BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
no one knows the answer to the question to "why is the rum gone?"

no one –noun no person; not anyone; nobody http://dictionary.reference.com... According to you, no one knows the answer to the question to "why is the rum gone?" Which means that if I can prove that one person knew the answer to why the rum is gone, then I will win the debate. In the youtube clip, Elizabeth Swann gives two great answers to why the rum is gone. 1) "Because it is a vile drink that turns even the most respectful men into complete scoundrels." 2)"That signal (referring to fire that she created with the help of burning the rum so the Royal Navy will find her) is over 1000 feet high, the entire Royal Navy is out looking for me, do you really think that there is even the slightest chance that they won't see it?" http://www.youtube.com...
We should get rid of term limits on our President.

I beg to differ, you undermine protesters, when protesters are the ones that make great leaders. They keep them in line when they are acting out of order. Protesters are the reason Presidents think twice before taking rash decisions. Further more, for someone being elected for the 'fifth time' as you claim, that is 40 years. What kind of Democracy is that? I am sure that is only fair for the 51% or maybe 60% of the population. Which is the majority. Yes he has been elected legally but bare in mind, that too much time in the office' will not only gain him experience, and contacts to get the job done but it will as well corrupt his being and thus pushing him to use those 'experience and contacts' not for the well fare of the society but for his own personal gains. You might want to argue and say, if he is bad or he does go bad. We will discard him/her and elect a new President. That would only be sound in theory but in reality, you will not find out about his 'under the table deals' unless it's far too late. He will steal the bread and provide you with the crumbles, practically deluding you with a mere illusion of prosper. Under no such circumstances should we take such risk because it might end up ruining the nation's Economy. I could give live examples such as President Mubarak, he was democratically elected for 6 periods and look where did that got Egypt. He left such a mess, where the people of Egypt are cleaning. How did he do that you may ask? He extended the term limits. So not only was he jeopardizing the Presidency elections to his favor but he did also toil with the constitution. After all he is a human being, who had grown mad with power. He has been President for far so long in order just to give it up. And if you want to look at it from an Economics perspective. In theory if Supply increases (NUMBER OF ELECTED PERIODS), the Demand decreases (IN THAT CASE HIS SUPPORTING BASE). So Rationally, no one could stay in charge for such a very long time without losing credibility. Thank you.
We should get rid of term limits on our President.

But just as I have mentioned above in my former argument, it is not fair for the protesters. What I am trying to say here, just because you and a bunch of folks think a certain leader is a 'great' does not make him in fact a great leader. However if the majority agrees then he should spend his time but only within respect to term limits. Because if we dismiss term limits then what is stopping him from being elected for a third, fourth, fifth and even a sixth period. And if that is to happen, that that dismisses the idea of Democracy. Everyone deserves to take a chance.
We should get rid of term limits on our President.

I believe that you are mistaken in a sense. Term limits are but boundaries for every respective candidate. They make sure that the country does not get cursed with a corrupt President or even one that deems to prove that he/she is unfit. Now in your argument you propose that a President should be running more than 8 years even if only 'majority' perceives him as worthy or functional that does not give the majority the right to elect him for more than 8 years. Because that would stand against the idea of Democracy. What you are basically saying a President should keep his post for decades if the people want him? That is not Democracy that is Communism, and if you stand against Democracy that is a whole other debate. Now I am going to provide an example, consider your society a class room with a numerous class mates, around 15 for example. All 14 of your elect this one candidate to run for presidency. But there is no term limits, He stays in his post for 2 weeks and he is doing quite well. But what if there are ones, other class mates that are more qualified than him. Yet they can't get a chance to show what they can do, as there are no limits. Consider another scenario where this elected person is secretly stashing the classroom funds and pretending to be a 'goodie-goodie'. You cannot dismiss him unless he leaves trail but he's too good to be caught. You need term limits to be protected from that. Also term limits give right for the protesting party to get a chance, because there will be always protesters, people who think he is not good enough. Just because you and your folks/party favor that specific President, that doesn't mean that he is in fact the ideal president.
We should get rid of term limits on our President.

You are dismissing the idea of a President going corrupt for spending too much time in power, because your counter argument the new President MIGHT be worse than a experienced leader. But you are not taking into account that term limits help new ideas, vision and futures to be born. The experienced leader had a chance of 8 years, it's time to pass the torch for someone else. This is what Democracy is. Now I never said that the majority does not count, my argument was that the opposition need to get a chance as well. And if there was no term limits, this President might keep winning one election after the other. And I noticed you always argue in case he is a good leader, what about a case were he is ripping off people and they still can not see it, thanks to the 'media' of course. Like President George Bush for instance, he was one of the worst Presidents in the modern history, yet he still ruled for two periods. Nowadays people shun his actions and deeds, they had seen what he had been doing. But what if there was no term limits, nothing could have stopped the people from electing him again and again. Term Limits are but boundaries to stop potential Dictators or Presidents with evil intentions to do as they please. Elections will not protect the people from words and false promises, as we all know every President brain washes their supporters with campaigns that does not meet our expectations. Bottom line is my argument is 8 years of Presidency is more than enough for those Presidents to offer good to their respectable country, It gives the opposition a chance to run for Presidency and finally it protects the President from going mad with power and authority. Term limits also avoid the occurrence of a Monarchy. While your rebut is about the people getting a chance to elect the same President over and over.. as they please if they BELIEVE that President is good enough to keep running. In theory that would be very good, but in real life it's much more complicated. Your argument is rather naive and has no relation with the on-going situation out there. As I have noted before, the longer people stay with power, the more they will manipulate and commit fraud to keep that power, Politicians and Presidents are anything but Saints. There is corruption in every Politician, but it varies from one person to the other or from one Government to another. I have given a very vivid example of a man corrupted with power and that is Mubarak, Former President of Egypt. While my opponent failed to provide me with a vivid example of his theory. My opponent is only arguing what he believes would happen if there was no term limits, while I provided a brief example of the consequences. I am sure there are many other examples out there. Thank you for your time.
We should get rid of term limits on our President.

Politicians who are in the last term of office are more likely to ignore the will of the people since they don't face the wrath of the electorate in the future. Also I'm confused on how it could mess with the economy, sometimes a new president can mess the economy up more than an experienced leader would. Term limits make it hard for someone to get everything they want done. If we gave a president let's say like 3 or 4 terms he would be able to fix more than he would in 2 terms. You also made a point of how if only 51% of people voted for that president it wouldn't be fair. How so, wouldn't he have still won the majority, thus pleasing a majority. Also protesters are again irrelevant and have nothing to do with this argument, but if you must bring them up I will rebut them with the fact that even though Obama had strong opposition on his Healthcare Reform doesn't mean he listened to the protesters, obviously he didn't in fact because he got it passed.
Death Penalty

It actually costs a ton more to sentence someone to death than life, because when someones life is on the line things don't go so smoothly. Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000. Cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion for the entire country In general seeking the death penalty is more expensive than imprisoning someone with a life sentence https://deathpenaltyinfo.org... Maximum security prisons tend to limit the time they even see another inmate, to an arguably abusive extent. Though I believe in using some of the extra money on counseling and anger management. A life sentence is applicable for those very likely to continue killing. Those who became cereal killers or mass murderers still have no need to die. Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. Likely many more died before having a chance to prove themselves innocent, that's the thing with the death penalty, it's permanent. No matter how much new evidence enters the case, nothing can be done. I see no difference when talking about multiple murders. I strongly disagree with your personal view, when you believe some people cannot fit in the world and will never fit, you give up any hope for them. Even the slightest grain.
Death Penalty

Okay, I will present you with a few problems that you have to cope with if you death penalty isnt adapted. 1. Costs of keeping criminals. 2. Cons who continue killing when they are behind bars. 3. Cons who finishing serving their sentence and go back to re-offend (recidivism rate is around 70% in US). 4. Cons who went on a killing spree and killed dozens of people. Would you want to feed, dress them and take care for them in general. 5. My personal view. Some people dont fit this world, and it is a struggle for them to live every day. You dont know what battles or wars they faced.. Many of which you are lucky to not have experienced. So it would simply be a good idea for them and for the society to simply perish.
Death Penalty

You simply re-iterated your previous arguments and didnt contradict my points. * My first point was the cost. Politicians could take care of the laws to make an execution less expensive. It is the system flaw/fault, not the ideological argument of this debate. "*across the country, seeking the death penalty costs and avrage $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death " To reinforce my point even further, holding a prisoner in decent condition for all his life, could cost over a million ;( * Confessions, technology and the criminal justice system, is what holds 3 million american prisoners today. What other method do you want to judge people. You could go as stringent as you can. "Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated" Thats not a lot of people. Dangerous Jails have dozens of people, being murdered or/and raped in prisions every year. So, basically, putting or/and holding such dangerous prisons in jails, does nothing good?! And we didnt talk about all kind of injuries they inflict. If a person was seen by a CCTV camera going to or murdering someone, and he also confesses, whats the chance of him being innocent? If the system has any suspicion, still, that he didnt, it can be argued in court and remove the death penalty from him! And you can go even more stringent than that, by, for example producing more forensic evidence or more eyewitnesses, and even use a lie detecting machine ( a lie detecting machine has 95% of success). " Is improper in an argument especially one where emotion has a clear tie in on both sides." No, it isnt only about emotions. Empathy should exist when talking about food calories, time of meal a day, medical treatment, psychiatric treatment, accessibility to toilets and showers. Otherwise, jails wouldnt be jails they would become torture chambers. What you offer to do, is hold dangerous criminals such as mass murderers and rapists without the possibility of parole. Someone will have to share the cell with them? what if they decide to rape or kill him?!? what about the guards who may have to face such criminals. Do you also want to ration the food, holding place and other resources among those people?
Death Penalty

Even as technology gets better at identifying people, technology to counter that is bound to follow. Not to mention that even if no one learns to abuse the system you call the future, it is still the future. We aren't talking about how the death penalty could work in the future we are talking about if it should be used now. Every confession has the chance to be false as I just stated, No matter what evidence is pulled together with it the chance of innocence persists, and the seeking of the death penalty remains more expensive than it's worth. Just saying it's up to the politicians to make it cheaper doesn't qualify as an argument especially when expecting a larger field of evidence that may very well hike up the cost more. I am religious, but that has nothing to do with the argument and I am not basing my arguments off of it. My stance is based in logic that you have not succeeded in countering: *Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. Likely many more died before having a chance to prove themselves innocent *across the country, seeking the death penalty costs and avrage $700,000 more in case-level costs than not seeking death *between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion for the entire country Everyone has some kind of emotional attachment to any opinion they hold, here are some of yours: *"Cons who went on a killing spree and killed dozens of people. Would you want to feed, dress them and take care for them in general." *"Some people dont fit this world, and it is a struggle for them to live every day. You dont know what battles or wars they faced.. Many of which you are lucky to not have experienced. So it would simply be a good idea for them and for the society to simply perish." *"What you believe is not right. That inmate will end killing the counselor. True, it is abusive.. thats why it would be better for long term prisoners to disappear forever instead of spending all their time in solitary." I do not personally have a problem with emotional based arguments as long as they are backed up with facts to some extent, after all we have both a brain and a heart for a reason, but saying something like, "Your ideology or arguments are mostly emotional, there is no logic or argumentative basis in them. You are probably someone who is religious or someone who saw too many Disney movies." Is improper in an argument especially one where emotion has a clear tie in on both sides.
Death Penalty

CCTV are getting clever. The future is to identify people by their facial 3D models instead of a 2D pictures or by their Irises. It is up to the politicians to make executions cheaper. Confessions may not be 100% reliable. But they can be supported by other evidence such as forensics evidence. I just gave a few examples. You can group all evidence and tests together to draw a whole enough picture to convict for murder. Your ideology or arguments are mostly emotional, there is no logic or argumentative basis in them. You are probably someone who is religious or someone who saw too many Disney movies.
Death Penalty

The costs associated with the death penalty have to do, not with the death itself, but mostly in court costs. No matter what form of execution is used. the cost remains. As the death penalty's cost are associated with court costs, an increase in necessary evidence to achieve a conviction though it would lessen the amount of innocent people on death row would also cause the death penalty to become even more expensive. The inmate would not be loose around the counselor. The inmate would be restrained. Most murders that are likely to kill someone wouldn't under surveillance anyhow, given not all would care. Serial killers in particular tend to be actually very charming and careful when killing. Though I have already addressed your last point, I will add on. Relying on things like video has a large chance of becoming obsolete in the future as technology progresses. Confessions aren't reliable all the time either, as in some cases the person confessing may be protecting someone, or the confession may have been coerced.
Death Penalty

There are different death penalties. They could make a death penalty cost $100 at most. A dose of a certain anti-depressant (like it is done in Switzerland, in cases of euthonasia), can kill you without pain. A bullet to the head, can achieve the same effect. "Maximum security prisons tend to limit the time they even see another inmate, to an arguably abusive extent. Though I believe in using some of the extra money on counseling and anger management." What you believe is not right. That inmate will end killing the counselor. True, it is abusive.. thats why it would be better for long term prisoners to disappear forever instead of spending all their time in solitary. "Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. Likely many more died before having a chance to prove themselves innocent, that's the thing with the death penalty, it's permanent. No matter how much new evidence enters the case, nothing can be done." That is the problem of the system, not of my principles. If you want a better system, make it very stringent. For example, you could rely only on CCTV camera or convict confessions before issuing the death sentence.
IVF Debate

While the technology is becoming safer and more accessible, we cannot forget about the ethics involving this. When you have the eggs taken out, not all the eggs are fertilized. The ones that are not fertilized are frozen and that raises questions on when life begins. Parents can even choose to destroy the eggs as well. Not only that, sometimes more than one egg is fertilized and it gives expecting parents more than they wanted. This was the case with octo mom. Yes, the doctor did lose his license, but the octo mom still ended up with 8 kids.
IVF Debate

It seems as though you believe that if there are risks involved than we must avoid a practice entirely! I could rattle off about the risk of intrusive surgeries, but I think we can an unanimously agree that the benefit of life saving operations out weighs the risk. Following that chain of thought, I think we can all agree that fertility treatments far out weigh their risks. Having a child is an enormous decision, and these parents are sure they are willing to make the gamble! Either way, the longer the technology is around and in wide spread use, the more we will discover about it, and the safer and more efficient it will become. This argument of detrimental risk defeats itself on its premise, as using the technology by virtue of its being IMPROVES on the safety of the procedure!
IVF Debate

You do have a point with that. While yes, SOME single parents can raise a child, you have to take into account that it would be hard for MOST single parents to raise a child. Most of those parents work two jobs and struggle financially trying to take care of their child or children. They live off of each paycheck and this is not a good environment to raise a child in. This will develop social issues for the child. On top of that, according to createhealth.org, There is evidence that high oestrogen levels associated with high stimulation IVF can cause prematurity of birth and low birth weight. This has been linked to long-term health problems for the child. So while you can select which eggs you want to use to stop birth defects, there is still a chance that something could go wrong.
IVF Debate

You're right! It sounds like we also think that single mothers cannot do a good job and should have their children taken from them and placed in foster care- NOT. When they say it takes a village to raise a child, they aren't being hyperbolic. A child is influenced by far more than their parents. According to NCBI.gov, peers and friends actually have MORE influence over a child than the parents do! This is besides the point. Let us not pretend that IVF is the central reason for single parents. A single person can adopt, can foster children, or a spouse can die or separate. This procedure is not responsible for any sort of abolition of the tradition two parent model, and Psychology Today reported that children raised in single parent households more or less fair just as well as their double parent counterpart.
IVF Debate

You may feel that money is not an issue, especially when trying to have a family, i do agree with you to an extent. But, in order to support a family, to make sure they're clothed and fed, you need the money. You need to provide housing for your family, and if the procedure is out of your financial budget, then how are you able to to nurture your children and provide the best for them. On top of that, there will be many social issues that would arise. PBS states that marriage would be replaced and the children would become socially ostracized. Having a good family structure is key to raising children. When you don't have two role models in their lives to take care of them and teach them because a women wanted a child but didn't want to get married or have another partner, they will grow up and not know how to fight into society. There is also concerns for them being excluded or judged because they're different. They wont be seen normal because they were created in a lab and not like everyone else.
IVF Debate

As the science advances and technology improves, it will be possible to improve the success rate of IVF, and accordting to createfertile.com, the success rate has steadily risen the longer the technology has been around. Besides, what i money worth when love and family are on the line? CNS news reports that the average american couple makes upwards of 60,000 dollars a year. The treatment may be relatively expensive, but I promise, the monetary cost is the least of these couples concerns! They're trying to begin a family! If a couple feels so inclined to spend their hard earned cash to begin a family, isn't that their right? In addition, createfertile.com also suggests that as technology improves, it will be possible to screen out those embryos which are damaged or will result in low weight, highly diseased offspring, which would even further improve the rate of success, and would likely help to prevent many hereditary conditions and afflictions.
IVF Debate

While yes, IVF may be helpful to infertile couples, you need to understand that the success rate declines as the age increases in women. According to web M.D, women 35 and younger have a 39.6% fertility rate while women over 40 have a 11.5% of having a child. While yes, this does give couples a chance, the rate is too low, especially with the cost, having it cost about $12,400.