BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voting should be compulsory

Thank you as well. I will address your points in the order they were posted: "-Voting is a right, not a duty" As it currently stands, this is factual. However, it is invalid as a point since it is itself the subject of debate, similar to saying "God is real" as a point within a debate discussing if god is infact real. I reject your implication that it is possible for someone that is informed to not have an opinion whatsoever, for this to be true the individual would have to be beyond apathetic. However, in case the individual has no interest in any candidate, I suggest that there be an option on the ballot for rejecting all candidates and starting anew. This also addresses your point on the disenfranchisement of potential voters. If an individual happens to object to the idea of democracy themselves, there is no way for them to express this view, short of revolution, outside of participating in the process. "-Compulsory voting results in poorly informed or random votes that compromise the integrity of elections" A vast majority of apathetic voters are this way due to ignorance. One feeds the other. Frustration in the system can feed into apathy as well. This can all be fixed by giving voters more options and compelling them to be informed one way or another. Conscientious objectors exist only because of a lack of options they'd prefer, which we could remedy by adding the previously mentioned option in which all candidates are rejected. What is more likely to compromise the integrity of our elections is a lack of participation in said elections. Smaller and smaller groups deciding things for everyone.
Getting rid of Cuny First at John Jay College

CUNYfirst operate to conduct all our business at CUNY. All the school systems do not interact with each other but CUNYfirst integrates all our financials, HR and student processes so that the data can be used instantaneously across departments and the university. It only requires one step. CUNYfirst is a city University wide system that manages student's education and records allowing students to access many important services, such as tuition fees, and course schedules. http://www.baruch.cuny.edu...
Getting rid of Cuny First at John Jay College

Professors at John Jay also have problems with CUNY First. Shomial Ahmad and Peter Hogness write in their article about the inconveniences that Cuny First creates, " I had no acess to attendance rosters and no access to room assignments, no access to anything!" Said Julio Valentin an adjunct professor in law and police science at John Jay College. Outages remained for about two weeks he said, "but it seemed like forever." http://www.psc-cuny.org... CUNY First hurts everyone. It creates unneeded distractions. Our education has already been negatively impacted by the problems of CUNY First. Professors can't teach their classes with all these malfunctions. Therefore, John Jay should consider changing into a new system that is more reliable.
Getting rid of Cuny First at John Jay College

frankly yes there are glitches with CUNY first but I do not believe it is the site it self but the people who run the site. Overall it is a good site to schedule classes and other personal things. I do not like CUNY first, I actually hate it but with the new set up and the features it has, I can view and look at my grades and classes all in one place and even though I may need help at times, overall I can use the site on my own and see exactly what my counselor see. which helps to be on the same page
Getting rid of Cuny First at John Jay College

CUNY First is very unreliable. You can go to Jay Express and see how many students go there because of CUNY first throughout the semester. Before the fall semester of 2014 began I had a glitch on my CUNY first account that incorrectly said I owed money. This glitch was wide spread and affected many other students. It made many students go through such an ordeal. CUNY first is also very difficult to navigate. CUNY First is also not clear with important notifications. For example, if you have a stop on your account you'd have to look for it and it's not noticeable until you do a good amount of searching. Notifications should be clear so that the student knows if anything is wrong. Someone could have a stop and they would never realize until it's too late. Furthermore, the consistent need for maintenance is interfering with CUNY First's overall purpose to keep your information organized and readily available. There are too many flaw in CUNY First. That is why John Jay College should use an alternative system.
Getting rid of Cuny First at John Jay College

CUNY first is not reliable for the students of John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It is always under maintenance. This past week I needed to register for spring semester and I couldn't because of maintenance. If you check CUNY first it says there will be another scheduled maintenance on December 13th 14th https://impweb.cuny.edu...... . So much maintenance is done and nothing is ever improved. Therefore, John Jay College should get rid of CUNY first.
Should there be a law saying you have too recycle

The enviroment has beome bad becuase of us, WE ARE THE ONES TO BE BLAMED. I would like to remind that back in the early days, people did not pay attention to the accumlation the the waste and soon the landfills grew faster and the waste also acculated in the homes which lead to dieases. The authorise got concerend and had to find out a solution, a solution that was kind to both the enviroment and the human race itself and that was how recycling was borned. It was just bascially converting waste materials into useful products. Recycling is not going on very well and i agree with that so that is why we should enforce a law that there should be recycling because when we convert wasteful materials into useful items we reduce the size of the landfills and save ores, energy, and precarious recources. These recourses, if we keep on throwing these there will be a lack of them and will pose serious concequences. Also recylcing reduces all sorts of pollutions such as air, land and water pollution. People don't recylce even when there is a recylcing bin just few feets away. They think it is ok when it's is not because YOU ARE NOT SAVING THE PLANET RATHER YOU ARE MAKING IT SICK AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HELP THE PLANET. I WILL END THIS COMMENT BY SAYING THAT ONCE WHAT A WISE MEN SAID, " SOMETIMES IT IS BETTER TO LOSE AND DO THE RIGHT THING THAN TO WIN AND DO THE WRONG THING."
Science v. Politics

Apologies for missing the last round, I was out of town and not able to get back to a computer soon enough to post a Follow up. I would like to thank Wake Island for being patient in this and we are green light to continue. A few quick pointers: (1)Pro did not refute evidence of a superior system in Science Based Resource Based Economics. (2) Links I have already provided proof that the U.S. Government does not create its own money. (3) Global poverty is an issue that still remains at large despite the Material wealth to end it. ----- Pro Contends that we require Money to live, but this also inaccurate. We require things, such as food and water, shelter and so forth to live. The Fact that money buys these things is not a stable correlation between needing things and Needing money. Or In other words, your argument " we need money" is akin to telling me " That's just the way things are done around here." That is not an intellectually valid response. You in truth already live in a post scarcity world. Our society NEEDS for nothing, in the western world we have water, food, shelter in abundance... in excess even. Our world is not the same as it was for our ancestors and in recent decades there have been visionaries strife for a future that is beyond needs and beyond a concept of currency. That world is now with in our sight. The Science based society, phased in Gradually will eliminate the needs for currency. The fact is that the current market system is already slated for destruction. Automation of laborious jobs is inevitable. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.bloomberg.com...
Science v. Politics

Your claim is that Modern political systems have small impacts on poverty and is wasteful due to excess production. Modern political systems have supported humanitarian efforts throughout the world. Typhoon Haiyan which hit the Philippines gathered attention of the United States government and other countries which supported the effort to bring relief to the people. The governments are not the only one helping. private charities like the Red Cross have throughout history supported people in poverty and disasters. https://www.redcross.org... You have given no references showing the current governments can not be productive when it comes to Humanitarian relief in the 21st century A study from fas.org has done research on the relief efforts for Typhoon Haiyan which has shown the progress of Political systems and private charities have made in the recovery of the Philippines. http://www.fas.org... Your second argument is that governments create excess production. Blaming excess production solely on the government is silly. Have you ever bought 10 boxes of cereal but only finish seven before three go stale? I am sure you have. This is a problem the consumer has made. consumers are wasteful, we don't eat everything on out plate every time. The government does not run all relief, energy and infrastructure companies like BP, Waste Management, ATAT. political systems only regulate them. During the early 20th century Farmers made so much food that is bombed the price forcing the government to stabilize the market. https://en.wikipedia.org... Money is needed to fund scientific projects and keep out economy in balance. Currency is created by our governments and we need money to live, invest and research new projects which enforces my stance on why we need a political system to support science. Science excel without a political system and it could not completely take over a political system.
Should schools refrain from promoting religious equality

As my opponent has forfeited his round, I will use this round to elaborate on my points.1. There have been many cases of discrimination in education due to beliefsAlthough laws exist so that students of different religions have to be treated equally by teachers, school staff and other students, it happens very often that students are discriminated because of there beliefs.I would also like to correct something I said in my previous argument which was false. I said that "In a school where religious equality is promoted, a student will not be allowed to wear distinctive religious dress, etc." According to the American law, this is actually false: "Individual student expression may not be suppressed simply because it is religious." and "Schools may not discriminate against students who wear religious clothes or head coverings." A school promoting religious equality is therefore only promoting the student entente.Sources:http://www.justice.gov...http://www.adviceguide.org.uk... Since my opponent did not show up to counter my arguments, I did not have much to say. I hope he will be joining us for the next round.
Should schools refrain from promoting religious equality

As my opponent has not put forward many arguments yet, I will refrain from making my post too long.I believe that schools should promote religious equality.I will start by countering my opponent's argument.1. "People should be allowed to be themselves in the place they go to learn."Promoting religious equality does not mean you cannot be yourself; it only means you will be treated as any other person from any religion would, but I do understand what you mean. In a school where religious equality is promoted, a student will not be allowed to wear distinctive religious dress, etc. I do not believe that this is a problem, but rather a good thing. Already there are many debates on whether or not school uniforms should be mandatory, as this would solve some problems with fitting in, maybe bullying, etc. Should we really add another thing for which students will feel/be different than others?When I say this of course, I don't mean students can't have a religion. I just believe that if they do not act differently because of their religious beliefs, students may feel more inclined to interact with each other, regardless of religion. We do not live in a perfect world, and certain people may discriminate others, maybe not even intentionally, because they have a different religion.
Government subsidized healthcare & education.

Redistribution of wealth in America has been a complete failure. "War on Poverty" has decrease poverty by only 2% since its inception, whereas poverty prior to had decrease by 50% without government intervention. Reps have never stated that pollution is not a problem. They are concerned with the government giving special treatment to green technology based on unproven science. A monopoly whether private or government is never a good thing. Education and Healthcare are not rights, they are privileges. Both rely on individual choices. Education doesn't guarantee access to higher paying jobs. Welding doesn't require a degree, high paying job. Free healthcare does not guarantee a more healthy population. Just means less choice for care.
Government subsidized healthcare & education.

I think that coincides with the fact that politicians are bought off by corporations and essentially become their puppets. e.g. when Hillary Clinton claims to want to redistribute the wealth in america, but her top donor is Goldman Sachs. Or the Republicans that deny global warming because their donors are companies like Exxon, whose products pollute the air. Anyway, when education is considered a right, and not a privilege available for purchase, people can earn a degree that grants them access to a higher paying job, giving the consumer more money to spend, and therefore stimulating the economy. Without free education and/or healthcare, people enter crippling debt that they are unable to pay off, and are unable to spend more money.
Have a universal speed limit of 20 mph

To have a Universal speed limit of 20 MPH we would have to change many unnecessary things in our everyday lives just to accommodate for the time change. Lets say the closest Walmart to my location is 50 miles away, and only being and to drive 20 MPH would mean it would take over 2 hours to legally get there and over 2 hours to get back. Thats over 4 hours of the day gone and that is not including time to shop or possibly eat while out.. With that being said I conclude my opening argument.
Have a universal speed limit of 20 mph

Do you have any sites to prove your assumption of these "millions of deaths" due to such activities. I agree that it would save countless lives, but I would argue that it could increase tickets, accidents, and possibly death. In an article published by Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center they found that "Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average percentile that speed were posted in this study(45mph) provides a noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent." they also found that "After speed limits were altered at the experimental sites, less than one-half of the drivers complied with the new posed limits." and also "Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent." With all that being said the facts show that the majority of the people will not follow the new speed limit. Wouldn't it be more dangerous for the person(s) who are following the actual speed limit to continue to follow the posted speed limit. There is also a few studies which suggest that lower speed limits increase fuel consumption and pollution (i.e. http://road.cc..., http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) such pollution can cause over 32,000 deaths per year(as stated in Telegraph.co.uk article). another astounding fact is "official Government figures show a reduction in speed limits from 30 to 20pmh in urban areas will increase the amount carbon dioxide in the air by up to 18 per cent for petrol cars and 15 per cent for diesel cars." and that is just in urban areas imagine that on a global scale. To sum up all of which I just explained Lowering the speed limit around the world to 20 mph universally would cause more bad than good. With the facts showing that there is an increase in accidents, increase in pollution(with the increase of deaths caused by pollution), and over half of the population would not abide by the new speed limit. (http://www.ibiblio.org...) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) (http://road.cc...)
As a Country, The US Should Militarize its System of Laws and Courts.

The military should not be in control of the U.S. laws and courts. This will not benefit the laws and courts. The military should remain separate from matters such as these. (Handing education to the military doesn't sound like such a good idea, does it?)Judges and lawyers do a very good job handling justice in the U.S. Militarizing the U.S. laws and courts could have dangerous outcomes and would likely result in false imprisonment or criminals roaming the streets. The military does not have knowledge in the subject of law as the judges and lawyers do.
As a Country, The US Should Militarize its System of Laws and Courts.

I will be arguing as pro, and that the US (United States) should hand over the control of our courts and law enforcement to the Military. Opponent will be delegated as con. Round 1 - Acceptance ONLY Round 2 - Arguments Round 3 - Rebuttal Round 4 - Arguments Round 5 - Closing Statements I expect this to be a serious conversation without the use of trolling or profanity. Definitions: Militarize - (verb) Give (something, especially an organization) a military character or style. Law - (noun) The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. Court - (noun) A tribunal presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate in civil and criminal cases. Thank you and good luck...
Baltic War Debate

I am voiding any action after September 20th, as that goes past the turn limit Very well, i will concede the point that i was unsuccessful in shutting down the power grid, but if that is the case, it is impossible for you to do that to me to. I declare all shutting down of power grids void. Well played so far! September 20th: Poland launches a massive draft of people. 10 million are conscripted into the armed forces. They are motivated to protect the motherland from the evil invaders. What they lack in quality, they make up for in numbers September 21: As the Swedish army is currently well placed, Poland decides to launch a special operation. Operation Tip of the hat. September 22 - 27: Phase 1 Warsaw is evacuated, all military and people flee in what looks like panic. A WMD is armed in the center of the city unbeknownst to Sweden. September 29: A small Army of Polish loyalists (5,000 men) launch phase 2, They launch a domed assault on Swedish positions and are decimated. With their retreat, Sweden now feels confident enough to march in to Warsaw. September 30: Warsaw has Fallen October 1: Poland enacts Phase 3, a VX nerve gas 15 parts-per-million wmd is detonated within the capital city. The Swedish army is decimated, but so is the city. The Polish government, now on the run,broadcasts a message to the Polish countrymen, "Today, Warsaw was destroyed, it was first burned by the Swedish, Crumbled as Swedish guns lay waste to the city, and drowned as the gas slaughtered any there. Warsaw is no more, but Poland is stronger than ever. WE WILL WIN THIS WAR. POLAND (Dramatic pause) WILL BE FREE!!! Morale on Sweden plummets as most of their army is gassed, Poland is inspired by this turn of events and is inspired with the idea that the war is winnable. October 3: Phase 4, in order to cut off any further line of attack, Poland pays 30 Billion directly from the reserves to the rebels to stop fighting their own countrymen, and rather, fight off a foreign invader. The Polish government also promises a restructure once the war is over in order to address the concerns of the people. Any group that refuses this offer is assaulted by a now larger Polish army. Poland also order the air force again on complete scramble, and calls back all fighter from Denmark in order to recapture air superiority. October 7: Poland is now under a single flag once more, but Sweden is still dangerous. October 9 - 29: Poland marches a larger army against a smaller battered Swedish army. While is take more casualties, I am fighting a war of attrition. Losses: Poland: 107,000 Sweden: 60,000 3 tanks November 1: Poland sends 2 million of her newly conscripted soldiers to the northern coast. November 5th: The retreating Swedish army is trapped between two much larger forces in the city of Koszalin. They have no choice but to surrender. Poland losses: 400 men before the surrender, but gains 22,000 men in PoWS. November 7th: Poland sends a peace treaty to Sweden. 1. Sweden will withdraw 2. Sweden will take the blame for the war 3. Sweden will pay 40 Billion Euros to Poland 4. Sweden will receive 22,000 PoWs back. Please comment your acceptance or denial.
Baltic War Debate

I will revoid the bombing of.my,capital, it's not that it wouldn't be possible to hit firestations but air patrols would have destroyed any attack. I will also void the shutting down of my power grid, you do not have the cspicity to do this as your grid is already shut down. 8/2: Poland makes an emergency deal with open to get oil. I will pay 105 percent of market value for a steady stre of oil. 8/3: Poland launches a new air assault, this time on the Swedish Navy. While casualties are high on both sides, I lost 40 fighters, Sweden lost 20 ships, it is an indecisive battle, but it alters the Swedish mindset for the war. Sweden is now on the defensive. 8/4: Poland offers a white price under threat of gas attack.
Baltic War Debate

I declare it unvoid. It is completely logical to be ablt to hit all fire stations in a twelve hour period. Thus without fire stations you would be vulnerable to the bat bomb. Just to remind you I am in the lead for fighter numbers due to my purchase. I hate my stupidity. Now I have to WMD thank you mod for catching that. July 21 code is whiped and rebult. Will finish in four days. Until then spotters are used. Your lack of knolegde is apperant. I you wete attacking a data base then what you did woukd have taken months to repair. July 22 All power stations are dark to the internet. Hacking is now impossible. Tigers are ppaced throughout every network. July 23 Sweden paus 10 million to Germany to allow planes to take off and land there. They attack military covoys of airplanes because you can't get out any other way. July 25 Sweden releses all of the Polish plotition's emails online and shuts down every power station. Cyber defenses are purchased from Russia for 10 million. July 26 All power goes down for Poland. July 27 Polish sub is finally caught and destroyed. July 28 The wreckage is placed in exhibits all over the country. All avilabe land forces are sent to the norwegian border and attack plames destroy all cargo planes spotted to prevent movement if troops. July 29 Poland runs out of oil. July 30 Assasins kill several high up muck mucks. August 1 20 tanks 5 attack helecopters 20 airplanes and 3 boats have been produced. AA defenses are everywhere in the cities. Walle goes up in combat mission boosting morale. He promises that poland will pay in blood for every swedish man woman or child killed by the barbarians. I am in the green and you can't get men out except by flying which is extremely risky.