BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

I think we're envisioning this situation differently. The way I see it, a new state has just been created in some part of America. It has a bunch of residences and buildings available for rent, for all sorts of purposes. The thing is, only liberals are allowed to move there. The state is currently empty. Now, I think about who might move there. The town would most likely be populated by young graduates of liberal arts schools who are currently unemployed, have a bit of money, and are looking to settle down. Knowing that a Liberals-only state has just opened up, they would undoubtedly flock there. Soon, you'll have a steady population of 20-30 year old liberals who are living in this liberal state and commuting to the outskirts of other states in order to work. What follows next are business-minded folk who have some ideas on how to capitalize off of this venture. Opening up coffee shops, clothing stores, night clubs, etc. to provide services to this community of liberals. The shops are of course, extremely successful and attract liberals from nearby to start living in that state. Businesses start to grow and the liberals find work closer to home and stop commuting. What type of production would happen here? Mostly artwork, music, poetry, books etc. I suspect interior design and fashion design to be big. Anything and everything involving creativity. Soon, as this small state starts to become a center for night-life, it will become a major stop for teens on spring break. When it becomes totally established, this area will essentially become another Paris. Tourism will then be a huge business.
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

Thanks Kleptin. Our first debate. We'll see how this goes. "When I first started reading what you described, I didn't imagine a normal population of liberals. I imagined a state full of hipsters, artists, and musicians." Age, lifestyle choices and personal interests would have very little to do with the hypothetical outcome I predicted in my opening argument. Liberals vary greatly in their education levels, interests, ages, etc. What they do not disagree on is abundant taxation, wealth distribution and legislated altruism in the form government services and entitlements. "Older liberals probably wouldn't move." Not sure if you meant TO or FROM the state. But again, age would have very little to do with it. The likelihood of financial survival would eclipse all other determinants in the decision to move to or from such a state. "...an entire state filled with liberals would be most enticing to groups like that and the state would eventually be quite popular." The idea of such a state would definitely be enticing. But in practice an overly generous state full of slackers would end in the scenario I described earlier. Once the welcomed parasites became too numerous and costly, the once-willing hosts would flee to avoid being devoured. Without the host, there is no nourishment. I honestly believe FEMA would eventually have to come in with food drops to save the libs from starvation. How enticing would that type of state really be? "Interstate commerce would solve the rest of the problems you stated." A state without revenue, industry or productive citizens would not be able to participate in much commerce, interstate or otherwise.
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

I disagree. When I first started reading what you described, I didn't imagine a normal population of liberals. I imagined a state full of hipsters, artists, and musicians. The liberals who flock there probably wouldn't be normal people that can be distinguished just by social class. Rather, they would be predominantly political-minded people, or pseudo politically-minded people like recent college graduates. Older liberals probably wouldn't move. Undoubtedly, an entire state filled with liberals would be most enticing to groups like that and the state would eventually be quite popular. Interstate commerce would solve the rest of the problems you stated.
If liberals had their own U.S. state most Americans would not want to live there.

Supposing the federal government were stripped to a minimum and liberals had their own state (where they could impose their policies without constraint), I submit that most Americans would not want to live there. For the purposes of this debate let us assume said liberal state must compete with other non-liberal states in the union for population. Let us also assume there are no barriers to migration between states. Firstly, liberals are nearly unanimous in their willingness to tax America's most productive citizens (i.e. the wealthy) to finance programs they want to provide to the rest of society. With this, it is safe to say that wealthy Americans would be wise to flea such a state or avoid seeking residency there in the first place. Secondly, a state founded in unbridled liberalism would most certainly offer an abundance of attractive social programs to its citizens. Hence, it is likely that the least productive citizens from other states (which did not reward lack of productivity) would flock there in pursuit of these generous handouts. The added population on the part of generosity seekers would surely cause the state require any remaining wealthy citizens to pay even higher taxes, all the while creating a larger voting block of unproductive citizens who would rally in support of more social programs. Once the wealthy citizens (including wealthy liberals) realized they had no choice but to leave the state to avoid financial ruin, the remaining middle and working-class families would be left to pay for an entire state of dependents. It wouldn't be long before they too opted to abandoned this socialist utopia in favor of a state that allowed them more control over their earnings (i.e. their time, i.e. their lives).
Users should be allowed to advertise on debate.org

Most sites nowadays need to make money in some form of way. Some require subscriptions in order to look at content, but most sites nowadays use advertising to make money. It's the people's decision if they want to click on the site or not. Do I think it should be free, no but people should know whether or not to click on the link. As for the people putting up the links it shouldn't be allowed. There is no reason to put a link in. Since that is almost impossible to monitor, the next best thing is to just ignore them. If everyone just ignored them then the scammers wouldn't even bother
Users should be allowed to advertise on debate.org

I thank Jacobl81 for accepting. Also, welcome to debate.org. In my opinion, I'm taking a tough side to this, but I'll try my best.Arguments:Point 1; The site isn't for advertisingPeople might try to advertise their produtcs by creating an account, and making a debate or forum topic. But the thing is, this is debate.org, a place for discussing your views on topics such as politics and religion. When making an account, you're choosing a debating life style, not an advertising one. Advertising about some book or spell is inappropriate usage of the site.Point 2; Possible CrimesIt is possible to find a person's information by pretending to be an online sales person. Think about it; how do you place a package in front of your customer's door? By finding out their location. When someone sees the post about this cool Spell Book and wants it, they'l attempt to order it. Most people use credit cards to purchase stuff, and a skilled person could gain enough information about the credit card to impersonate said customer, and Identity Theft would happen (I'm not sure what these guys do. I guess order expensive things using other people's money?).But what if the 'seller' isn't into ID Theft? To buy the Spell Book, you'd also have to give your home address. When the false sales person arrives, he could possibly kidnap you and/or steal all of your money.To avoid these heinous crimes in the first place, let's just forbid any users advertising in the first place. You can't trust random Purple Circles advertising magic, can you?Sorry I brought out my best. It's difficult going easy sometimes. I hope you can somehow take out my points.
Users should be allowed to advertise on debate.org

Occasionally, I see people making debates that advertise some product, usually magic. But, aside from any scams, is it a good idea to let users advertise products?Definitions:User; A person with a profile on debate.orgAdvertise; To bring acknowledgement to a productDebate.org; Also called DDO, this is the website we're on.Rules:1) If you disagree with my definitions, let me know in the comment section before accepting, and give me your preferred definition, and I might change it.2) Not sure what kritiks or semantics could come from this debate, but they're forbidden. If I catch any form of trolling, I will call you out. Ultimately, though, it's the voter's decision whether you're trolling or not.3) Try not to forfeit. Doing so will count as an instant loss.4) We're not talking about the adverts on the sides on most pages on DDO. We're talking about users making debates or forum topics saying something along the lines of "Buy my thing". Trying to argue that the adverts on the pages should be here, is changing the subject and irrelevant (I hope you understand this rule.). Basically, the adverts on the sides of pages on DDO don't count.With that, who accepts?
Users should be allowed to advertise on debate.org

True. Ultimately, it's the customer's decision to buy that spell book. But there may be at least 1 idiot who wants the product, so they'll contact the seller, not necessarily by a link. After the 'seller' arrives, he steals the customer's money or steals the actual customer. And you dropped my point about the fact that the site isn't meant for advertising products. Sure, they need to make money. But not here, since this is a debate site, not an advertising site.
should halo be bumped down on the rating system from M to T

"But my entire point is that so many people under 15 play halo that ESRB should lower the rating because it doesn't matter if it is M"- As I pointed out before, the rating used for target marketing. Children under 15 aren't restricted to playing Halo or any other games, it's just not entirely intended for them. Also, parents may care for what thier child is playing, and you're saying that it doesn't matter what the rating of a particular game is because 'so many' people play it, but it may be a concern for parents because of influences or suggestive themes. That's another reason why appropriate ratings are important, and in the case of Halo as you mentioned above, it has a degree of blood and violence. In the point of the game you're mentioning, the traits might be restricted down enough to fall in the rating T, so as to target young gamers, but it still doesn't relate to why Halo should be rated lower.
should halo be bumped down on the rating system from M to T

As implied before, the target market is those aged 15 and above meaning that it is intentional but not necessary. The point of ratings is to set it in a generalised age group of what the producers think would be appropriate. I'm not saying children can't play, but the generalised idea of children under 15 is that violence, blood/gore and guns are still inappropriate to them, despite if a child has completed the game or not." I've also played a game with more swearing and mature situations that was teen."- You need to back up that idea with evidence, but all I can say is that there may be other suggestive themes in Halo that put it in M15.
should halo be bumped down on the rating system from M to T

Firstly, although all the Halo games have little or no sexual references or drugs, the main focus of rating it M15 is an intention that so Xbox players can choose something that's mature and challenging and within their gaming level (e. g. violence, sci fi, etc. .. ). This rating is not entirely based on how much gore or blood there is, but is in fact what it should be played by for the experience. The concept of the Halo series is a hard one to grasp and requires a decent level of understanding, so as to be safe they have to rate it M15. Secondly, even though there is less swearing, blood violence and other aspects compared to Call of Duty, it still falls under the category of mature audiences regardless of how much there is.
It is not unreasonable for a Libertarian to support Barack Obama.

>>> While Obama may support some things that the LP, or Libertarians support he also strives to go exactly against Libertarianism in several respects. +++ I said it is not unreasonable to support him as a Libertarian. He goes against Libertarianism in very few aspects but nobody can be satisfied with a candidate 100%. That is unreasonable to expect. >>> He wishes to, to some extent, socialize the health care system. +++ He does not. Libertarians oppose the government paying for people's health costs. This is because the government fails at most things. And competition is best for any market. Obama's plan pays for health care, not for health services. This has competition and the company itself runs the system, not the failing government. >>> With these socialist policies, he will set America further back rather than going forward in the name of Liberty. +++ You did not mention any socialist policies. And that, if true, is irrelevant to debate.
It is not unreasonable for a Libertarian to support Barack Obama.

I skip rounds all the time. Sometimes you have other things to attend to. I'll repost. More specifically, Libertarianism is the freedom to do as you will as long as it does not harm anybody else. This includes fiscal conservativeness while maintaining liberal social views. Of course, Barack Obama has views that differ from Libertarianism but he is a candidate who is good with Libertarian issues and can win. As Libertarians we often have to choose between voting for a candidate we agree with more or voting for a candidate who can win and has a large amount of acceptable views. Barack Obama is such a candidate. I am also arguing that is unwise for a Libertarian to vote for a candidate who cannot win even if they have many Libertarian views. - Obama supports the ending of No Child Left Behind, which will lesser the government and imporove education. - Obama supports civil rights for all people like Libertarians. - Obama supports lower taxes for the middle class like Libertarians. - Obama wants to crack down on mortgage fraud. Libertarians are huge on crime, especially fraud. - Libertarians are huge on the environment, like Obama. - Obama wants to reward good teachers. Libertarians support punishing bad schools and rewarding good ones. - Obama is huge on all faiths equal in government, like Libertarians. - Obama wants to make the tax stystem more efficient like Libertarians. - Obama supports wants fiscal discipline. - Obama supports meeting with other countries. - Obama supports less government intervention in foreign affairs, which the Libertarian Party is huge on. - Obama wants to create a border fence. - Obama supports government integrity with veterans. - Obama wants to liighten up on censorship as much as possible. There are some things that Obama lacks on with Libertarians. Those include: gun control, social security and seemingly health care. - He is completely devoid of Libertarianism on gun control. He supports it but this is an example of nobody agreeing 100% of any candidate. - He wants to protect social security instead of privatizing it. Shame, shame. - His health care plan, however, is essentially, magic. It supports all Americans but simultaneously allow competition by allowing Americans to choose from over 200 countries. Libertarians support tax breaks so that competition will be allowed and encouraged but Obama appeases Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians who actualy look into his specific health care plan. I think Obama has some non Libertarianistic views but he has a lot of Libertarian views and I am confident in supporting him as a Libertarian. Thank you.
It is not unreasonable for a Libertarian to support Barack Obama.

More specifically, Libertarianism is the freedom to do as you will as long as it does not harm anybody else. This includes fiscal conservativeness while maintaining liberal social views. Of course, Barack Obama has views that differ from Libertarianism but he is a candidate who is good with Libertarian issues and can win. As Libertarians we often have to choose between voting for a candidate we agree with more or voting for a candidate who can win and has a large amount of acceptable views. Barack Obama is such a candidate. I am also arguing that is unwise for a Libertarian to vote for a candidate who cannot win even if they have many Libertarian views. - Obama supports the ending of No Child Left Behind, which will lesser the government and imporove education. - Obama supports civil rights for all people like Libertarians. - Obama supports lower taxes for the middle class like Libertarians. - Obama wants to crack down on mortgage fraud. Libertarians are huge on crime, especially fraud. - Libertarians are huge on the environment, like Obama. - Obama wants to reward good teachers. Libertarians support punishing bad schools and rewarding good ones. - Obama is huge on all faiths equal in government, like Libertarians. - Obama wants to make the tax stystem more efficient like Libertarians. - Obama supports wants fiscal discipline. - Obama supports meeting with other countries. - Obama supports less government intervention in foreign affairs, which the Libertarian Party is huge on. - Obama wants to create a border fence. - Obama supports government integrity with veterans. - Obama wants to liighten up on censorship as much as possible. There are some things that Obama lacks on with Libertarians. Those include: gun control, social security and seemingly health care. - He is completely devoid of Libertarianism on gun control. He supports it but this is an example of nobody agreeing 100% of any candidate. - He wants to protect social security instead of privatizing it. Shame, shame. - His health care plan, however, is essentially, magic. It supports all Americans but simultaneously allow competition by allowing Americans to choose from over 200 countries. Libertarians support tax breaks so that competition will be allowed and encouraged but Obama appeases Liberals, Conservatives, and Libertarians who actualy look into his specific health care plan. I think Obama has some non Libertarianistic views but he has a lot of Libertarian views and I am confident in supporting him as a Libertarian. Thank you.
Res: The US should approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Round Rules 1. All DDO civility rules apply. 2. Hyperlinks to all sources must be made available to the opponent at the end of a speech. In-text citations are encouraged. 3. Round 1 is only for acceptance of the rules and definition of terms. Opening arguments should NOT be presented. 4. Round 2 is for establishing cases. Side Con may rebut Side Pro if he/she has enough characters, but must establish a case of his/her own prior. 5. Round 3 is for clash/rebuttals and rebuilding previous points. 6. In Round 4, the sides are encouraged to crystallize the points of the round into clear reasons why one side or the other won. New arguments are not permitted unless direct responses to points brought up in Round 3. New sources are NOT allowed. However, common knowledge is permissible (i.e. "The Hawley-Smoot Tariff was a bad idea" not "In 2010, 9,251 farms in the US used 1-9 organic acres for crop growth"). 7. Wikipedia is NOT a source. You may use the links from the Wikipedia page, but Wikipedia is not acceptable. 8. All speeches must be posted within 48 hours. Voter Rules: 1. An RFD must be given. 2. Do not use outside sources or information in making your decision. Judge purely on the arguments made during the round. 3. Replace the category "Who had better spelling and grammar" with "Who had better organization and speech structure." 4. Read the entire debate before voting. I know I set up many rules, but I would like a nice, clean round with an opponent ready to debate this topic.
Respect Rap battle!!!

I forfeited, you were impressed,You said 'wow', didn't get over-stressed,You passsed my test,You are the best,You're superior, sir, to all the rest,You have no mercy, you have no need to feel shame,You are the most prestine machine around, mister perfection's your nickname,You are supreme,High-esteemed,Like the king with a fine-a** queen,You are the best one ever, only aged fifteen.
Selfies are used in more creative ways than narcissistic looks at your own face.

OK, selfies are used for many good reasons, like you mentioned. However, they are commonly known as just a weird picture you take of yourself. There are many great reasons to take a selfie, they are just not commonly known. Every time I have seen someone take a selfie for a good reason, they have shouted "selfie!" just to make fun of it. When someone takes numberous pictures of themself for no good reason, they say "selfie" as an actual word.
Selfies are used in more creative ways than narcissistic looks at your own face.

I concede the topic about duck face, as it's the most overdone expression in the history of social networking and it looks ridiculous. However, we're not talking about JUST the duck face, we're talking about selfies in general. Selfies are an artistic glance into what a person is experiencing from your point of view. How could you ever hate on a selfie! Example: Your friend - I just got three happy meals from McDonalds and I'm going to eat it all right here in one sitting! You - No way, pics or I won't believe you! Your friend - +14;(ಠ益ಠ+14;) _.-", ,' .'. , `. . "-._ .'. ` . , ` . ' ' `. .`___________________'. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ `""""""""""""""""""""""' `_________________' Selfies are a way of life.
Selfies are used in more creative ways than narcissistic looks at your own face.

There are people who take pictures of themselves for real reasons, like you mentioned. However, there are too many duck faces, mirror selfies, and photos of people with their pets. It is getting ridiculous. And honestly, who needs to see your living room, children, and vehicles? I understand sending a photo of these to a relative or friend, but posting them in social media is obnoxious. Showing off your car is not going to help anyone.
Selfies are used in more creative ways than narcissistic looks at your own face.

That's not true at all! You're saying that the only reason to take a 'selfie' pic of yourself is JUST to be narcissistic, but if I was asked by my grandmother to take a picture of myself in front of a McDonalds I'm doing so to inform her that I'm alive and well! That's not narcissistic, that's showing someone an image of myself. Alive and well... at least before eating the McDonalds. Besides, I think we could actually use a few MORE people doing selfies of themselves showing off things like their living rooms, their children, their dinners and even their vehicles. If you don't see their face plastered on the pic of their things, how do you really know if it's theirs to begin with?
Selfies are used in more creative ways than narcissistic looks at your own face.

Many people who take selfies are just taking them for a profile picture, or just to see how they look. Almost everyone else who takes them does it for a narcissistic reason, like to show off their face to twitter. There are a smaller ammount of people who take them to be artistic, but isn't this still narcissistic if they post it all over social media? Selfies are taken for narcissistic reasons.