wondering. There is no doubt as to why I wish to marry her. However, this debate is not about why, but how. I stand here today, telling you that I will marry her! This round is basically just for accepting. We get into the real stuff in round two.Sources:1. http://www.debate.org...
Military policy DADT = BAD

The whole don't ask don't tell thing, i think your opinion is right. People who are asked to hide parts of themselves will not perform well. However I don't think that gay men should be able to serve in the armed forces. I know it makes me uncomfortable to sleep in a dorm with a gay guy. The majority of soldiers are heterosexual, so they would not like to be with a gay guy. I feel that gay men, have as much right to be on the front lines as women. For all the women who are serving, you are doing a great job. Gay men, have a right to serve with other gay men, like women serve with other women. I have nothing against gay guys, but they make me uncomfortable, when I am alone with them. There must be other guys like me in the fact that they feel this way. Life in the armed forces isn't always comfortable, but we should keep them as comfortable as we can in every way, for everybody. This is not only gay men, but women as well.
Military policy DADT = BAD

Note: I will be using the word "gay" as a catch all for LGBT for the soul purpose that I don't actually distinguish in my own mind or even care. DADT, short for "don't ask don't tell", is a public law put into effect in '93 by the Clinton administration. It was supposed to be one step up from the old law -which simply banned gays from serving in the military- by allowing them to serve but to keep their gay identity secret. The law mandates that witch hunts will not be done to seek out gay service members (don't ask) and that service members will not tell anyone that they are gay (don't tell). Should a service member become openly gay he/she will be ejected from the military. I have a few major points on why this is wrong. 1. On a moral level we as a country are asking our citizens to hide parts of themselves. Specifically citizens that at the very least feel they are risking their lives for us. Whether they are or not is another debate. We are in effect silencing a minority. 2. Government is supposed to be a representation of its people. Telling service members to serve gay in secret is to put across the message that being gay is wrong and shameful. Which to some also carries the message to destroy such service members is okay. 3. One of the founding principles of the United States was such that there would be a division of religion and state. Unless one would like to argue that to be gay is also to be un-human then to have this policy is to draw a direct line between the popular religious view that this is wrong and government. 4. The law was put into effect for the purpose of helping unit-cohesion and moral but in fact does the exact opposite. Before this law was in place gay service members truly had to serve in secret and no one knew that they even existed except when they were found. Now that this law has been passed service members know that there are gays serving among them but not who. While I do not personally believe this should effect anything at all when it comes to unit cohesion, if your best buddy is forced to lie to you under law it certainly will. 5. Having openly gay service members would accomplish many things. For one the people who disagree with this policy and do not serve in the military because of it would now be open to do so. For two, the unit cohesion and moral issue would no longer become a factor. Thirdly, gay units are no lesser at their job than any other unit therefor we would see no decrease in military performance. Lastly and finally this would actually save the military money as hiring and training a service member only to find they are gay and kick them from the military is to waste money. Please keep in mind that this is a debate about whether or not DADT as a policy is a good idea not military power, the U.S, or Gay rights in general.
Peanut butter kickstarted evolution

Well if you were to take into account the philosophical statement of "Last Thursdayism", then it is impossible to know if peanut butter was used as the catalyst for earth's evolution or not. If I told you that peanut butter created the universe last Thursday, it is impossible to refute me. Now I'm not arguing for creationism, nor am I arguing for last Thursdayism, I am simply arguing in terms of human perception that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know for sure :3
Peanut butter kickstarted evolution

How DARE YOU YOU SAY YOU ARNY ARGUING GOR CREATIONISUNITON BUT THEN YOY SAY THE WINE IS ONE TREU CORDISEPTS? YOU ARE A DISGRAFUL HUMAN NAZI AND ARE PROBS WORSE DEN HITLER AND I HOPE YOU QUIT YUR STALIN AND GET ROSTED HY MY EPIC ETHICS AND SUCH YOU UNEDUCATED SORRY EXCUSEFPR A SNIPER HAWLKING AMERICAB BURGERBEATING CANADIAN COMMUNIST