BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United Nations becoming more like the League of Nations

Okay, so this is going to be my opening argument. 1- I would like to bring the Con's attention, along with everyone else witnessing this, to my first, and strongest case. The UN has failed, over the course of the last forty seven years, to resolve the persistent issue named Israel. I would like to point out that UN peacekeeper influence in the Gaza and West Jerusalem areas has been minimal to date, the strongest action taken, after international pressuring, was to make Palestine as a permanent SPECTATOR member. It would be an act of ignorance to negate the fact that a total of 91,105 Palestinians and Arabs have been killed since 1860 in all Arab-Israeli conflicts, and the UN has done very little to curb that number. It was the US, with pressure from other European countries, that brokered the Camp David Accords. It was not UN intervention that lifted the siege on Gaza since 2008. It was not the UN that stopped forced Israeli settlements in the lands rightfully owned by Palestinians. It was not the UN which brought Israel to the the International Court of Justice on its proven war crimes of rape, prisoner torture, and arbitrary abduction. It was not the UN that stood up to Jewish excursions into Palestinian Jerusalem. It was not the UN that has convened an Emergency Meeting to enforce the Two-State solution, which would not have only brought PEACE to the area, but also a chance for Palestinians to rebuild their abused homeland after DECADES of uninterrupted occupation. 2- The time has come to reflect the resent UN resolution about the situation in West Africa which begins ; "Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence,territorial integrity and unity of The Islamic Republic of The Gambia, and recalling the importance of the principles of good-neighborliness, non-interference and regional cooperation." This, as the first clause in the resolution, is the most powerful of all promises made in the entire document. It states that "territorial integrity" will be maintained in Gambia, because the UN is commuted to doing so, and, if the UN was effective, it would have DONE so. (3) 3- Resolution 2328 (2016), which demands UN access to, and I quote, "monitor evacuations from Aleppo," has been passed on the 19 of December 2016, meaning that it should be in full effect and the UN should have forces on the ground safeguarding the evacuating residents. Results have not been seen to date, ISIS persists its bombing of the city, and people cannot escape due to fighting in the streets, let a lone be monitored while doing so. The UN should be stopping CONFLICTS ENTIRELY, not aiming to help refugees or raising awareness. The LON did nothing when Italy invaded Ethiopia because it was incompetent and obsolete. The UN is DOING nothing MAJOR about what is happening in Syria because it also is incompetent and obsolete. Sanctions weren't even imposed on Russia for intervening in the civil war.
Death Penalty

However, the death penalty serves as an example for others, because if people know that they will be killed, they may be less likely to commit a serious offence. Also, if there is a serious offence, an entire life imprisonment may not be enough to punish them, i.e if someone went on a rampage and killed a whole lot of people, and was caught, they should be made to pay- because the lives of the relatives of the victims should be taken into account. The killer should not really been made to live- he should be punished for what he had done.
The Electoral College should be abolished

I see your point, I misunderstood the function of the Electoral College. I was reading more about it online, And I came across an interesting argument; Should China have more seats than the US in the UN General assembly? I agree that a countries size shouldn't dictate its representation, And I guess the same could be said for states. I still don't like the fact that only one political party in this country is benefiting from this system though. Anyways, You win.
The Electoral College should be abolished

The united states was founded as a democracy, Not just a republic. " This statement is inherently false and a common misconception (which I debunked previously). The founders intended for it to NOT be a democracy. It has some democratic features, But the point of it being a republic is that it is not a democracy nor was it founded to be one. "The Electoral College system has gone beyond protecting the minority and has instead subverted the will of the majority on several occasions. I don't think candidates would necessarily campaign only in big cities, America is pretty evenly split between urban and rural" The point IS to not have a simple majority mob-rule an entire country. It's not about urban and rural, The populations of California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and Georgia are about 50% of the entire country. Assuming that the % of registered voters is correlated to the % of the population (which it is), Then the ruling president would just pass laws and pander to these 8 states. That means the people living in the other 42 states are not represented in the government. Can you imagine that? The population of 42 states not represented. The electoral college guarantees the representation of all people in the government. "but in America we have an unrepresented majority in all of the branches of government. It has grown beyond a simple check and it has subverted the will of the people. " I think there is an unrepresented majority in the house of reps mainly due to gerrymandering, Which is a whole other issue. I think, Historically speaking, The president has been representative of the majority of the country. The electoral college is certainly not perfect. However, In the vast majority of elections the winner turns out to be the one with the most votes, And because of the electoral college that person had to campaign all over the US instead of just a couple states. It might have subverted the will of the people in some cases but that isn't congenitally bad for the country in the long run. I would say the electoral college is defiantly a better system than having the popular vote decide. It might need to be amended to fit the population a little but more, But the system itself, In my opinion, Is the greatest, Fairest one in the world. What other system would you recommend?
The Electoral College should be abolished

The united states was founded as a democracy, Not just a republic. The Electoral College system has gone beyond protecting the minority and has instead subverted the will of the majority on several occasions. I don't think candidates would necessarily campaign only in big cities, America is pretty evenly split between urban and rural. I understand your argument about an oppressed minority but in America we have an unrepresented majority in all of the branches of government. It has grown beyond a simple check and it has subverted the will of the people.
The Electoral College should be abolished

The purpose of the government is not necessarily to be democratic, In fact, I would say it's quite the contrary. The United States of America is not a full-on democracy, It is a republic. In a republic there is a system which is put in place to protect the minority in said republic. One of the ways the minority is protected is the electoral college. In a full democracy, Presidential candidates would campaign and pander to the "big" cities and place laws that favour them in order to stay in power. In that case, The minority would be oppressed and treated unfairly by the system. In a democracy the majority is not restrained in any way from oppressing the minority. Another example of this would be the senate. The senate is even less democratic that the electoral college. Each state (no matter the population or size) is represented by 2 senators. This is a form of checks and balances to ensure no law would be passed without knowing that it benefits everyone and not just the mob. The founders were not oblivious to this. I believe the electoral college was set up to avoid "mob-rule". During a debate Alexander Hamilton once said "If we incline too much to democracy, We shall soon shoot into a monarchy. " Benjamin Franklin wasn't a big fan of democracy either, He once said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. " John Adams also believed democracy was evil, Once saying "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, Exhausts, And murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. " I think my point is portrayed more accurately by a quote from James Madison "Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, And have an opportunity, The rights of the minor party become insecure. " The founders of this country had the adverse influences of a democratic system in mind when writing the constitution. Alexander Hamilton once said that real liberty is somewhere in the middle of despotism and democracy, And I believe the electoral college is one of the ways to balance the system.
Whites Should Go Enslave Blacks

Don't mention 'God' to me. You know that I'm an atheist, don't you? I don't believe in Christianity. (At the moment anyway.) Also, the question I asked you went through one of your ears and out the other, didn't it? Or perhaps you just didn't know what to say. Either way, you've lost this troll debate again. You're a brainless, racist, loser. And you should be enslaved. (But going to a home for mental people would be better.)
Whites Should Go Enslave Blacks

It's like you copy-pasted much of this from another of our 'debates'. You must seriously think about how one person's bad actions can bring a punishment on another. You're being nothing but a bad influence on the world here and what your saying is unjust, unacceptable and stupid. Some black people in America may cause violence, but that is because they are not as wealthy as many white people in the USA. If some white Americans are so scared of being assaulted by a BLACK person, and it's bothering them so much, then why don't they offer support to single mothers who happen to be black? So their kids don't get into crime? (I've said this before btw.) Now tell me Pro, If a few Russians decided to commit a serious crime, a horrible one, should you be enslaved or punished for it? And perhaps be called a bad influence on the world for it too? Because you are Russian like them? I need an answer from you on this. Yes or no?
Whites Should Go Enslave Blacks

Black people are nothing but a bad influence on the world. Here are the facts about black people that we must seriously consider: 1 in every 3 black men will end up in prison. Many black families on being headed by single mothers making barely more than minimum wage. Those families often have kids and youngsters who get in trouble with the law. Many violence in public schools, especially in downtown and big metropolises, are inflicted by black students. Furthermore, there have been many incidents where white people were attacked, targeted, and assaulted by black people.
Atheism is not credible.

Hi Corneliusok, I see you forfeited the last round and therefore debate presumably. That's a shame.Repeated requests for some argument from you for your position were therefore ignored I presume. That's the atheist's problem see, there are no positive arguments essentially. Attack is the best form of defence for an atheist as they have nothing. At least brave up to yourself and say at best you are an agnostic, as that is the best position for you to take, and continue to look for answers. Where you are now, you won't find any I assure you and you are left wide open to further deception. If it helps, here is my argument on why atheism or atheists are illogical : And here is Richard Dawkins on God, a Materialist, Atheist and Darwinist “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” R13; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion Now why is this rant illogical? If you can possibly conceive of there being such an entity as God with his oft quoted attributes, it therefore necessarily exists. This is not the same as imagining. Richard Dawkins can conceive of such an entity, (he has an idea of what God should be like to him, using his own moral concept as proven by the quoted rant. Therefore God necessarily exists. Richard Dawkins has a conception of God, and therefore God necessarily exists (see my first argument). If he had no conception of God he would not need to even contemplate the idea and write a book about it. He would just look clueless and walk away scratching his head. He also believes the Bible is a fairy tale. Logical people would not spend so much time bothering about and commentating on fairy tales, unless they were being emotive, either in an effort to deceive themselves or others. I will leave that question open. Therefore Richard Dawkins is being emotive and illogical in his argument against God. Richard Dawkins uses what he thinks is his own moral code being a wonderfully evolved superior specimen (haha he wishes) to compare himself to God, and comes out thinking he is morally superior. Richard Dawkins therefore does think he is more morally superior to a morally superior being, or else he doesn't believe in Him and he hates Him. Wow all of that time and effort to prove a fairy tale character doesn't exist. Doesn't he have some work on the evolutionary fairy tale to prove? Listen you can investigate the last 4000 years of human history and debate on the subject, or you can listen to a non philosophical evolutionary biologist ranting about a God he doesn't even supposedly believe in, but he hates Him and he wants you to know it. How bizarre. I know you're young and probably susceptible to it, all I would say is don't believe the hype, and do some research for yourself without bias. Take care and God bless.
Atheism is not credible.

Hi Cornelius, I get the distinct impression that you do not wish to continue with the debate, that's a shame. I've heard no arguments for why atheism is credible at all. Totally believe in separation of church and state. Likewise secularism and atheism shouldn't be pushed onto others. Eg The theory of evolution is atheistic and is pushed onto schools, should be classed as religion and not science. For 4000 years plus the creation and meaning of life was discussed seriously and then some person decides no we all came from monkeys. Well to me that's atheism versus thesim and nothing to do with proper science at all. Yes it's all about free will, you've got it. I have a right to believe something, but don't want to force it onto others. If they want to listen fine. Ok, say it each and every way 1000 times, it's a belief that you have no accountability in your life to a higher entity, therefore you do what you want or what somebody else wants you to do. It's simple fact. The rest of your beliefs are just hazy and muddled about the universe and our existence and you have hope that the scientists come up with the answers for you. Oh the Dawkins seven pointer system - I would move away from such illogical sources if I were you. You are an atheist, there are no grades otherwise you would be an agnostic to those varying degrees. Even he admitted he's an agnostic but he likes to shake people up with headline grabbing punchlines. He likes to deceive people with that. He doesn't believe in God and he hates Him and writes illogical books to prove it. Embarrassing I think. Magic and such - are you really using that as an argument? Magic means there are supernatural entities. Not God but then evil spirits in essence. I live with Buddhists by the way. They don't meet up to discuss that fact, and they have views that are even contradictory to scientific evidence of the universe having a start point. They are pantheists. Ok you don't believe in God or gods so you are now waiting for science to give you all the answers. Who else will provide you with that information. They haven't got any answers on creation and origin that would ever stand up in court to disprove the existence or belief in God. It may seem like it but the more you look at it the more unanswerable questions it raises. Roll eyes - not sure exactly what argument you were putting forward there was. Maybe none. So still not argument why your belief is credible. 'All people are born atheist (disbelieving in something metaphysical or supernatural)' then at least provide some proof of that fact or an argument as to why that is true. It's too much to go into God versus religious dogma I'm afraid. Anyway where do they get that thirst for knowledge from? Mind, conscience or material brain? You still didn't tell me where the metaphysical truths in the universe come from, logic and math transcend space and time. So again you haven't provided any argument for your position at all. not one I'm afraid. I would have expected something from you stating your position and arguments for it. Nothing so far.
Chicken is tasty...

With the greatest respect, I have to say that my opponent has got it all wrong. Chicken is not intrinsically tasty at all. In fact, boiled on its own in water it's totally insipid. However, it can seem tasty when coated in breadcrumbs that have been seasoned with a secret formula of 11 herbs and spices and lightly fried to golden perfection (1), but without the added flavourings, it's completely bland. Indeed, my opponent might as well argue that blood is tasty. It isn't, of course, at least not on its own, but when mixed with oatmeal, fat, herbs and spices and made into a sausage and gently fried or grilled, it is absolutely scrumptious. For some reason, this delicacy is not widely consumed outside Europe where it is known variously as "black pudding" in the UK (2), "Blutwurst" in Germany (3), "morcilla" in Spain (4) and "boudin noir" (5) in France. In my opinion congealed blood, when properly prepared and cooked, is much tastier than chicken. Thank you. (1) http://www.kfc.com... (2) http://www.waitrose.com... (3) http://www.essen-und-trinken.de... (4) http://www.gastronomiavasca.net... (5) http://www.carnetgourmand.com...
President Obama is a citizen of the United States

Actually, I cited the urban legends section of About.com. But if that still isn't good enough for you, here are some other sources that confirm that President Obama was born in Hawaii:1. http://www.whitehouse.gov...2. http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org...3. http://www.cnn.com...4. http://www.barackobama.com...5. http://www.politifact.com...And I have put up an actual argument: "President Obama was born on United States soil and is therefore a United States citizen according to the Constituiton and the legal principle of jus soli."
President Obama is a citizen of the United States

Since I don't know anything about this, I will tell you why my opponent is stupid. 1: He doesn't put up an actual argument, but just says I troll. 2: For his source he cited urban legend.com. This is far from an reliable source. And for all these reasons you should vote con. TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Human Cloning

Human Cloning could be very helpful to our society,it helps prevent and abolish an abundant amount of diseases,you can clone healthy human tissue and replace the unhealthy tissue in a sickly persons body with the cloned tissue to completely abolish many diseases including,Cancer,liver faliure,kidney failure,leukemia,spinal chord injuries,and genetic diseases ,human cloning also help with infertility issues if a couple is unable to give birth because of medical reasons doctors can take healthy tissue from the couple to create a child with the same genes as there parents,and technically the child is biologically there's it could also help with scientific research.
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

My opponent states that both cats and dogs have loyalty, but is the "type" really matter in the argument? In the end, we know the cat can't necessarily stay as loyal to the dog. Within the unnecessarily cruel but revealing experiments here: http://messybeast.com...; it is shown that dogs are DOGMATICALLY (Get it? no?) loyal to their owners regardless of their treatment, and the study explains that the nature of dogs versus cats means that cats are loyal to PLACES rather than PEOPLE, which I had already stated previously. We would feel easier to light up something that values an inanimate place rather than lighting up the dog that is naturally loyal to the people, still licking our hands while we torture it to death.... [too...much...pain...and...agony]My opponent also claims that the decrease in small animals has benefits in increasing resources and reducing scarcity costs, however these are absurd and make no sense. Us scientists constantly test mice around, furthering my argument "for science!" with one less cat, there are also more mice for our experimentations. Along with the toast-cat experiment, it is obvious that burning cats help science more than that terrible study that is no longer legal! My opponent claims to not believe my third point, however the following source [http://www.gksoft.com...] displays that indeed, energy IS produced, and the experiment so interesting as to provide further researches with strapping cats to cats! As you can see while my image may be a hypothetical situation, the experiment is nevertheless very interesting!My opponent also says the fire-burning is detrimental, however, I already inferred from my experiment point that you'd be putting the cat in a situation in which the fire would barely harm anything. The room would be fireproof. The scientists would wear fire-proof vests. The same situation also applies to the dog, so my opponent isn't precisely saying anything here. He also has no burning dog arguments.
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

Thesis: My argument revolves around the concept of attatchement and "morality", as we define it on a normal day-to-day basis. This said, there are no 'benefits' of setting of cat on fire over setting a dog on fire- in fact, there are no benefits from neither. First Rebuttals:I would like to point out that in the Instigator's second argument, he defines a "study" in which dogs hunt in packs. While this is typically common knowledge, I might request that future "studies" are directly linked and/or cited. However, this does not automatically imply loyalty, simply the type of loyalty in which dogs express. In fact, the "hunting" for humans, is a cats essential own sense of loyalty, as cats will commonly kill for the sake of providing food to its litter or family. Source: (http://mentalfloss.com...)The contender claims that cats are responsible for a vast population decrease in small animals across the United States. However, this fails to account for the remainder of the world, and in addition, this does not address the benefits of this matter (increase in resources, reducing scarcity costs- even for humans). Nor does this prove debilitating to the natural climate, as these creatures will commonly be hunted in nature regardless of whether or not cats are the ones to hunt. Unfortunately, I have no reason to take the third point seriously as it is pure humor for that matter and does not site a reliable source. Minor Argument:Secondly, setting a cat on fire would prove rather detrimental, considering the fight/flight reaction a cat would immediately take. This means, one the cat is on fire, it could quite clearly run into environments catching the surrounding areas on fire too.*I would like to note that I am not claiming that dogs should necessarily be caught on fire over the priority of cats, rather, cats should not have automatic priority themselves. I shall continue my debate next round due to limitations in text.