BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Winner take all states

Actually, I had to define what the Winner take all system is. Since the con side was unable to define what the resolution was, I had to clarify it. Also, the con side contradicts them self, saying "This is not an argument for or against the electoral college, a system that has outlasted its usefulness. " Meaning that the con side DOES want to change it. Another argument that my opponent made was that it should reflect the will of the people. However, What about cases in which there is a 50-50 tie with a +- 1%. Should the person who barely won by 1% win? this is why we have an electoral college system, and the winner take all system. To prevent this from happening. When there are minimal votes counted "the practical value of requiring a distribution of popular support outweighs whatever sentimental value may attach to obtaining a bare majority of popular support. Indeed, they point out that the Electoral College system is designed to work in a rational series of defaults: if, in the first instance, a candidate receives a substantial majority of the popular vote, then that candidate is virtually certain to win enough electoral votes to be elected president; in the event that the popular vote is extremely close, then the election defaults to that candidate with the best distribution of popular votes (as evidenced by obtaining the absolute majority of electoral votes); in the event the country is so divided that no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes, then the choice of president defaults to the States in the U. S. House of Representatives. One way or another, then, the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern. " (uselectionatlas. org, 2014)What this basically means is, if there is an overwhelming majority of voters, then the nominee is certain to win the electoral college. The con side also states, "This is an argument over should all votes count or should one vote change the votes of many. " This is not the case, because in the electoral college, it is actually represented by the will of the people. It is a representative republic, therefore his argument is nonunique and flawed. The con side has not refuted any of my arguments, at all, and expanded on his case. The pro side has rebutted the con's side arguments, and extends all attacks made to him/her. Also, the con side has not substantiated his claims, and seems to contradicts what he is saying.
Winner take all states

Winner-take-all or winner-takes-all is an electoral system in which a single political party or group can elect every office within a given district or jurisdiction. (. https://ballotpedia.org..., 2016)What the con side argues for, is to reform the electoral college. However, this will throw many of the minuscule states, with not a lot of people, in the dirt. In the electoral college, even small states have some representation in the electoral college. My opponent has also stated that the electoral college system is election fraud, but he does not define what election fraud is. Also know as Voter fraud, also known as vote fraud, election fraud, and electoral fraud, refers to the specific offenses of fraudulent voting, impersonation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process. Now, there are state laws supporting the electoral college system, and the winner take all, so it is not election fraud.
Winner take all states

Overall, con side has shown a lack of analysis, while just putting and pasting down quotes. The site that I provided actually shows both sides to whether winner-take-all should be removed or not. Now, there HAVE been motions to take down winner-take-all laws, but none have succeeded. The con side has rebutted very few of my arguments, while I have rebutted all of their arguments, and has not mentioned any of my arguments in Round 1. My definition of the winner-take-all and voter fraud stays true, being that the con side has not provided a counter definition. Please take these definitions into consideration.
It should be Legal to throw acid at women who are Feminists

I will be arguing that acid attacks should be legal if carried out by a man whereby the target is a woman feminist, and hydrochloric acid is used. My opponent (Con) will provide reasons why such an act should be illegal.Debate StructureRound 1: acceptance WITH argumentsRound 2: argumentsRound 3: conclusion - no new arguments The purpose of acid attacks, or the throwing of a corrosive substance onto the body of another is clearly to disfigure. "The most common types of acid used in these attacks are sulfuric and nitric acid. Hydrochloric acid is sometimes used, but is much less damaging" - wikipediaIf sulfuric and nitric acid are illegal, people who throw acid will use hydrochloric acid meaning the victims will have a greater chance of surviving such attacks. When throwing acid is completely illegal, less people who throw acid will do so in public. Burns will take longer to treat, therefore the victim will suffer severe damage, and will have a greater chance of dying!Men who use acid to disfigure can face the death penalty or very long sentences. If there were no laws against throwing acid on someone more people would be alive. A man who carried out the attack would not be given a death sentence, and would be less likely to go on a killing spree, murdering as many people as possible before he is caught and killing himself.Surely the lives of the many outweight the lives of the few?Below is a graph showing acid attacks in Bangladesh from 1999 - 2013 [1] It may appear that acid attacks have steadily declined since 2002 when two new acts – Acid Crime Control Act (ACCA) and the Acid Control Act (ACA) were introuduced. We must remember though that these kind of fgures are usually manipulated to look better. Stringent rules have been placed on the sale of acid which explains the decrease. So, if acid was as accessible as before, we would probably see a similar number of individuals attacked with acid. Feminsts do not value men, this is why some let their legs, arms, underarms etc get hairy, over eat and become an unhealthy weight. They increase rape, suicides, murderers. They even make websites and youtube videos to spread lies such as "acid attacks are nearly entirely against women" when in most countries it is even, and overall women are just under two times as likely to be a victim. They don't care how male victims feel, or whether innocent people are punished, all they care about is feeling superior. A lot of good will come from stopping feminism.Making it legal for men to attack women who are feminsts with acid is the best way to tackle this problem. sources:[1] http://www.riseforindia.com...
LGBt people should be treated as the same in faith

This is not a debate but a discussion between myself and Persianimmortal. I have been studying religion heavy for a good five years now my dad is a Pastor and my mom works for the church have always asked my parents lots of Religious questions since I was fithteen. But this question I believe my dad has wrong in what God's plan is for his LGBT people. I will like to start this out by saying he treats everyone the same as said in Ephesians 2:10 "For we are God"s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago." Also in Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" But I think its best said by peter" So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality..." So if God shows no partiality then how is he angry about certain people what he created in his own image. But when it comes to Homosexuality God seems to put a whole author look on. "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20 :13 Also in 1 Corinthians 6 9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. I have kept this quote while so you can see what the chapter of this section of the bible was about. But I mainly picked this verse since the Bible spells out Homosexually and that it is Sexually immoral. But this is where I differ from my dad and some Christians on this issue. A lot of times as we are thought that the bible is the way it is and everything is written as is. But as my studies in the bible through interviews and collage courses I believe god does change his mind as the world changes. And his ten commandments are what His true values are. I will let my fellow friend in to have his points. And next round I will be talking about why God and evidence that God changes his mind. https://www.openbible.info......... https://www.openbible.info......... http://www.biblica.com.........
Hello guys Christians eat Homosexuals and rape people

Hello guys, I am a proud atheist and here I am going to prove that Christians like to kill and eat Homosexuals and rape people.Christians are homophobes which is why they like to kill and eat Homosexuals. Why? Well, they follow a book called the BIBLE, which is a LIE and all Christians are ENEMIES OF THE NEW, ILLUMINATED ATHEIST WORLD ORDER!Their holy book, the BIBLE, says that we should murder gay people for being gay! This shows that they are Homophobes and irrationally are scared of gay people![1]The Bible, which is a EVIL LIE, states that we should eat gay people:I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives. [2]This is because Christians are irrationally scared of gay people and think that gays are the "enemies who seek their lives(The lives of Christians)".The BIBLE is also a EVIL BOOK that supports rape! Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2, emphasis added by EvilBible.com)[3]wAKE UP GUYS, cHRISTIANITY IS A EVIL LIE AND OPPRESSION AND BRAINWASHING AND cHRISTIANS ARE CLOSED MINDED PEOPLE WHO SHOULD OPEN THEIR MINDS AND ACCEPT THE TRUTH OF THE NEW, ILLUMINATED ATHEIST WORLD ORDER.Christian God Is A Big Fat Lie. You Have Been Deceived By Those Evil Christians If You Believe In That Lie. Worship Of EVIL LIE of CHRISTIANITY Causes All Adults To Eat Their Children. Source: Bible Deuteronomy 28:53-58.[4] Sources:1. http://www.evilbible.com...2. http://biblehub.com...3. http://www.evilbible.com...4.http://www.abovegod.com...
Hello guys Christians eat Homosexuals and rape people

Con claims that these passages are from the Old Testament, and that they are, therefore, false.However, according to the Bible, Jesus never abolished the laws of the Old Testament, instead he supported and approved of those laws.Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) [1]This proves that the Old Testament laws still stand.The cannibalism was not to warn of the destruction it was cannibalism towards gays the Bible tells us to eat Homosexuals.Carrying someone off by force often involves rape and it actually does mean Rape because Evilbible said so.====================I know why con disagrees with me: He supports the EVIL LIE of Christianity, which is an ENEMY of the ILLUMINATED ATHEIST WORLD ORDER! All Christians are ENEMIES OF THE STATE and all have mental illnesses that make them Christian! Christians who refuse to accept the word of our god Charles Darwin and prophet Richard Dawkins will be put in reeducation centres until they do accept the TRUTH!1. http://www.evilbible.com...
People should eat all food in drink form

People can still choke on water and other drinks. Even if we made all food in drink form, it would be taking away one of the greatest things in our life. Everyone loves food and I think everyone can agree that a burger is better than a burger smoothie. It would be like banning all beaches because there are sharks in the water. Sure there are some shark attacks, but that doesn't mean we should just get rid of it all together.
Aliens exist

That being said, Pro has not established round structure, so I will start with my case. If you look at the title of the debate (the resolution), you will notice that it is not a normative topic, is a positive assertion. Thus, Pro has the full burden of proof to affirm the resolution (since it is a positive assertion, the positive side, Pro, has the BoP). Thus, to win this debate, I only have to negate Pro's case. The title also makes a very specific statement, Aliens exist. Not that they are likely to exist, that aliens could exist, but that they most certainly do exist, without any doubt whatsoever. For them not to exist would be an impossibility. Now that the debate is made clear, you can understand what Pro needs to do to win the debate; prove that aliens do exist with no possibility that they can't, and I merely have to negate that to win. If we look at Pro's arguments, you will see that they do not affirm the resolution. Pro merely shows that there is a great possibility that they could exist, not that get DO exist. Pro needs to give evidence that there is a 100% chance, not 99.999. .. %
Aliens exist

Hello there. Today I will be arguing that aliens do exist. So, here is some of my proof. First of all the universe is such a large and amazing place. We humans have barely scratched it. We can't necessarily calculate the exact measurements of the universe itself because it's so big. Heck, it's estimated that the diameter of the KNOWN universe is 92 billion light years! ONE light year can travel about 670,616,629 mph just to put things in perspective. Imagine how much space that is, it's so much to calculate. Which means that in that spacious universe, at least ONE other species of lifeforms has to exist. Or else we would be totally lonely... Here are the links I found to support my evidence www.universetoday.com/38040/speed-of-light-in-mph http://www.space.com...
10% (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi) is not furry.

I will first define some keywords. Kemonomimi - an anime and manga terminology describing humanoid characters that possess animal-like features. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Nekomimi - a female with cat ears, a cat tail, or other feline accoutrements on an otherwise human-shaped body. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Examples of the above two can be found at http://img.7chan.org... NSFW Furry - the term used to define pornographic content (generally drawings, more rarely depicting images of anthropomorphic animals), that range in appearance from human genitalia and physical frame, animal features (muzzle, paws) human genitalia, animal physical frame and features animal genitalia and physical frame, yet with human features. (http://wikichan.org...) -------------- Kemonomimi and Nekomimi images are not animal like enough and should not be considered "furry". As I am not good with opening statements I will wait for my opponent to argue that Kemonomimi and Nekomimi images are in fact furry.
10% (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi) is not furry.

"As we cannot, by any standards, judge the distribution of each individual character and what parts make up their bodies in percentage, I propose this debate is null and void." Your argument would stand if I had only made the proposition "10% is not furry." and then had gone on to not lay the outline of the terms I was debating. "10%" is just a common term to describe Kemonomimi and Nekomimi anime. The proposition includes the terms Kemonomimi and Nekomimi, and my opening statement provides definitions. We are not debating whether or not a certain percentage is furry, but rather is those two styles of anime are to be considered furry. I wish you would stop trying to discredit the debate and discuss the topic at hand as outlined be me very well in my opening statement, as I am going to do now. --------- I would invite you to take two examples: http://www.s0m31john.com... (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi 18+ NSFW) http://www.s0m31john.com... (Furry 18+ NSFW) The two are wildly different and should not be categorized as the same. The furry image by far closer resembles the animal it is intended to look like than the catgirl example for Kemonomimi and Nekomimi. This of course can not be calculated in percentage wise, but the percentage was never meant to be exact, rather just a common phrase in these communities. Kemonomimi and Nekomimi are far to different from furry to fall in the same category, which is why they have their own. I close hoping my opponent will discuss the topic and may the best debater of said topic win.
10% (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi) is not furry.

I hereby concede to my previous argument for it was a slander and nothing more. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of my opponents and meant nothing by the first statement. Yes it is true that a majority of these two styles of anime (Which, by the way, was not sufficiently recorded in my last argument due to my apathy) Is a majority human But I I bring an alternative. As we cannot, by any standards, judge the distribution of each individual character and what parts make up their bodies in percentage, I propose this debate is null and void. Until such a time can be proven hence, I will not argue further.
10% (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi) is not furry.

Although I fail to see what you said regarding my "geekyness" has to do with the proposition, I will quickly address your points. "given no prior knowledge to this anime" You refer to Nemonomimi and Nekomimi as a specific anime, where as if you had read the definitions I posted it is pretty clear it is a style of anime. I believe you're confusing it to be a specific tv show or manga. "my opponent is intellectual but only in the matter of This anime. " Once again you refer to Nemonomimi and Nekomimi as a specific anime, when it is a style is anime. "Whereas dictionary. com has no definition for Kemonomimi/Nekomimi. " Perhaps I shouldn't of used Wikipedia, I personally believe it to be a reliable source, but some on this site do not. Reference. com, affiliated with dictionary. com, therefore should be just as reliable as the site you hold in high esteem, has a definition for both words. . http://www.reference.com... (Kemonomimi) . http://www.reference.com... (Nekomimi) Both VERY similar, if not identical, to the definitions provided by Wikipedia. Now that I have addressed those points draxxt, I hope you will address the topic at hand. Let me refresh your memory: "10% (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi) is not furry. " My point still stands, Kemonomimi/Nekomimi are not animal like enough in appearance and should not be considered furry.
10% (Kemonomimi/Nekomimi) is not furry.

I ammend that my opponent is a geek and therefore, given no prior knowledge to this anime, will attempt to provide incentive to their geekiness. Dictionary.com defines geek as: geek Slang. –noun 1. a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual. In this sense I concede to the fact that my opponent is intellectual but only in the matter of This anime. Whereas dictionary.com has no definition for Kemonomimi/Nekomimi. So I submit to you to vote in negation to this resolution due to the sheer stupidity and ultimately, the unquestionable geekiness of it. Thank you.
The United States foreign policy is an extremely atrocious policy.

The U.S. foreign policy is obviously the most extremely atrocious foreign policy in the modern day. The United States holds the credit for being the only country in the world, convicted of participating in international terrorism (against the Republic opf Nicaragua), when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986. The United States, in the last five years alone, killed more than 1 million Iraqis (Iraq War). The United States was mainly responsibly for the (more than) 15,000 deaths of Afghans in the last 7 years. My argument, which I still follow is: The US foreign policy is an extremely atrocious policy. What does that mean? Analyzing data shows that the US has committed more serious violatons of international law (war of aggression, which is the "supreme international crime" according to the Nuremberg Principles) than any other nation in the modern world. So, yes - the US foreign policy exhibits characteristics of a violent, atrocious, state. The United States supported Indonesia throughout its campaign to wipe out the population of East Timor. The U.S. continues to give mass arms supply (as Clinton did in 1999), to the government of Turkey. What does Turkey do with those arms? Well, as part of its "counterror campaign" it kills thousands (a conservative estimate by Amnesty International) Kurds. The U.S. foreign policy has helped impose sanctions on Cuba, (previously Iraq), and now Iran. All three of these sanctions are grave violations of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 50 of the Hague Convention of 1907. The US knew all of this, but they understand killing must be done to gain domination of the world. The Bush doctrine released in 2002 (National Security Strategy of 2002), for the first time explained the US foreign policy in clearer terms. The Bush doctrine gave the US the right to wipe out any "rogue state." Well, what is a "rogue state"? According to the Bush doctrine a "rogue state" is any state which has the potential to threaten us. Since ANY country CAN threaten us (in the future), the U.S. can attack any country which threatens US hegemony. Most governments in the modern world have killed parts of their own population. However, the U.S. is the ONLY country to commit such massive acts of aggression (the "supreme international crime" according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson who represented the U.S. during the Nuremberg Tribunals), give enormous arms supply to countries which commit genocide while establishing their own dominance. I could go through more cases, but for the readers' brevity, I have been brief in mentioned the violations of minimal ethical standards that the US had committed. I do understand that the stance I take is largely unconventional but we must expose the lies of the establishment and speak for the truth. Thank You.