BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Super Delegates

Thank you for this chance to debate. I'm sorry that I didn't give you more, but I feel that these are the true reasons for super delegates. A "super-delegate" is a delegate that the party decides to send to the convention. Both parties have them, but only the Democratic party delegates have any power on the first ballot. They are known as unpledged delegates. It is the existence of these unpledged delegates that I will be debating in favor of, both for the Democratic part and the Republican party. Now, I assume that you are against the superdelegates because they are Unelected, Unaccountable, and Undemocratic. First, they are elected officials. Either directly, through people such as senators and governers, or indirectly, by being elected by these very same people. So they are both elected, either directly, or through a more delegated way, and they are accountable. If you don't like who they've nominated, go ahead and bring them down by voting for the other party. And the idea that nomination processes are democratic is wrong. It is ironic, but still true that the democratic party isn't set up as a democracy, but rather a republic. Now as to the purpose of a party. A parties goal isn't to listen to the will of the people. The party serves to get people elected, and to get to the point where they control the government, and can advance an agenda. That is it. The party is there to get people elected. And politicians play the game and work to get people elected. The nomination process is more a poll than an election. It simply shows the politicians which candidate can inspire people, and which can win an election. So super delegates are merely the way in which the party officials temper the views of the people, and get electable people elected.
Super Delegates

First, my point was that simple math has nothing to do with ethics. Everyone already knows that super delegates shape the nomination. That isn't up for dispute. They shape the nomination just like other delegates. The only difference is that they are elected to serve as representatives in the government and delegates in the nomination process, instead of just the latter. On your next point, the delegates are going to be biased. They want the person who will help them get elected. If they have other biases, that's no different than elected delegates. After certain rounds, most delegates are free. What's the difference between electing a Hillary Clinton like senator and a Hillary Clinton supporting delegate? It may not be very realistic, but you still have a choice in who you support. Now, a little side note about the bias against Bernie Sanders. I would be biased as well if he actually didn't call himself a Democrat officially until 2015. So, one of the basic points of this debate revolves around the definition of a political party. As I've said, a political party exist to get people elected, and to stop opposing parties from getting elected. While there are other ways to do this, a system with super delegates works well to accomplish that goal. Now, as far as your comment about holding voters hands, no one is making you vote for the nominee. If you want, you can vote for whomever you want, or you can not vote at all. What the party does is its own business. If you want to be a part of it, that is your choice. The party picks the candidates that most align with their goals and gets them elected. It isn't a party based on you. Now, why should the political party be beholden to the constitution? You never explained that. Besides, if for example, Bernie Sanders doesn't win the nomination, he could always run third party. The Democratic Party may not nominate him, but that doesn't limit anyone's right to vote. So, in the end, you will see that I have answered the question concerning super delegates while rebutting all of my opponents points. Thank you again for the chance to debate this with you.
Super Delegates

Here's my defense against my opponent's rebuttal.In my argument using the simple math, I compared the race between Clinton and Sanders not including super delegates. I didn't say that they would simply go away, I was just pointing out how close the race is between them when super delegates aren't put in the mix. It's much tighter race when compared to the rivalry between Trump and Cruz. [1] The point is, the super delegates' votes are very influential when it comes to the elections."They control about 15 percent of the nominating process. The remaining 85 percent is controlled by delegates apportioned by the results of primaries and caucuses." [2] In my opponent's argument, they say that the super delegates aren't lead by the will of the people, but they tend to back the person nominated by the party base. Can't this be seen as a bias and a crutch against the other nominees? This is true towards Bernie Sanders, as he could theoretically take a lead if it weren't for this bias, assuming Hillary Clinton is the party base. Then, my opponent goes on to argue that they need super delegates to draw in New voters and keep the old. Apparently, this is why party officials back someone elected by the party. Voters can decide who to vote for on their own, if given accurate information about each potential candidate. We don't really need to hold voters' hands and hand pick candidates for them. There are other ways to advance an agenda rather than super delegates, like actual education regarding the conflicting views of candidates rather than the elections being a popularity contest. Concerning my opponent's final rebuttal, the 14th amendment specifically states this. "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state." [3] This greatly restricts the ability to elect the president of the United States, as a president is popularly elected by the people, not by the party officials. They don't represent the views of the people and who they want to be elected. In fact, now because of super delegates, it's mathematically impossible for Sanders to win unless he wins every single unpledged super delegate. [4] This is all because of the super delegates biased towards Clinton. Thank you. I look forward to your opening statements.Citations[1]http://www.vox.com...[2]http://theweek.com...[3]https://www.law.cornell.edu...[4]http://www.politico.com...
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

I don't know what you mean by "do your worst". First round was for acceptance only, not for smart alack remarks. Please try to focus on the debate. I don't want you to lose conduct points. For the benefit of the commenters like AlternativeDavid and Aerogant who think Pascal's Wager is unfair or that it is impossible for Christians to win, I have to say I agree with them on these points. Nobody can win in Pascal's Wager, but that is not the topic of this debate. This debate is about the fact that an atheist cannot win in Pascal's Wager because Pascal's Wager implies it is best to live your life as though it is possible God is there. Atheism asserts that there is no God. I would like to see how my opponent thinks it is possible for an atheist to win in Pascal's Wager> When an atheist believes there is no God therefore they have negated Pascal's Wager before they can play it. For the commenter who seem to be proud of the fact that the dice in Pascal's Wager are loaded and even Christians cannot win, I want to refer them to my previous debate on this topic: nobody can win in Pascal's Wager. . http://www.debate.org...
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

Rules: (I like fair rules) For this debate, "atheist" is defined as a person who believes there is no God.My opponent agrees to accept this definition without broadening the definition and without questioning the definition. The agreed upon definition of "atheism" for this debate is the intellectual and/or religious belief system which concludes that there is no God. My opponent agrees to accept this definition without broadening the definition and without questioning the definition.Pascal's Wager is summarized as :"It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)" (thank you Dairy Girl for posting this in the comments of a previous similar debate). This summary is agreed to by my opponent as an accurate explanation of Pascal's Wager.The agreed definition of "win" is the opposite of "lose". Neither "win" or "lose" need any further explanation in this debate.THESE RULES ARE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD AND CONSIDERED FAIR FOR THIS DEBATEFIRST ROUND IS FOR ACCEPTANCE ONLY.BY ACCEPTING, MY OPPONENT AGREES TO ABIDE BY THE RULES AND TERMS ABOVE.
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

"If you think you can gain entrance to heaven by claiming to have no sin by not believing in God, go ahead and do your worst. If it makes you feel better, do your best. It won't get you out of death. Nobody can win in Pascal's Wager because nothing you can do can make God owe you anything. Betting with God is a losing game from the start. By saying there is no God, you negate any possibility other than death. An atheist only assures that they lose everything they play with in death. The Wager is not over until death is finalized, and the atheist then loses everything."No matter what the atheist does, he loses everything in death."This was opponent's only attempt at refutation to the listed four ways an atheist may win Pascal's wager. He answered none of them. He made unsupported assertions about the nature of God. Again, assertions are not arguments. My opponents entire final round was some type of sermon, and not a very good one. My opponent's final posting was entirely irrelevant and insulting.My opponent used his final opportunity to again make an unfounded allegation of plagiarism. It is below human decency to continue to make such unsupported allegations and my opponent should be ashamed of himself.My opponent asserted, as many on this site have, that nobody can win Pascal's wager. However, besides making the assertion, he has failed to argue that in this debate.
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

Maybe a beer will help you quit whining, but I don't recommend it. What you need is to be saved from Hell. You need to admit that you deserve to die for your sins, believe God loved you so much that He took your punishment on Himself as the Son of God, Jesus Christ, and that He conquered death by His resurrection, and call on God in His name to save you from the fire of Hell and deliver you from your feelings of needing a beer. If you will agree with God on these terms and ask Him to save you in Jesus' name, He will hear you and save you and Jesus Christ Himself will come in to you and share the bread of life with you and be in you a wellspring of living waters flowing to eternal life. You will have eternal life, this is the promise of God, the gospel, the good news from God that you can be saved from Hell and live forever.Pascal's Wager cannot be won by an atheist or anybody else, no matter what they believe or how they act. it's a total loss from the start because it offers no way for sin to be paid for. Your sin separates you from God and you pay for it in death. If you believe on Jesus, He took your death and paid for your sins, and God will forgive you based on His payment andl give you eternal life and He will give you a lively hope that is better than a beer bender. Eternal life is a gift that cannot be won in any wager and cannot be earned by any endeavors.It's not only the atheist who cannot win in Pascal's Wager. Nobody can win. The Atheist assures his total loss of everything he has in death. If you think you can win in any of the four apparently plagarized points you have used (I still say it looks plagarized because the spelling and puntuation in those four points is perfect while in your personal writings, there are repeated errors (and the spaces I said are missing in your argument are missing, you can copy and paste your own comments, insert curser where spaces are supposed to be, hit backspace, and a letter or mark disappears where only a space is supposed to disappear. I performed this check carefully before I pointed out the stong evidence that your four points were plagarized. I cannot appologize. I am no sure you plagarized, but I have seen those four points before in strikingly similar fashion. If I were your college professor, I have good enough reason to reject your work on grounds of apparent plagarizm.), you are fooling yourself. In all four of your points, you are trying to convince yourself that you get a free "Don't burn in Hell" card no matter what you do or don't do. You can fool yourself and you can fool a lot of poople, but you are not fooling me and you sure won't fool God. Nobody can win in Pascal's Wager, and the atheist assures his total loss in death. I am not going to bother with spell check in this argument, so feel free to nitpick away. I really don't mind if you can be funny about it instead of being smart alacky.
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

Ok, so you may be right about the spelling of Alack, but I still say you acted like a smart alack from the start. I just want to ask how old you are?I did refute all four of your points. You don't like it because I am telling you that you don't get a free pass to heaven and you can't earn a pass to heaven. Nobody can win in Pascal's Wager, atheist or not. If you don't get saved from Hell, you are on your way there now with one foot in the grave and the other one in the fire. Pascal's Wager won't help, atheist or not. We all deserve to die and burn in Hell.
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

I did not "nitpick" your spelling, and DDO's spell check does not disagree with Webster's Dictionary. Alack is a word, however, you are misusing it[1]. Aleck is an abbreviation of the proper noun, Alexander[2]. Aleck is the word used in the idiom[3]. Alack is an archaic interjection[1].You did not refute any of my points, you simply asserted that they were incorrect. You provided no evidence contrary to my argument, instead, you make personal attacks.If you think you can gain entrance to heaven by claiming to have no sin by not believing in God, go ahead and do your worst. If it makes you feel better, do your best.This debate is not about me. I am not an atheist.By saying there is no God, you negate any possibility other than death.Saying there is no god has no effect on whether or not a god or an afterlife actually exists.No matter what the atheist does, he loses everything in death. This is a completely unsupported assertion by my opponent. Assertions are not arguments.I have answered all of your 4 points in this.To the contrary, you have fail to answer a single one of them.1) You left out spaces in the following: a. "humans all bet",No I did not. Copy and paste my argument into a Word document and you will see that the space is there. The space is difficult to see because of the long-leaning italicized "l".2) The period you used in " Here is a definition.[1]" should be a colon.I defy my opponent to cite a single rule of grammar that requires a colon before a superscript reference.Since you seem to have a problem inserting spaces in your own writings, I must guess that the four points of your argument were plagiarized from somewhere, copy and pasted without referencing the source. I have seen those four points used before.Cite where you have seen this, or apologize you your baseless and inflammatory accusation.Citations1. http://dictionary.reference.com...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

"Spell check" corrected the spelling of "smart alack", I will continue to use DD0 spell check and not accept Webster's spellings as DDO spell check may be proven different. Your common English idiom, which still comes across as a smart alack remark and not an innocent idiom, was uncalled for when the first round was for acceptance only.If you think you can gain entrance to heaven by claiming to have no sin by not believing in God, go ahead and do your worst. If it makes you feel better, do your best. It won't get you out of death. Nobody can win in Pascal's Wager because nothing you can do can make God owe you anything. Betting with God is a losing game from the start. By saying there is no God, you negate any possibility other than death. An atheist only assures that they lose everything they play with in death. The Wager is not over until death is finalized, and the atheist then loses everything.No matter what the atheist does, he loses everything in death. I have answered all of your 4 points in this.And I repeat, your smart alack remark was uncalled for. You are trying to excuse your first round smart alack remark with more smart alack remarks in the second round.And if you want to nitpick spellings (you must have worked hard to find one word I used where DDO's spell check disagreed with Webster's dictionary), I guess I'll nitpick on your grammar. I'm sure you did better than your worst, but since you have been so helpful in giving me the Webster spelling of "alack", I will give you some pointers on your grammar.1) You left out spaces in the following: a. "humans all bet",b. "not"(emphasis "2) The period you used in " Here is a definition.[1]" should be a colon.Since you seem to have a problem inserting spaces in your own writings, I must guess that the four points of your argument were plagiarized from somewhere, copy and pasted without referencing the source. I have seen those four points used before.Keep on doing your worst, or your best, and see if you win against God in Pascal's Wager.Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
It Is Not Possible For An Atheist To Win in Pascal's Wager

By the definition of Pascal's wager so graciously offered by my opponent in Round 1, "humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not"(emphasis mine). Therefore, my opponent has acknowledged that everyone plays Pascal's wager, they simply choose to bet one way or the other. Even an atheist plays, they just bet the other way.There are 4 ways in which an atheist may win Pascal's Wager: 1. The atheist is correct in believing that no god exists, lives their life as they see fit, including indulgence in many activities considered sinful by most religious standards. They have won, because they have not lost out on the fleshly pleasures prohibited by most religions. 2. The atheist is incorrect, and a god exists. However, it is not the Christian god. The god that exists is neutral on fleshly behavior and accepts all into an eternally blissful state. 3. The atheist is incorrect, and the Christian god exists. However, because the atheist never knew the Christian god, he is incapable of sin by biblical standards, and though they engaged in "sinful" behavior, they are nevertheless welcomed into Heaven. 4. The atheist is incorrect, and the Christian god exists. Though they do not believe in God, they carefully live their life so as not to offend. They are sinless, and therefore are welcomed into Heaven. My opponent doesn't seem to recognize the common English idiom "do your worst". Here is a definition.[1] It is simply a challenge to take me on as best as you are able.By the way, it is smart aleck, not smart alack.[2]Citations1. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: This house would hold authors responsible for offending readers

I do disagree about the way debates on DDO work vs. formal debate, but that's a whole debate in itself, and one I'm not too worried about in the long run. I took this debate with the hope of resolving my differences with Pro (and defending my honor, I suppose), and that goal has been accomplished, even if the debate itself ended up falling apart. It would be rather cheap of me to attempt winning on purely semantic grounds. With that in mind, I concede. No free coffee for me. I would certainly love to do another debate with parameters that we both agree upon before its' start (perhaps even a formal style) in a month or so.
Resolved: This house would hold authors responsible for offending readers

This is a permutation of a resolution, "suggested," by SolonKR after my repudiating what I found to be racist behavior in a prior debate, paired with Solon's position that anyone finding the conduct and content offensive was at fault, not him. Solon offered; "Resolved: All satirists ought to be taken seriously" as a defense of tasteless humor that was perhaps offensive, but meant only, "to be funny. " Let's see if the hairstylist is willing to defend that position. .. .
War Game Scenario: Russia versus Chosen Nation

My allied minor country will be Mongolia. March 20, China spends $1,000,000 of its defense budget on a failed assassination of Vladamir Putin, Vladamir Putin is shot in the shoulder and is injured in the hospital. March 21, Acting President Yuiry Melanchov launches an attack on a Chinese border town. The town is largely unprepared. Casualties: Chinese Tanks: 2 Military: 5 Civilians: 500 Casualties: Russian Military: 2 March 22-March 30: China is furious and is fearful of more attacks, so the Chinese Air Force launches surgical strikes on Russian shipping convoys and rural infrastructure near the Chinese Russian border, cutting off some major highways connecting major cities to south-eastern Siberia. Russian Casulaties: Military Personel- 50 Civilians- 2,000 Military Tanks- 50 Fighter Jets- 5 Chinese Casulaties: Fighter Jets- 5 10 Pilots Taken Prisoner April 1: China Occupies The Russian City of Krasnofotsiky rayon. With 10 Fighter Jets 50 Tanks 50,000 soldiers Russian Casualties: 1,000 soldiers 1 tank Chinese Casualties: 2,500 soldiers 2 Tanks The Occupation Is Succesful.