BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is it better to an optimist or a pessimist

Why, thank you for the choice of the argument side TBSmothers. As for the debate, I shall debate for the side of being a optimist is better. First off, there are a number of reasons why optimism is regarded much more positively than pessimism due to the emotionally satisfying feeling that optimists achieve when going about their day. Being an optimist myself, I personally believe that optimism leads to a much happier life in contrast to a pessimist's life. The philosophy of optimists goes along the lines of thinking about the positive events in their life that have already happened and will happen in the future. These positive feelings define our character by how we see ourselves and how others see us as well. If others perceive our view of life as encouraging to others around them, some of the bystanders would be much thankful that they crossed paths with an optimist rather than a pessimist. I now await for TBSmothers' response for his testimony on the subject.
Resolved: The Atomic Bombings of Japan were justified.

Rules Round 1 is for rules and definitions by Pro while Con accepts and/or chooses to define anyword Pro left undefined. Round 2: Opening arguments shall be presented. There shall be no rebuttles round 2. Round 3 Reubttles shall be made. Round 4: Rebuttles and conclusions will be made. No swearing No Trolling. No Semantics. Atomic Bombings- In August 1945, during the final stage of the Second World War, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The two bombings, which killed at least 129,000 people, remain the only use of nuclear weapons for warfare in human history. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Justified- Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason: (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)
God's Standards = the Only Objectively Reliable Standards in Life

"any and all standards that don't adhere strictly to God's standards are necessarily concocted by a fallible human being or a group of fallible human beings, and are therefore merely the subjective opinions of fallible human beings as opposed to being objectively valid standards: " Firstly. prove the existence of god, since until you do so it is merely your subjective opinion, and the burden of proof rests up on you to do so. , since you are making the positive claim. Secondly. The most objectively reliable standards in life, that actually exist, would most likely be the standards of science, of reason, logic and evidence. They most certainly the most objectively reliable standards in life when it comes to pursuing truth, since they have allowed us to climb out of the cave of ignorance and superstition, and fly to the moon, raising modern civilization and bettering the world in countless ways. There is a reason you go to a hospital and not to a church when you're sick, it's because science works, planes fly, and those are the most objectively reliable standards we have. .. . Lastly. Your whole, largely incoherent argument about existent spheres of life simply fails miserably because you have no reason to believe firstly god exists, and needless to say your own specific version of that god, and furthermore you it seems make the claim to know what god is thinking of, or demands of us. .. a claim which no mere mortal ape should ever make. .. So to sum up that last bit, in the words of Carl Sagan " Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence. " of which you have none at all, and all of it is on my side.
God's Standards = the Only Objectively Reliable Standards in Life

An objectively reliable standard is a standard that is reliable regardless of any human being's or group of human beings' opinion about it. Any and all standards that don't adhere strictly to God's standards are necessarily concocted by a fallible human being or a group of fallible human beings, and are therefore merely the subjective opinions of fallible human beings as opposed to being objectively valid standards: Therefore any and all such ungodly human standards cannot possibly be objectively reliable. Therefore, any and all conclusions not in strict adherence to God's standards that anyone may posit in regards to any sphere of life are necessarily mere subjective opinions, and are therefore necessarily objectively unreliable conclusions. This principle holds and applies with equal force without exception in all existent spheres of life, including, but not limited to: - The sphere of Factual Knowledge about God - The sphere of Science - The sphere of Conclusive Truth - The sphere of Cosmology - The sphere of Affairs-of-State - The sphere of Religion - The sphere of Physics - The sphere of Biology - The sphere of Rationality - The sphere of Politics - The sphere of Argumentation & Debate - The sphere of Logic - The sphere of Morality - The sphere of Selfless Service to Others - The sphere of Philosophy - The sphere of Human Rights - The sphere of Material Cognition - The sphere of History - The sphere of Law - The sphere of Economics - The Sphere of Personal Authority - The sphere of Fighting - The sphere of Physical Well-being - The sphere of Mental Well-being - The sphere of Sense Perception - The sphere of Mental Cogitation - The sphere of Intellect - The sphere of Personal Identity - The sphere of Spiritual Cognition - The sphere of Compassion - The sphere of Psychology - The sphere of Mathematics
Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic

Secret BallotSince no source for the "secret ballot" claim was provided I decided to look it up and found that - yes, it exists[1], but it is pointless because it does not count and has no actual representation towards the outcome of an election of what the voter really thinks. In a non-compulsory setting, the voter doesn't have to vote at all if he or she wishes not to. Why should we force people who don't desire to vote to participate? In a democracy, the people who are the supreme power have the ultimate choice to vote or not to vote but are being dismissed of that right when they are told by the government that they don't have a choice to not choose. Agency is being restricted, which is the opposite of freedom. Random VotingTo determine whether random voting is a major problem or not, voters would have to be polled afterwards and asked if they just voted for a random candidate or not. It is logical to infer that random voting would increase because of how it is mandatory and not all voters care about the outcome of the election; they just want to get it over with while abiding by the law.Political AwarenessBeing politically aware is a choice, not something that everyone has to be. The outcome of an election only matters most to those who are politically aware and less to those who aren't, so it really isn't a benefit that a few more people know about candidates, it only matters to those who care about the future of their country's leaders. Pro hasn't shown how political awareness is a societal positive, so this point can be properly dismissed.The 45% of non-voters may or may not be engaged in politics, but if their opinions are not strong enough for them to be willing to cast a ballot to affect the country's future than their votes have less meaning. The government wants the votes of those who want to make a difference in their country's future, not the votes of those who don't care. Nevertheless, compulsory voting has no merit and is pointless system.ConclusionDemocracy is indeed for all people, so if all people wish to vote than they will do so to properly represent their views. Forcing people to vote is just going to complicate that representation by sparking random voting and will not be representative of what the people really want. Citizens who have the right to choose ought to choose what they want and have the freedom to do so, and not be shoved by the government to do something they rather would not. The Constitution gives the people the ultimate power, not the other way around. The diverse population represents themselves by voting or implying that they believe they are or are not the ones to decide the outcome.Source1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic

"They have no option to remain neutral but to cast a vote one way or the other" This is not actually true. Due to the secret ballot, it is possible to cast 'informal' votes, which do not rank all candidates or similar. These votes do not count. It is also not enforced very strictly in most jurisdictions, meaning it is easy to remain neutral. The benefit of compulsory voting is that it forces people to really think about doing this. Thus, it increases engagement in government, and thus is surely better according to democratic principles. "As I mentioned before, coerced voting tempts uneducated people to vote for a random candidate or cause" Random voting is not a major problem in jurisdictions with compulsory voting. This is because compulsory voting increases people's awareness politically. People who would otherwise just stay at home instead educate themselves at least rudimentarily. "Let us consider the following scenario: At a voting booth for an election, an uneducated voter says to himself, "I know nothing about candidate A or candidate B, nor do I care about the outcome of the election, but since I am required to vote by law I will flip a coin to decide who I shall vote for. "" You assume the 45% of people who do not vote are not at all engaged with politics. Many of these people have opinions on politics, just not ones strong enough to act on. These people are forced to vote in compulsory voting, meaning that the opinions of all people are represented, not just the opinions of the people who feel strongly about politics. Those who truly have no opinion can still cast an informal vote under compulsory voting, or educate themselves until they get an opinion. "When the 45% less educated population is forced to vote, it leads to worse representation of the people's choice of law or candidate, and in effect becomes a violation of true democracy. " When I said that less educated people were less likely to vote, I meant educated in a schooling sense, not educated about the candidates. Sorry for not making that clearer. Anyway, 'the people' is all the people, uninformed or informed, and a voting system should represent all of them. You seem to mistake throughout the debate "the people's choice" for "the well-informed people's choice". The random voters are still people, and should have their votes count, because democracy is for all people. Summary: I believe I have stated a good case for why compulsory voting is more democratic. Compulsory voting increases the government's representation of diverse parts of the population. Compulsory voting makes a government have a true mandate, and be a true government of the people. Non-compulsory voting makes unrepresentative governments, which is surely not democratic.
Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic

Other CountriesThe fact that Australia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, Greece, Turkey, and other countries have a compulsory voting system doesn't mean that they have "flourishing democracies". It just means that their system of voting is different. Pro has failed back up the claim that their democracies are flourishing and has not provided evidence for how compulsory voting has made these countries better. All Pro has done here is state an opinion and has used a statement as evidence of itself to make an argument, which is a logical fallacy.Unrepresentative GovernmentsActually, governments are represented worse when people who do not wish to participate are forced to choose a side, because then those voters are not sure how they want government to be. They have no option to remain neutral but to cast a vote one way or the other, which inaccurately reflects how they really feel about how government ought to be (which is that others should decide who know better about both sides of the matter at hand). As I mentioned before, coerced voting tempts uneducated people to vote for a random candidate or cause, which is harmful to everyone in the ring.Interests of votersLet us consider the following scenario: At a voting booth for an election, an uneducated voter says to himself, "I know nothing about candidate A or candidate B, nor do I care about the outcome of the election, but since I am required to vote by law I will flip a coin to decide who I shall vote for." He flips a coin and decides to vote for candidate A. Meanwhile, an educated voter who has studied the candidates and their intentions closely and has been taking both runners into much consideration has decided to vote for candidate B and strongly believes candidate B will do a better job in office. However, the educated person's vote is canceled out by the ignorant man's random ballot, thus affecting the outcome of the election and potentially putting a worse candidate is put in office.When the 45% less educated population is forced to vote, it leads to worse representation of the people's choice of law or candidate, and in effect becomes a violation of true democracy.
Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic

What I believe is the flaw in your entire argument is that you say that it is a fundamental right in democracies not to vote. However, this is clearly not the case. There are flourishing democracies in the world in which it is compulsory to vote. These include Australia, Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, Greece , Turkey and many more [1]. These are clearly democratic countries that follow the will of the people. You must either accept that these countries are undemocratic or rescind the argument that 'forcing them to choose is a direct violation of the people's superiority in government'. In fact, voting was compulsory in Athens, the world's first democracy [1] As well as this, non-compulsory voting leads to unrepresentative governments. How can a government claim a mandate if well less than half of people voted for them? Compulsory voting legitimizes the mandates of governments by electing people that over half of the population voted for or preferenced highly. As I said before and I will say again, non- compulsory voting disenfranchises the poor, the badly educated, and the uninformed. It allows governments to be elected who hardly represent these people to be elected. This means that parties do not have to campaign based on the interests of everyone. They campaign based on the interests of the voters. Under compulsory voting, governments have to appeal to a broader interest base made up of all people, and I cannot see how this is called anything but a huge success. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic

What is a democracy?Along with my opponent's definition, democracy is also defined as “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”[1]A democracy is a government by the people. The supreme power is vested in the people. By this definition, we learn that the people have the ultimate power in a democracy. If this is so, then why should the people, the supreme power, be limited by a lesser power, in a case where they don't have the ability not to choose? The government forcing people to say what they want to be legalized and who they want in office is the people’s choice. The people also have the right not to choose. Forcing them to choose is a direct violation of the people’s superiority in the government.It is also a free electoral system. Free does not mean limited, free means unrestricted, able to choose, or to choose not to choose. To choose not to choose is a choice in itself, and by taking away one’s freedom to choose to not vote is limiting freedom itself, and the ability to make a choice. A democracy is supposed to be free, but by restricting citizens to have to vote, it would mean that freedom has unnecessary bounds. Placing restrictions on this right is contradictory to the nature of freedom itself.It is true that a democracy is a system of government represented by the whole population, but the 45% of people who do not cast a vote are still representing their view of what government should be: decided by someone other than themselves. For example, when you cast a vote on a DDO debate, you have the option to vote for neither contender but remain neutral, yet you are still representing your view of what the outcome of the debate should be: decided by other voters who have a better view of the debate.Social EquityThe problem with compulsory voting is that it is representation by force. Anyone who wishes to abstain from voting is still bounded to vote. Because educated people are more likely to vote, they should not have their votes overrun by people who are uneducated. Mandatory voting means that people who are very uneducated on laws and candidates will vote randomly, which will be harmful to the government because people who know nothing about the election or laws could be the factor that changes the outcome for the worse. It is essential that citizens who know a lot about elections or laws don't feel cheated because their votes were counteracted by people who don't know what they're doing.The ability to choose whether to vote or not is a clearer example of social equity because it represents what the citizens really want, and it allows for people who know little to nothing about an election to not hurt the outcome of what the educated people desire. It also allows the freedom for people to choose not to participate if they wish not to.Source1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Compulsory Voting is the Only Way to be Truly Democratic

I accept the outline. According to the Oxford Dictionary, there are four definitions of democracy. The one I believe is the most pertinent to this debate is"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives" [1]. The burden of proof is on me to prove that compulsory voting is needed to have a system that fits this definition.Non-compulsory voting is not 'by the whole population or all the eligible members of the state'. A system in which around 45% of the eligible voters do not participate in the US [2] surely is not 'by all the eligible members'. It is by 55% of eligible members. Yes these 45% of people chose not to vote, but the elections are still not 'by all the eligible members' unless, well 'all the eligible members' have a say. Another Oxford definition relevant to this debate is"The practise or principles of social equality"[1]. I will set out my argument/s that seek to prove that compulsory voting is necessary for this. Compulsory voting is fully equal, other systems aren't. You might think that each system is equal given that everyone is allowed to vote in the US system. However, this is not the case in practise. While formally the US system is equal, substantively, it is not. This is because more educated people are likelier to vote [3] and white people and Asians are likely to be more educated[4]. To close the gap and have a system that represents all races, all jobs and both genders, compulsory voting is the only option. Otherwise 'the...principles of social equality' are not achieved. [1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2]http://bipartisanpolicy.org... [3]http://www.grin.com... [4]http://www.edweek.org...
Gun Control

I will start off by thanking my opponent for responding and now to the arguments. My opponent mentions an argument that I have never seen before, but very interesting. He explains how the founding fathers were infallible, and that they could make mistakes. But, any human can make a mistake. By using my opponent's logic, you can say that since the person who came up with the idea of educating children was infallible, we should dismiss that idea, and go to another idea. Even that, you as an American citizen agree to the constitution. Your social contract specifically states that you have to live by the limitations our constitution put in place. Since you have agreed to this "infallible" document, that would mean that you agree and you would have to live by it. It is in your rights to complain, but gun control is unconstitutional to your document. My opponent's argument would be ruled as invalid, because he is going against his citizenship papers, and his logic would apply to every body's ideas. My opponent also argues that if regulation saves lives, regulation should be implemented. Well, in my case I have stated that the problem is not guns, but it is the family structure, and the schools. "1 out of 5 kids admits to being a bully, or doing some "Bullying." "8% of students miss 1 day of class per month for fear of Bullies. "43% fear harassment in the bathroom at school. "100,000 students carry a gun to school. "28% of youths who carry weapons have witnessed violence at home. "A poll of teens ages 12-17 proved that they think violence increased at their schools. "282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month. "More youth violence occurs on school grounds as opposed to on the way to school. "Playground statistics - Every 7 minutes a child is bullied. Adult intervention - 4%. Peer intervention - 11%. No intervention - 85%. These are statistics that lead to school shootings, so if we really want to solve the problem we need to improve the way we handle our schools and address the core problems. Good Luck to my opponent in the next around.
Additional aid to Syrian Refugees

Sources say that there have been about more than 2 million Syrian refugees. One question that I would like you to define is how much money and time will you WANT to spend of aid for Syrian refugees. The United States of America is already in over 17$ Trillion in debt. We cannot to afford to help other countries while we have problems as serious the aid for Syrian refugees. These problem include: Debt, Unregulated Banks, War on Drugs, Control of U.S. Border, Unfair Tax System, Crumbling Infrastructure, and a whole lot more. If we do help Syria and provide aid for their refugees, who knows what will happen to us.
Prostitution should be legal in the US

Con argues that it is against Gods will but shows no reason to actually believe this. For him to say it is against God's will he would first have to do a few things. (a) He would have to show that God exists (b) He would have to show that God is the sole authority (c) He would have to show that it is in fact against God's will For his argument to have any weight, it would have to establish all of the aforementioned points. He fails to do that so his contention is effectively negated, because it is merely an assertion.
the death penalty is wrong

Unfortunately I cannot translate the term when'd around, but I would like to rebut the point where you said 'would you be prepared to watch another human take there (sic) life?' To be perfectly honest I would be very happy. Do you think that the soldier who killed Osama bin Laden thought for one second that he might have been taking somebody's life who had a family? No, it was a celebratory moment because he'd stopped a terrorist in his tracks.
the death penalty is wrong

Firstly, wrong use of there - should be their... Anyway. I think that the death penalty is morally correct because if a person does something bad enough for them to have their life taken, for instance Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man behind the Boston bombings, fully deserves his death penalty. However I think with crimes that aren't so global, for instance a shooting - nearly 100000 people get shot in the USA every year, the killer should have the choice to live in prison, in a special cell without human contact, like Nelson Mandela's cell, or to have a lethal injection to end their life. But I believe in the death penalty, but it shouldn't be enforced for lower key crimes without a mutual agreement. Thanks.