BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be President.

I'd rather we NOT debate topics and DO debate the topic at hand. I'd also rather we get rid of the personal attacks but this is the internet so feel free to make yourself feel good by typing words out on a screen. Senator Mccain was born in the Coco Solo military base in the Panama free zone in Panama. This zone could be considered to be like Guantanamo in that we were sovereign over it but it wasn't American territory. A better example are the philippines or cuba or puerto rico.These are all territories we were or are sovereign over but they are not considered to be America's Land. Please correct me here as I LIKE Mccain but I don't think I can vote for him or that he qualifies due to the following. He must be a "natural born citizen" to qualify for president. This debate is based on what natural born citizen means. When the 14th ammendment was made, two classes of citizens were made (according to the supreme court). Citizens of the U.S and citizens of the states. This was upheld in later cases as well. If you are born in the U.S, you are a citizen of the U.S. You are a citizen of the state due to law whether thats immigration or also being born there. One cannot be a citizen of a state w/o being a citizen of the U.S. According to the State Department "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth". Here is the source and a PDF 7 FAM 1100 "Acquisition and Retention of U.S. Citizenship and Nationality". U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved on 2008-02-14. As you did not debate my actual point in your opening speech I will say what I think you should have said as I do want to learn from this debate. I don't go to this site to trash talk others and inflate my ego. I know you have a big penis. You don't need to show me. Argument you could have made According to the founders, children born to U.S citizens abroad would be citizens. The actual law (not part of the constitution) passed in 1790 was "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." Therefore Mccain is a natural born citizen. My response to Me Laws are changed and repealed and the constitution trumps law. The 14th ammendment trumps this law. Therefore this law does not apply and my original arguments apply. Also, in the case supreme court case Montana vs. Kennedy, a child was born overseas to an American mother and the child was not considered a citizen by birth (naturalized citizen). My point is that Mccain is a citizen. He is not a citizen by birth so he is not a natural born citizen. Therefore he does not qualify to be president. Now I need to do some Bio HW. As another non natural born citizen who is in politics says "I'll be back".
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be President.

I see you are one of the deluded moderates that for some reason believe that far-left Kennedeyesque state senator from Illinois is somehow better than the experience, glory, and moderate philosophy of John McCain, and are trying to find excuses to why he is unfit for the presidency. So you are arguing that he is illegible due to his birthplace. But you have gotten one thing wrong- Senator McCain was born in the United States, on federal territory to be exact, on a military base. Most military bases, regardless of geographical affiliation, are sovereign American territory, such as the one in Panama. Why would one disqualify the son of loyal Americans who are not only citizens, but doing their country's business, on federal territory? You can't get much more American than that.
Senator Mccain does not qualify to be President.

As much of an open Obama supporter that I am, I also vehemently support Senator Mccain. In an election between any other democrat in the field and Mccain, I would probably vote for Mccain. I say this not to pander but to show my bias. As much as I like Senator Mccain, I do not believe he qualifies to be president, legally. My argument has only one main part and I would be happy if someone can convince me that I am wrong as I truly do like Mccain and I would like justification to vote for him. Before we debate I will not try to spin this debate by defining certain terms to my advantage like SOME members here do. I prefer a "layperson's" debate where we debate substance and we don't just debate on who can throw out the most jargon and get the most "intellectual" or "philosophical". Senator Mccain parent's were both veterans deployed to a military base when mommy was pregnant. This base was in the panama canal free zone. Senator Mccain was born in this zone, on a military base, in panama. The constitution says (Article 1 Section 1) "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Senator Mccain fits the latter criteria. He does not fit, imo, the natural born citizen argument as he was born in panama. Please discuss
Going to prison is more voluntary than not.

In closing, I shall repeat resolution "Assuming the validity of free will, going to prison within the USA is generally more voluntary than not;" with extended definitions from my round 1.Assuming the validity of freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention, going to an institution for confinement for persons convicted of serious crimes within the USA is generally more proceeding from one's own choice than not.This claim is without judgement of why they make those choices. It includes words like 'generally' to focus on the average prisoner instead of ones with exceptional circumstances.If I have not met my BoP, please vote against me on argument.
Going to prison is more voluntary than not.

Recidivism sheds further light on the choice.Many prisoners are repeat offenders, who have firsthand knowledge of the outcome. Parole violations can easily result in resuming of prison sentences, with that pre-explained on the contact they signed. The three-strike laws in 28 states (1), are avoidable by relocating before committing the level of crime needed to activate them.In cases of mental impairment, there are several legal defenses based around such (2).Fashion.As reported in the Wall Street Journal (3), veteran police officers are having an easier time capturing criminals who idolize convicts by sagging their pants. Fleeing from police adds the additional criminal charge of Resisting Arrest, thus more prison time, yet they sabotage their supposed efforts to escape.Sources:(1) http://www.legalmatch.com...(2) http://dictionary.law.com...(3) http://online.wsj.com...
Going to prison is more voluntary than not.

Life is in essence a series of choices, leading to different outcomes. We invest with our actions, and reap the results. If someone wishes to go to college, they must apply. If someone wants money, they must find a way to attain it.While prison seems one of the least ideal places to be, the actions which get someone sent there are known to have that outcome. Even with prison rarely the goal, it is usually a known part of the bargain for whatever is gained. Much like gambling has much potential benefit, but it is common knowledge that the vast majority of people do not prosper from it.Last December a man in Buffalo actually shoplifted to be caught, with the intent of going to prison to receive cancer treatment (1). This is just one of many reasons someone would openly choose to go, others often have to deal with lifestyle choices (2).Sources:(1) http://thinkprogress.org...(2) http://meninchains.com...
Going to prison is more voluntary than not.

I shall be arguing that the actions which result in prison sentaces, are generally a choice, with their potential negative results common knowledge.Full Resolution:Assuming the validity of free will, going to prison within the USA is generally more voluntary than not.Definitions (please request any changes or additions, before we begin):From the Merriam-Webster dictionary...Voluntary is "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent" (1).Prison is "a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically: an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes" (2).Free Will is "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention" (3).Structure:No rebuttals in round 2. No new arguments past round 3.Sources:(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Capitalism is an Inherently Immoral System

Opening round is for Opening Arguments. Here's mine: Free-Market Capitalism, however well-meaning its proponents may be, invariably results in huge inequities, a failure for the needs of the majority to be met, and, most controversially, an overall devaluation of human life. 1. Inequality. In the most laissez-faire economies, resources both untaxed by government, or regulated in their disbursement invariably begin to belong to fewer and fewer people. The Oil Tycoon, for instance, who shores up an early lead in control of that resource has no way of losing it, or losing the value it has. As time goes on, monopolization inevitably results, and the snowball of wealth accumulated by the individuals with control of that industry leads to control of other industries as well. Over time, those who didn't happen to get to a given resource first, find themselves at the whim and fancy of Robber-Barons and plutocrats, less capable of gaining any leverage in their own lives as the control exerted by the largest businesses grows and grows. How can a system that is only less regulated and governed only by the laws of supply and demand ever smooth out this growing gap in power between the richest and poorest? I would submit that it cannot. 2. Unmet Needs. Under the freest markets, only those who can afford to pay for services that they may need can thrive. Those who are unable to acquire the money to pay for those services are left wanting. For some that may mean not having an I-pod, but for others basic resources such as food, water, heat or health care may become ultimately inaccessible, and even if market forces drive prices down to the point where they are attainable, those prices will only be just low enough for the majority to afford them. Those at the complete bottom are still left out, and those who can barely afford these things will end up having to make dire decisions between things like a roof over their heads or education for their children. The invisible hand of the market has nothing to compel it to see the needs of most, or even really, many, so long as money continues to change hands, businesses continue to grow, and investments continue to pay off. 3. Human Devaluation. Above all, Capitalism is an Immoral system because it devalues human life by necessity. Labor, as measured by capitalism, is a commodity. As technology moves us into an era where less hands are required, and desperation pushes less people into being willing to do more work for less just in the name of having a job, the growing population of the world forces labor as a commodity, and with it, people into lower and lower esteem in the free market-s eyes. How can the end result of a capitalist state be an ethical one when the very people who make that system up become more common, and thus by market standards, less valuable?
We Should Mix Capitalism and Socialism

Your initial proposal of combining the systems, is still largely based on socialistic principles. You simply thought that combining the two systems, and I quote, "will make almost everyone happy." With what proof? Later on you mentioned "There will always be conflict." Your argument is contradictory, but I agree with you on "conflict" between the two. The conflict will arise when people"s hard earned money will go to the government, and then there is yet another loophole for corruption to occur. Please answer me on this one: "If it is unacceptable for one person to take another person"s money without consent, why are you proposing a system that empowers the government to simply do the same?" And I don't see your point at number 4? "It would actually bring more money into the economy if we mixed the two. It would allow a more free range of human rights." How is economical growth and human rights relevant to each other? Again, I"m not saying we SHOULD be capitalistic, nor socialistic. It is two great systems - that aren"t meant for one another.
We Should Mix Capitalism and Socialism

1. "Capitalism is the only system allowing humans to succeed. It also allows for entrepreneurs and a more competitive environment - which will bring in more money into the economy." Seems a bit biased. Take Tallahassee, for example. We have a mix of socialism and capitalism. It succeeds. Many countries in the world have succeeded with just socialism and still do. There would be the same amount of entrepreneurs no matter what. 2. " Capitalism is also more "forgiving" than socialism, in both the formal and informal sectors." How? With what evidence? I don't think you understand. I'm proposing to mix the two. Not have it completely socialism. You're making it sound like I want only socialism. 3. "Meaning that, for a company to grow enough to be able to compete in a socialist environment, It"ll firstly need CAPITALISM to reach that mark." The whole point of having a socialist environment is to NOT have competitive markets. It WON'T reach that point, because then it wouldn't be socialism. 4. "Capitalism and socialism are two excellent systems, but as I've proved above, they can only excel on their own. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to try and combine the two, and not knowing the outcome for sure." I'm not "trying" to combine the two, as they've been combined in places already. It would actually bring more money into the economy if we mixed the two. It would allow a more free range of human rights.
We Should Mix Capitalism and Socialism

First off, we will have to look at what the intended outcome of the system(s) will be. Both capitalism and socialism are economic structures, and the goal of an EFFECTIVE economic structure is to ensure economic growth. Capitalism is the only system allowing humans to succeed. It also allows for entrepreneurs and a more competitive environment - which will bring in more money into the economy. Capitalism is also more "forgiving" than socialism, in both the formal and informal sectors. As for socialism, I"m not going to elaborate too much on that, yet. But I should mention that it is very objective. Meaning that, for a company to grow enough to be able to compete in a socialist environment, It"ll firstly need CAPITALISM to reach that mark. Capitalism and socialism are two excellent systems, but as I"ve proved above, they can only excel on their own. Therefore, it doesn"t make sense to try and combine the two, and not knowing the outcome for sure. (A country"s economy isn"t the place to experiment with ideas!)
We Should Mix Capitalism and Socialism

1. Your initial proposal of combining the systems, is still largely based on socialistic principles. You simply thought that combining the two systems, and I quote, "will make almost everyone happy." With what proof?" The socialists would have their way, and so would the capitalists. 2. "Later on you mentioned "There will always be conflict." Your argument is contradictory, but I agree with you on "conflict" between the two. The conflict will arise when people"s hard earned money will go to the government, and then there is yet another loophole for corruption to occur." My argument is not contradictory, as I'm saying that there will always be conflict, but this system would lessen it. There would be less taxes due to the socialists, and enough for the government to survive. 3. "Please answer me on this one: "If it is unacceptable for one person to take another person"s money without consent, why are you proposing a system that empowers the government to simply do the same?" This is not about taxes this is about harmony between the two. However, this system would lessen taxes overall.
The Genesis account is scientifically viable.

1:11) yes, I was confused about that thank you for clearifying. and yes the atmosphere was non exsistant untill the first photosynthetic bacteria came along. A byproduct of this plant was oxygen and as this bacteria spread it created the atmosphere we had today but oxygen is poisonous to plants just as carbon___ is poison to us there was no "room for complex organisms to grow and breath because the bigger the plant the more oxygen it prooduces so is anything more complex than a photosynthetic bacteria was plopped in the middle of an oxygen rich zone it would probably just sufficate. As for your comment of an eco system it is clearly stated that anyting that was not plant life came after he rested which according to you was a long period of time. Well as final words I believe you may be inferring a bit too much about word meanings and symbolism. The account is however more accurate when put into your perspective and I do understand where you are coming from. It may just coem down to a belif in evolution to determine what really happened so i of course still maintain it is not logical.
Pepsi is better than Coka Cola

Umm. Ok lets start anyway. The only way that I could figure they could improve upon Coca-Cola, one of life"s most delightful elixirs, which studies prove will heal the sick and occasionally raise the dead, is to put rum or bourbon in it. Lewis Grizzard, New York Times. Now i dont agree that putting alcohol in something will make it better but his point still stands. Coke is delicious. As i expect this to be a full forfiet debate I now show you some pictures showing how coke is better than pepsi. In May, 1886, Coca Cola was invented by Doctor John Pemberton a pharmacist from Atlanta, Georgia. John Pemberton concocted the Coca Cola formula in a three legged brass kettle in his backyard. The name was a suggestion given by John Pemberton's bookkeeper Frank Robinson. Until 1905, the soft drink, marketed as a tonic, contained extracts of cocaine as well as the caffeine-rich kola nut. Therefore the name Coca-cola. With such a rich background coca cola is obviously better than pepsi.
Pepsi is better than Coka Cola

This topic has caused much controversy between the soda lovers. Two liquids, both of the same color and texture. Have slightly different taste. Which one is better? Well when we look, not at the color and texture, but at the history, flavors, and ingredients, then we can see that the Coke a' Cola brand is superior. So, as i expect the first round is for acceptance, LET IT BEGIN!!!
The right to vote, should be open to all.

I misunderstood what I was arguing, and I most likely cannot make a good case for this, but I will try. People make stupid decisions, yes, but an age limit or stoping prisoners from voting does not mean we still don't make stupid decisions. And by stopping people from voting, the stupid decisions voted in leaders make will still affect them, they just would not have a say in it. And yes, 6 year olds might not seem like the people who should be voting in our current environment, but in the end I think it COULD work. One, parents would have a big say if these children can go to the polls, and two education about politics and foreign policy would be pushed to the point where it would be a core subject in school. Stupid decisions are enviable when voting is done fairly, so why not let everyone have a say?
The right to vote, should be open to all.

In the shortest way I can start it off. I am under the ideal, that the right to vote shouldn't be open to all - as our history has shown, we tend to make rather poor and ignorant choices, dependent on the situation at hand. Never thinking beyond the short-term and always having a situation where the elite are in power, no matter what we 'lower-class' speak. So why do we keep up with this farce anyway?
The right to vote, should be open to all.

The idea of a voting license would simply never work. A consensus would never found on what exactly makes a person worthy of voting, but that is besides that point. I know you said you are trying to be vague, but who exactly do you think should vote? You imply that voters should have a certain amount of political awareness, but you also imply a scientist should be higher than a homophobe. Your question asks, should the right to vote be open to all, so if you are to disagree with this claim, you must consider this. Realistically how would something like your suggesting go? That only those with a pre determined political awareness and that meet a moral highground are deemed worthy of voting. To be honest, that sounds dystopian! To not let homophobes or flat Earther's vote goes against the principle of free speech, and in turn the principles American stands on. Whether politicians are appealing to those that do not know better, how in the world is it fair to put the fate of the country they also live in in the hands of people deemed to be, "worthy" of voting.
The right to vote, should be open to all.

Pardon if things remain a bit vague on the question at hand. Wanted to give my opposition a wide berth to discuss. As for my reply. Because such a system evolves into a mob mentality eventually. Whether due to inaction or direct political act. You are asking, that the voice of a scientist have equal to a person, who still believes that the Earth is flat. Or that, homeopathic treatment is equal to modern medicine. I am sorry, I can't allow such a thing. As America has shown, voting is never done fairly or kept fair. You have people who are believing the words of a demagogue, or in general listening to politicians who promise basically empty air to them. Plus, the people have almost no desire to change the status quo. Despite such acts being a damage to our environment, increased pollution and rising unemployment and inequality. I agree, that six year old shouldn't be allowed to vote. I also think, you should make such a thing require a license before you are allowed to vote. That way, those that aren't reaching that certain set bar for intelligence and political understanding - don't accidentally vote in politicians who will end up destroying the planet. Look at America even, you have politicians themselves dumbing down their image - since their target audience is so badly educated in political knowledge. While those who have ideas and desires to improve the country are sidelined - because the mob has more power than the single individual.
Con (Theist) Will Not Fulfill His/Her Burden of Proof in Establishing The Existence Of God

As per the rules, no more arguments or rebuttals may be made by Con in this round. I may, however, post a civil 'thank you for the debate'. And though I have (for the first time this debate) a surplus of 9,000 characters to post a 'thank you' with, I will refrain from using them all. (Tempting though it may be.) I'd like to thank Pro for a very respectful and thought provoking debate. His skills as a debater are certainly admirable. Though there clearly remains a disagreement between us as to whether or not I managed to fulfill my burden of proof, I encourage readers to vote objectively for whichever side they feel presented the best arguments. Thanks again to the readers for following along and to Pro for debating this subject.