BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States

My opponent assumes that mentally retarded people would always show poor judgment. In terms of driving, I can see that. They wouldn't be able to react to any danger in enough time. In voting, however, with two major political parties, they can only get it wrong half of the time. Most mentally retarded voters probably still support a political candidate. You can't count on them to make the right decision every time, but you can't count on them to always make the wrong decision, either. Additionally, what if some people decide that they want to have a platform of the desire to rid the population of all mentally retarded people? That was what Hitler did [1]. The mentally retarded people would need to vote against a president that hates them. It is for their safety that they must have voting rights. Therefore, because they need the right to protect themselves, and they would make the right decision more often than the wrong decision, the resolution is affirmed. Thank you. 1. http://www.traditionalvalues.org...
U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States

==DISCLAIMER== During this debate, I do not intend to offend mentally retarded/handicapped persons. I do not hate them in any way, I am simply expressing my voting views. Like my opponent's, my argument is a short one. In the United States, a person must reach the age of 18 before they are allowed to vote. This is an extremely important right that we as Americans hold. We do not hand it out freely, but cherish it dearly. (hey, I made a rhyme!) As my opponent has pointed out, you must be of eligible voting age before you are allowed to vote. Why is that you ask? We believe that youth under 18 show poor judgement. This is certainly not true in ALL cases, but it is by far the majority group. For the same reasons we do not allow youth under 15 or 16 (depending on your state) to drive a car, we do not allow children under 18 to vote. Because voting is so important to us, we want to make sure that it is not marred by a child's skewed view of society. Now we apply this to mentally retarded people voting. It is rather obvious that mentally retarded people show extremely poor judgement on quite a regular basis. Given this, what obligation do we have to them to allow them to participate in elections? As a child driving, or youth voting, mentally handicapped people consistently show poor judgement. We cannot allow our voting rights to be marred by illegitimate ballots. The resolution is negated. Thank you. www.sedbtac.org/ada/publications/legal/voting_rights_under_ADA_intellectual_psychiatric_disabilities.doc
U.S. mentally handicapped citizens should be able to vote for the President of the United States

The full resolution is as follows: United States citizens of eligible voting age with mental disabilities (mental retardation) ought to be allowed to vote for the President of the United States. I stand in negation. I will allow my opponent to open. If you accept this debate, you agree with the following definitions: President - the person who holds the office of head of state of the United States government Mental retardation - a generalized disorder, characterized by subaverage cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors with onset before the age of 18 Ought - used to indicate a duty or right Vote - elect, to express or signify will or choice in a matter, as by casting a ballot Good luck to my opponent. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Not everyone should be allowed to vote

Note: Im pretty new to this so I might make a mistake or two. . . First of all, Realize that the right to vote isn't a privilege that has to be obtained, It should be considered a fundamental human right. It's also a fundamental right as an American. Our government is 'by the people, For the people', Not 'for the people with political knowledge'. The UN's 21st right of a human being is the right to vote, And for good purpose. Many people don't have the ability to vote, Which is clearly not right. The second is that a couple of idiot's votes don't make an impact in the long run. For instance, The 1876 election, The closest election in US history, Still had a margin of about 200, 000 people. Even if a bunch of racist people who thinks a president won because of his hair color voted, It's not going to make a difference at all. Also, With the right people in power, Certain populations could be very easily restricted from voting. The idea of "informed voters" can be very subjective. In the past tests like this (in the United States), Were used to disqualify poor people and black people from being able to vote. Finally, It would just lead to more bias. The problem that you can never get past in this problem is this one: No one can be trusted to write the test. If Republicans are in power, They will write a test that favors Republican voters. This means that the Republicans have more power in the next election, So the people disenfranchised by this test can not lobby or demand a better, Less biased test (since they can not vote).
Not everyone should be allowed to vote

Looking at today's society we can see that a democratic country has several issues, One of those issues is that every citizen is allowed to vote provided that you are 18 years or older ( Some countries may differ ). Due to this any numskull person who meets these few requirements can vote, Despite that they might not know anything about politics. When this happens people will start voting for different reasons than what that political party actually stands for. Like skin color, Gender, If the party leader is good looking or not, You can go on and on. This is why every democratic country should limit people's voting rights, By adding more requirements to be eligible to vote. - A mandatory test, A basic unbiased test about politics and the current events that are happening in the country, To show that the person wanting to vote knows what is happening around them. If you should not pass this test, You won't be able to vote. The test can be taken every year and once passed should give you 10 years worth of voting. - Immigrants ( and child immigrants ) should not be allowed to vote until they have lived and worked in the country for at least 10 years, To make sure they have acclimated well into the host country's culture and begin to understand the country's way of handling politics, Immigrants are also required to pass the aforementioned test. - The eligible voting age should be lowered to 16 to encourage teenagers to get into politics early, They are still required to pass the aforementioned test. - Criminals should have their voting rights revoked depending on what crime he or she has committed. For minor offences a temporary ban and for major offences a permanent ban. This to discourage people to commit crimes.
The U.S Government should cease from pursuing the war on terror

"All costs aside we must continue the war on terror" My opponent has shown little regard for the cost of this ongoing solution and does not seem to take into account the massive costs incurred for maintaining such a global fight. Our debt is very problematic and growing constantly. We are cutting back in all areas and the War on Terror could be a place to cut deeply. Cost, though, is not the crux of my argument by any means. My opponent believes that the War on Terror equals protection. He seems to ignore the 9/11 Commission Report and heeds from the likes of Ron Paul that warn us of "blowback". To think Bin Laden and his ilk hate us because we are free or just western/secular, is to completely ignore his own words. In his own words from his Fatwa against the US in 1998, "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places" He goes onto to rail against the US's sanction against Iraq and our support for Israel.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

First of all forcing an animal to eat items that messes up the way their body works is sick. Forcefully producing offspring that are so deformed to the extent that they lack basic needed body parts is animal crulty. It's wonderful to hear that your friends, dad is not following out this system and that he take care of the animals he has been blessed with. But I want to ask you a question. Does this man produce chicken for a big company. Is his farm one of the places that give majority of the animals that we find in our local stores. The answer is more than likely.. No. The reason why I asked this is small farms like that don't affect what the public eat to a large extent. The people that follow out this form of animal crulty is those that work on large farms with hundreds and thousands of workers that work long hours each day. It's the company's that then give there produce to other company's and eventually end up on our dinner plates. It's these people that don't have time to wait for the chicken to live a long and happy life. It's these people that need the chicken to be bing NOW. It's these people that pump chemicals etc. into the animal. And this does not only happen to chickens it could also be done to any of place that we get our meat from for example, a cow or an ostrich. The point that I want to get to is that these people produce the food we end up with, unless we are rich and can spend money on organic food. The two problems here is A) we end up eating food that is poisonous to a certain extent B) the way we get our food is through animal crulty As I have said before. This is a privilege. We abused it. So it's time to live without it. To respond to what you said about the fish. Well if we follow this system out (making everyone a vegeterian)we will not offer fish as food just like how we don't offer dog as food. Just a note on the side line: thanks for debating with me. You have helped me to a great extent.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

Well, even though it IS minimal, at least it's something. One of my friends' parents own a farm, and they always wait until the animals die. Yes, they have to wait a long time, but they feel that they should. You do have a point with some of the other sources of protein there, so I won't argue with that. There is, however, another point I'd like to bring up. You don't think we should eat animals such as chicken. But what about fish? They are animals who's life is cut short for our food, yet vegetarians are still willing to eat them. I don't really agree with it being called animal cruelty. They are killed quickly and painlessly, so it can't really be cruelty. Cruelty is when the animals are tortured and in pain, or not being fed. The animals are fed, because otherwise there wouldn't be enough meat on them.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

That isn't actually true. The amount of farms that actually allow the animal to live out its full life is very minimal. Why do you think organic meat is so much more expensive than "normal" meat. When I say normal I mean the meat that is full of steroids, and chemicals. And if we are debating on which one have the most feeling. It's safe to say that animals much more than plants. If people wanted to have their portion of meat they could eat soya food, and other sources of protein such as nuts etc. it's a matter of privilege. We once had the privilege to eat meat, but because we abused that privilege by using animal cruelty to get our food as quick as we want it. We should have that privilege taken away from us. Yes meat tastes nice, but it is a privilege that we do not deserve due to past actions.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

If the chickens have been built like that, the chances are that they are not self-aware. If they are, as you said, built so much out of chemicals they don't have a head, that means they have no head to have a brain. Without a brain they cannot think, nor be aware of what it happening to them. Many farms don't actually kill the animals; they wait until they die of natural causes. That way the animals get to live a full life, instead of being killed earlier for food.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

But because of everyone that eats meat there is a huge effect on the animals. Not only are they killed but also for e.g. Chickens are fed steroids and other harmful chemicals in order for them to grow fast enough to sustain our wants. There are some chickens who are built so much out of chemicals that they don't even have heads yet can produce eggs. This isn't natural. Animals are being harms because of our selfishness. Therefore by making everyone vegetarian we will stop this cruelty to animals.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

I don't think everyone should HAVE to become one; everyone should have say in what they eat or not. 5 Reasons Why They Shouldn't: 1. Humans have been eating meat for millions of years and it is an essential part of our evolution. 2. Vegetarian diets can cause the death of animals (such as birds, mice, and rabbits) that live in agricultural crop fields are killed during harvest. 3. Meat is the most convenient source of protein. 4. Research has shown that many plants feel fear. 5. A meat-centred diet can help with weight loss. It takes fewer calories to get protein from lean meat than it does from vegetarian options.
Everyone should become a vegetarian

You're right, they don't provide most of the meat for the public. It is a very minimal amount. They have quite a small farm with not a lot of workers, so it does make sense, the part about it not being eaten by many people. I do agree with it being sick and inhumane for them to pump chemicals into the animals; in fact, I wish there was some kind of law passed that makes it illegal to do that. The thing is, there isn't one. I don't see why they even do that, and I completely agree with you that they shouldn't. I'm completely at loss as to what to say for the rest, as you've been a brilliant debater with brilliant arguments and you've made me agree with lots of things I didn't before. I have a feeling you might win this.
I will NOT contradict myself.

In response to my argument my opponent has merely pointed out the hypothetical 'if' statement in the beginning of the sentence to try and help synthesise the contradictory statement which he made. My opponent has failed to realise that hypothetical statements are subject to the laws of logic, as is all philosophy. For, the laws of logic render a hypothesis, e. g. , Kohai's contradictory statement, tenable or untenable. Kohai has stated, "If I were to contradict myself even one time without a logical explanation, then you are all to vote for my opponent. "I will repeat myself: The statement quoted above is, in principle, self-referentially false. For my opponent is suggesting that a contradictory statement, which is inescapably false in essence, can be logically modified to make sense—contradictory statements are necessarily false. Undeniably, my opponent has stated that a logical explanation can amend a logical contradiction. This line of reasoning is untenable and contradictory.
I will NOT contradict myself.

Aren't you a sneaky character. Undeniably, my opponent has stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation. Actually, I stated If "I were to contradict myself even one time without a logical explanation, then you are all to vote for my opponent. "My opponent has taken this out of context to suggest that I stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation. Well, my opponent, according to his profile, is Christian. Therefore, he most likely believes the Bible. I can go through a bunch of "Contradictions" and he can easily just explain them--as many debates on debate. org are doing. And that is what I'll be doing in this debate--Clearing up the "Contradictions. This line of reasoning is, in principle, self-referentially false—contradictory statements are necessarily false in essence and, therefore, incapable of logical modification. See post aboveThere are no contradictions.
I will NOT contradict myself.

It is essential that the audience take into consideration the underlying contradiction found within the very guidelines of this debate. Undeniably, my opponent has stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation. This line of reasoning is, in principle, self-referentially false—contradictory statements are necessarily false in essence and, therefore, incapable of logical modification. A contradiction can be explained formally as the irreconcilability amid two or more propositions. Indeed, a contradiction is logically unavoidable, e. g. , the two propositions “X is Y" and "Y is not X" are mutually exclusive. Therefore, Kohai's line of reasoning, i. e. , contradictory statements which are necessarily false can also be proven as true, participates in committing a logical incompatibility. Kohai has affirmed that a statement can be both logically contradictory, yet amendable—this statement violates the principle of contradiction, thus, Kohai has lost the debate.
I will NOT contradict myself.

Kohai, you are a worthy opponent and I very much enjoyed this debate. Let's bring back the threads of this debate,'1) I did not contradict myself'My opponent stated that a logical contradiction can be amended by a logical explanation. Indeed, my opponent has declared that a necessarily false statement can be synthesised—contradictory statements are inevitably false. My opponent has contradicted himself. Undeniably, my opponent never synthesised the contradictory statement he made. My opponent merely participated in committing a logical non-sequitur—a conclusion of irrelevance. Please remember what I said: A human beings desire for water is arbitrated by the individual, relative to the consistency of their dietary intake—the laws of logic apply universally. Thus, the comparison made by my opponent is, in context, unparalleled. In other words: Kohai has stated that he is thirsty and not thirsty at once.
I will NOT contradict myself.

My opponents response is absolutely incomparable to the contradiction which he unambiguously presented in the guidelines of the opening round. For example, merely asking whether or not you're feeling or needing water at two separate times while responding with either a "yes" or "no" at two seperate times does not amend the contradiction I pointed out earlier. Thirst is not necessarily or unavoidably applicable at all times while a contradictory statement is necessarily applicable at all times and, therefore, logically irreconcilable. A human beings desire for water is arbitrated by the individual, relative to the consistency of their dietary intake—the laws of logic apply universally. Thus, the comparison made by my opponent is, in context, unparalleled. In other words: Kohai has stated that he is thirsty and not thirsty at once. Here are two questions,1. Do you believe materialism is the only source of truth?2. Do you believe all truth can be revealed by empiricism?
I will NOT contradict myself.

You are sneaky and a worthy opponent. I think the best way to clear this whole thing up is as followsIn my guidelines, you (the voters) will vote for my opponent if I contradict myself and I can't prove that it is not. My opponent says that is impossible. Let me give you an example of how that is possible.1) My opponent in round 1 asks me "Are you thirsty? " I reply no.2) my opponent in round 2 asks me the same question, but I answer yesWithout a second look, it appears I have contradicted myself from the previous round. However, one can clear it up by the simple fact that it was asked at a different time. Therefore, I can not be thirsty the first time he asks, but am the second time. That is what I was saying in the terms of agreement. No contradiction there.
chicken or egg came first- the egg

answer: the egg. the lithmus test for whether the chicken or egg came first, should be a defined list of DNA being met. science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two chicken legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it? the only way is to make a criteria in DNA and stick to it. we run into a problem similar to someone trying to sell something. a man wants to sell his 57 chevy for ten thousand. would be take a penny less? sure. two pennies? you see where i'm going with this. the man must set a limit. 9500 and not a penny less? so someone were to offer him a penny less and he doesn't take it, is it really a firm limit? in practice, the man might take it, but we all know a point must be drawn. in practice, scientists might take less than a nucleotide or piece of DNA, but a point must be drawn. what constitutes a chicken then will have a firm limit. in the line of chicken like animals before a chicken, there will be close calls no doubt. but it will be one animal that will evetually fill the criteria, meet the DNA match's minimum. and that animal will be first an egg, which hatches into the chicken that meets the match. practically, the parents of the chicken might be called chickens in everyday use, but a line indeed must be drawn, so they technically are not chickens.
chicken or egg came first- the egg

wow. just wow. due to con's inability to just get to it already, and ignoring the opening arguments not just once, which could plausibly be excusable, but twice, which is in no way excusable, i can see this isn't going to lead anywhere productive. please read the first post by me for opening arguments. given con hasn't addressed anything, there will be no chance for me to respond. but, it's self evidently true my arguments, con can only add semantics or just argue that my approach is not optimal. seems pretty optimal to me, though. a line has to be drawn somehow, somewhere. and it's the least arbitary most scientific way, the way i described. leaving there to be no other way but an egg that hatches into the first chicken.
The existence of god

A term cannot be ambiguous if I clearly define how it is being used in my argument (meaning it can't have any other meaning in my argument except for the definition I gave to it). Your Reverse argument of my own is not logically coherent because if we define God as a necessary entity (which I have proved over and over that he is) than it is impossible for him not to exist. Me proving that it is impossible for God not to exist is proving that all my premises are true. I have already disproved why your 5 points don't work. I suggest you look at my definition of God again. I would suggest you watch this video of the Argument being drawn out more. http://www.youtube.com... Well if you can't prove that God does not exist then you've forfeited this debate being that that is what "Con" is supposed to be doing. Also, the truth of God being a MGB isn't based upon the premises but based upon the definition of God itself. About the debate on Religion and Suffering: I have read your response and watched that video and I do have a rebuttal for it but I think there is already enough for people to think about on this page. Also this page was created for the debate "The Existence of God" and not for "Religion Causes Suffering" and I would like to keep this debate on topic. Perhaps after this debate you could challenge me with a debate specifically on religion causing suffering. I am more than willing to debate that topic more thoroughly. Finally, thank you for clarifying yourself. I was detecting some frustration in your last post. No worries. Thank you. I look forward to your rebuttal.