BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show.

For this debate, I would like for the first rounds to be introductory; I will post the basics of my argument, and my opponent should follow with the basics of their rebuttal(s). In the second round, I will go further in depth with my reasoning, and address the issues my opponent raised in his introduction. My opponent should then follow suit, giving their reasons why I am wrong, including reasons why our votes do affect our nation. In the third round, I will address my opponents rebuttals and reasoning and present my closing remarks, after which my opponent should do the same. Use of sources in the second and third rounds is encouraged. The basis of my argument is this: In both local and national elections, we are given a choice of candidates to vote between. (I understand there are rare exceptions to the following statements.) Most candidates are from well off families, and have been groomed from a young age to think and act a certain way. Rare is the politician who understands what it means to be an average citizen. These candidates use party affiliations and advertising campaigns to try to appeal to as many people as possible for the purpose of winning the election. Once in office, their decisions and actions are almost always motivated by greed, and/or a desire to remain in good standing not with the people they are meant to be responsible for, but instead with corporate and political affiliates. The vast majority of laws passed on any level over the past century have had been to increase profits for the government or big business, usually at the expense of the taxpayer, and are almost always passed without any type of consultating the citizens who are affected by these laws. Money is constantly wasted without any influence from the taxpaying citizens whatsoever. Party affiliation is actually irrelevant, because both of the dominant parties, democrats and republicans, answer to the same elite group of the uber-wealthy. Or more simply, it is like this: We are told to pick one; this rotten banana, or that rotten banana, and furthermore the bananas are disguised as delecious, ripe plantains. Both bananas are going to taste horrible, but by the time people realize it, they have already taken a bite.
(In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show.

I've done more than "play on your grammar." In fact, I haven't touched your grammar. Elections not only decide which rotten bananas end up in office, they also decide whether-- again, primaries are part of elections. And primaries render anything, including unrotted bananas, a possibility. Majorities may stop this, but that is not "elections being a show." It is elections being as-advertised. Incidentally, there is more than one variety of rotten banana, and these DO matter. One variety of rotten banana will raise taxes and give health subsidies to the elderly. Another will raise them higher and give health subsidies to everyone. These are different policies with different effects. Different degrees of rotten banana. The only thing that caused a switch from the former rotten banana to the latter rotten banana is an election.
Gandhian ideals of Truth and Non Violence are relevant even today

Thank you Con for instigating the debate. As Pro, I will argue for the resolution that "Gandhian ideals of truth and non-violence are relevant even today."Since Con has given only introductory remarks in the opening round, I shall assume that this round is primarily for acceptance, and will wait till the next round to respond to Con's remarks, as well as furnish my own arguments.I look forward to a civil and engaging debate.
everyone should be equal

the nordic nations have beeen social democratic for almost 100 years no seriously their democratic socialist governments came to power in the 1920s and 1930s and have stayed in power most of that time, Not all the time because they are democtatic the people decide who is in charge, More or less, My main beef isnt who has a say or opportunity those are issues, The average person needs more of a say, If you look at Germany for example another hybrid capitalist socialist system they have what they call co determination and workers get say say in running a company by lawnone of these nations have moved toward communism in fact east germany was communist and is no more so that argument is totally laughable, I can prove you wrong a milio times over, It is so stupid you would even say thatwhen i say equal i know things cannot be totally equali guess i mean more equal like western europe or specifically northern europe they have high taxes strong labour laws, And in some cases like Norwa a large state collective sector which is great, Yet all of these also remain thriving market economies the wealth is just spread about better if you google most equal nations economically you find the nordics at the top sweden specifically, Their system has not become communist at all, In fact in the past 30 years in many ways they have adapted in the opposite direction to save their social safety net they have lowered taxes regulations and privatized aspects of their health and education systems, The even privatized the post office! A libertarain dream so i have refuted your point that socialsim always leads to communism such a foolish thing to claim yet taxes remain high and levels of equality are higher there than anwhere in this particular primitive planet by equal i mean more equal distribution of resources and power we can do this it has been done by others with success
everyone should be equal

Well that's great. The problem with your argument is it is impossible to everybody to be equal. Every single person is born different, Into different cultures, Families, And wealth classes. In a capital country like the United States, There will always be inequality. There is always going to be a permanent upper and lower class. But let's look a few years into the future, When the US will likely be a mostly socialist country. Kind of like these. China Denmark Finland Netherlands Canada Sweden Norway Ireland New Zealand Belgium Don't make me get into the fact that nearly every socialist country ever created leads to communism. Aside that, Our current governments aren't fit for equality, And when we do have equality, Lazy people will try to break the system. Now I have a request. Tell me one way people are not already equal, And why they should be.
DDO Champions League Debate: Gun Ban

Full Resolution: The USFG Should Ban Private Ownership of Firearms. Clarification This is a debate for the debate.org champions league. Thank you to airmax for hosting the tournament and to my opponent's team for their acceptance. This is a team debate! Representing the Pro side we have - Famousdebater (team captain) - FortisAnimi - Bob13 Representing the Con team we have - Lannan13 (team captain) - Briannj17 - CodingSource The rules of the debate are very clearly set out by airmax. This debate must be hosted by me since my opponent's team is at (@ as depited in airmax's thread) our team. The burden of proof must be shared as there is no acceptance round and my opponent must provide something in the first round. Whilst it is disputable whether or not the burden of proof is shared in this instance, the set out of the debate means that it must be this way, apologies in advance. Rules 1 - No Kritiks 2 - No semantics 3 - The burden of proof is shared 4 - By accepting the debate you accept the definitions presented 5 - There is no acceptance round, you must argue in the first round 6 - No source wars (you are allowed to critique sources but don't make that the focus of the debate) 7 - No trolling 8 - No forfeiture 9 - No plagiarism 10 - Failure to abide by the rules, definitions (below) and the full resolution means that all points will automatically be awarded in the person that didn't violate the rules' favor. Definitions USFG - United States Federal Government Should - used to express obligation or desirability. Ban - to legally prohibit Private - belonging to an individual person, company, or interest, as opposed to belonging to a government. Ownership - the act, state, or right of possessing something. Firearms - a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder. Good luck to all participants!
Music Competition

Here are the rules: 1. First round is for acceptance. 2. Each round we will post a video of us playing a song. 3. The song can either be an actual song, or be one you created. 4. Playing an instrument in the video is required; singing in addition to playing is optional. Any instrument may be used, and any song may be played. 5. All videos will be uploaded to Youtube Voting Rules These rules will set the standards for all voting. Any votes that do not adhere to these standards will be removed. 1. Source points will go to whoever sounded better. Do not take the music itself into question, rather how well they played the song. For example, if you hate heavy metal and someone plays heavy metal, do not take away source points from them just because the type of music they played is music you don't like. Judge them off how well they performed the song. 2. Arguments points go to song difficulty. Whoever all-together played more difficult songs will win this point. 3. No other points will be rewarded for any reason. Any vote that adds points outside of the listed voting points will be removed.The only exception to this rule is if both debaters played exceptionally well, or are very evenly matched and so the distribution of points was made to equal this. 4. As Debatibility cannot sing and I can, do not take my singing account too much, but rather try to equalize my advantage with her playing.If there are any questions or concerns about these rules please post them in the comments section.
My Opponent Does Not Exist

Upon exposing my opponent's propaganda and organization for what it is, he has clearly fled not knowing what to tell his superiors for his failure. That and as suggested in the previous round, my opponent conceded that ideas existed and that I was an idea. Thus, it is rather clear as to who has won this debate. I thank my opponent for the debate and the one or two people who have/will actually bothered/bother reading the debate. Later. :D
My Opponent Does Not Exist

My opponents have done a good job of clouding your mind dear readers. My opponents try know that they are not fooling any of us, for they attempt first to show that "Logic Master" is an idea and as that idea exists, so does "Logic Master". My opponents believes that the movie V for Vendetta proves their point. Does it? When V is speaking of the idea that ideas are bullet proof, is speaking of after his own death. V is speaking that what he represented will continue to exist long after he himself is gone. The people behind the puppet of "Logic Master" are attempting to prove his existence by a flawed analogy to movie. Though, I will concede that ideas exist, and I'm sure that "Logic Master" was conjured up out of someones rectal area, there is not a singular person to whom the avatar of "Logic Master" belongs. Of course, if my opponents seek to win via semantics, they already know they have lost. My name is Jonathan, I am from Tennessee, I own an insurance agency. I have a social security number, I have a business license number, and I have several (unfortunately high) bills in my name every month. "Logic Master" can claim also to have these things, but my opponents who have created this phantasm can not claim the same for the character they say exists. The person hood of "Logic Master" is what I call into question. Where are "Logic Master"'s parents? I'm sure names can be conjured for them as well. Does "Logic Master" have a job, or friends, or anyone that can actually claim to know "Logic Master"? Of course not! "Logic Master" is obviously a front set up by a group of people to try to sway us towards "his" conservative agendas. My opponents are going to continue to give examples of "Logic Master" living in the real world. These shadows have entire backgrounds on "Logic Master" in case his person hood was ever called into question. They will attempt to sow seeds of truth in their fields of lies. You readers are better than to fall for such simple lies. You have proven over and over that you are smarter than to believe the word of "Logic Master" and "his" handlers. We all defy you, "Logic Master", to poison our brains with your deceptions.
Abortion

As a response to part one of my opponent's case. He is basically saying that the reason why you should abortion a child is because of the trouble a child goes through. Steve Jobs was adopted in California by 2 engineers. His father accidentally impregnated his mother. His father didn't want to have children, and his mother was hesitant in abortion. So she decided to let it be adopted. If she had an abortion, than there would not have been an iPhone. Steve Jobs did go through his troubles, but he had a life worth living. Read the biography. As a response to part 2 of my opponents case. Why do farmers buy seeds. So that they can grow a crop. Now the farmer is putting his seeds into the ground, and waiting for them to grow, so he can actually get some food. Than there came a stupid teenager that stole the seeds. The farmer asked why you stole his seeds, and the teen replied, its just some seeds. Its not like it is food or anything. He just took that farmer's livelihood away. I am using this word in the literal sense, but the question that my opponent has just asked is stupid. A woman can do drugs if she wanted too. Its her body. A woman doesn't have to wear a seatbelt. Its her body. A woman can subject her body on the web. Its her body. She can do anything with it. People that ask this question don't know what the word consequence is. If we did not have war, we would be conquered. Are you kidding me. We do war because we are being threatened by other countries. Abortion does not have anything to do with war. I am using this word in the literal sense. But that question is just stupid. Our topic says abortion should remain legal. By that logic He can say killing someone is legal. Scientists say that a fetus can evolve into a child. If I cut it, than that child will never come. Which means that the child is dead. If you support abortion, than Steve Jobs would never have came. My opponent seems even more unsophisticated on his own topic because in round 3 he said "you have to understand what adopted children go through-especially adopted children". By his logic, Steve Jobs should not be here, because he went through problems in his childhood. He had loving parents. He had friends. He had a "life". Please judge these arguments objectively. Look at which argument had more logic. I hope that I have proved that there are other alternatives to abortion.
Abortion

Again, A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. part 1.Good point other than the fact that she has a greater risk; you have to understand what children go through- especially adopted children. Yes, they eventually love their mothers but inside they know that is not their mother. Part 2 a child is alive and in the real world but a fetus is not when in the womb so you aren't really taking his life, you are preventing one that will be miserable to the mother and the child (child ESSPECIALLY).PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS A woman can do what she wants to her own body can't she?If war is legal why isn't abortion?
Abortion

It is fair what you have said, but by using your logic I can say that it is okay to kill a bunch of poor children in Africa, because they will never have any happiness in life, and life is going to be harsh to them. Even though the women is raped, if she doesn't want the child, she could easily give it to a adoption institution. Let the kid live his life with a different set of parents that are more qualified. Also you mentioned the argument on the fetus and the baby. Scientifically in a mother's stomach, there is fetus that is going to evolve into a baby. So your technically killing the baby.
Abortion

NOTE: A woman's risk of dying from having an abortion is 0.6 in 100,000, while the risk of dying from giving birth is around 14 times higher (8.8 in 100,000). The mortality rate of a colonoscopy is more than 40 times greater than that of an abortion. If a woman were to become pregnant, and it would effect her life in a way she wasn't ready for, who are we to tell her that she has to carry it anyways? Also, say she got raped? Forcing her to carry a child that she might not even love is cruel, both for the mother and the child. Once the child is born, it would become a constant reminder to the mother about the rape. She wouldn't love the child, she could hate it, and take her anger out on in. No child should be subject to the emotional and physical abuse that could occur.abortion should be legal-for the people who want to go get an abortion, should get one.. Its their body and they should be able to do as they please. These are things we must look at, it is bad for ourselves to not have family planning but to be pregnant and not have a good financial background or not even have a father to help in supporting the mother. A child shouldn't spend his life knowing his parents are stuck with him. Also a woman has all the rights to her own body. Let's say..... I am holding something in each of my hands. In one hand, I am holding a two month old baby. In the other, an unborn fetus in a Petri dish. I am going to drop one of them, and you choose which one. Let's be honest you choose the fetus, because you know there's a difference.
Valentino Shoes Test

Dialogue surely hits the spot. As does "handcranking". George, better known as Georgie Boy, took the issue with the lemons in his stride, which is approximately 28 inches. Given that the high end trainer compared to a much more rigid platform may imply a low percentage variable. The running issue is interesting for two reasons. 1) Efficiency of mid-sole cushioning. 2) Effectiveness of tendon balance . 3) Comfort of lacing technology. If we refer to George's scepticism here it would be worth taking into account previous references, to both seasoning and it's counterculture. Both are very speculative but do offer a balanced judgement. Especially when considered alongside the continual debate regarding step balance to stride length implications. Tomato sauce and ketchup. Canned food or frozen. Tuna or mackerel the debate is out. Those shiny suited, sleek, torpedo-esque sea babies. Check out the internet for sure.
Valentino Shoes Test

Given my experience with that, I imagine this will last about a month before you need to throw on another layer (it will be easier the second time, but it's still some effort). Second thing you're going to need is four Ziploc bags two, and two. The soles of road shoes are stiffer than those of other types of shoes. Renee shoes were a success because of the trusting relationships that Renee had established with her vendors in Asia. You try to ignore it thinking it will go away; you try not to think about it, go out of your way to avoid the person or situation. You worry about what would happen if you run [b][url=http://www.valentinooutletvip.com...]Valentino Shoes[/url][/b] into them. To verify that Show Pictures is enabled, open Internet [b]http://www.valentinooutletvip.com... [/b] Explorer and go to the Tools menu. Click on Internet Options, and go to the Advanced tab of the Internet Options dialog box. In the Settings box, scroll down to the Multimedia section and verify that Show Pictures is selected. It one cantastic HOTS with George exploring the world of vacuumsealed cuisine as only he can! Electric or handcranked? George settles the ageold can opener debate once and for all! Then its oil vs. water in a HOTS Tuna Taste Test Challenge. Got canned food that just sits on the shelf? George shows skeptical shoppers how any can they come up with will help him complete his delicious quiche! Can canned food be better than fresh? George takes two types of tomato sauce to the streets. 4. Relationally: The imbalance in this area for many teens is that relationships, oftentimes, are about 98% of their focus. Absorption costing (or full absorption costing), aims to assign all the costs of production to the end product or service.
Marijuana

First off I would like to point out all of the concerns I had throughout this debate. Drug Cartels, Gateway drug, Mental disorders, Endangering well-fare of other civilians around. The main reason why feel we don't need marijuana as another substance that society can abuse is the fact that we don't need to create more unhealthy substances for our society to consume. I feel that the drugs are illegal for one reason only and that is to protect us from not causing harm to ourselves and others. Now I know your going to point out the fact that if people are using this drug for recreational purposes in the comfort of their own home than they should continue to do so but its wrong because they are still damaging themselves and there are possibilities that they would still drive when they are high. "Outside of the obvious benefits of hemp -- can be used as a bio-diesel, burns cleanly, makes soil stronger, sturdier paper, etc. -- organic" You cited this section but I don't agree with you because we have other things that functions as the same as the list above. I would also like to show in the first sentence I would like to discredit your statement about me only showing the bad purposes because I am con that is the side I am on so I will obviously show that my points are negative. I would also like to address the fact that you gave me very little to work with in the fourth round so it seems as if you don't have anymore strong points. I also feel that since you haven't finished strong it seems your points are weak. I do not agree with the fact that if we legalize pot we get the government more money from taxes but that still doesn't solve the problem if people are going to drive around high and crash and end lives. I am sure your thinking about how we can make laws against driving high but you and I can both admit that people will not follow the law seeing that many people smoke marijuana now even though it is against the law. I just think if we do make marijuana legal many things will go wrong including, economy, jobs, seriousness in the work place, accidence, violence and so on. It will be bad for our health and as of right now we have to worry about second hand smoke from cigarettes now we have to be aware of second hand smoke from marijuana and if a child is there whose mind is just starting to develop and his brain cells gets destroyed. This legalization is looking like a tremendous terrible idea. In conclusion I would like to wrap up by stating marijuana is illegal for a reason it messes with people's perception which puts them in the wrong state of mind and that is something we don't want to legalize here because it is not healthy and not FDA approved and I don't think they would approve it. And so I will leave you with this parting article about why we should still keep marijuana illegal. http://civilliberty.about.com... Here are a few of the top reasons why we should keep the drug illegal and once again I thank you for the debate.