BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Electoral College

The electoral college should be abolished. It gives some people less of a voice.Here's a diagram of how the electoral college works: People within a district vote for a representative,who will vote for a candidate.↓ The representative that mostof the people voted for will vote for a candidate. ↓Representatives within a state vote for a candidate.↓ The candidate that most of the representatives within the state voted for will get all of the votes from the representatives. ↓The candidate that gets the most representative votes becomes the President-Elect. Say that a generic state, Liquid, has 2K members of the X Party, and 3K members of the Y Party. Imagine that it looks like this: XXYXXYYYYXYYY XYXYYYYYXXXXX XXXXXYYYYYYY XXYYYYYXYYYY The X Party got to draw the district boundaries during the last census. There will be 5 districts, and, since the X Party gerrymandered, the boundaries now look like this:_______________ |XXYXX|YYYY|XYYY| |XYX|YYYYY|XXXXX| |XXXXX|YY|YYYYY| |XXYY|YYY|XYYYY| This creates 3 districts that are dominated by the X Party, and 2 districts that are dominated by the Y Party. Because of the way the district boundaries were drawn, the X Party has more districts that will likely vote for the X Party than the Y Party does, even though there are more Y Party members than X Party members. Since the winner-takes-all rule is in effect for this state, this state will likely give the X Party 5 electoral votes.
Video games cause more harm than good

I would like to conclude with a few ideas. My opponent clearly presents that video games are requiring more physical activity. I refuted that because physical activity is not the norm, and the virtual physical activity is not as beneficial as imperial physical activity. My opponent forfeited rounds 3 and 4 which causes a full 7 point vote in my favor to be acceptable under the DDO rules. If my opponent had anything to refute of my arguments, he could have refuted them during the forfeited rounds, he was certainly online during the debate period. I know because I checked periodically. Although there is some good that comes from video games, They are consistently more harmful to society then beneficial, and my opponent showed no social benefit. Even though I provided several detriments which far out weigh the small amount of benefit they provide.What information he did provide, I refuted. He says video games are a good way to make money. I proved that was unrealistic.
Video games cause more harm than good

Thank you for accepting, and i am looking forward to a great debate, and here are my main points to my cause. 1. Video games is a great way to earn money. There are many competitions that involve video gaming, and if you win there is many great prizes to win. There are hundreds of students at university that could use the money from winning at these events. Apart from winning competitions, companies such as EA Games and Valve make millions of dollars for creating video games that are popular in modern society. Video games have become a great part of todays society, and companies use this to their advantage. 2. Video games are a great way to play with your friends. Almost every video game is multiplayer, and there is even a genre of video games that is mainly multiplayer. Mainly multiplayer online video games, or MMO's are extremely popular among teens. Video games can bring people together, and you can have some friendly competitions and challenges to yourself. Achievements enable bragging rights and show your extreme skill. 3. There are many benefits to playing video games. Better Reflexes: Many things happen extremely fast in video games. Playing them helps your quick thinking in your brain. Better Multitasking: Many games have you focus on several things like your health and the enemy, your surroundings etc. Video games also help with stress and the ability to focus on a certain thing. 4. Video games has so much variety There is so much variety, everyone from any age can find something that they enjoy. Not all video games are gory or inappropriate, in fact there is so many to help with your brain, such as Portal 2. There are many games for children of a younger age to go on an adventure with their favorite characters from TV, such as Dora. There is so many consoles that a person could choose from, like Xbox, Playstation, Wii, etc. 5. Video games have started to add exercise. Due to advances in technology, we now have devices such as Kinect for the Xbox, Wii, etc that people can use for extremely fun, fitness. Now we have the technology for it, any age can use these consoles for exercise. There is now many games for exercise that include many different sports and exercise programs.
Video games cause more harm than good

I believe that video games have a negative social outcome and they do more harm to society than they benefit it. First round is for acceptance. Just let me know what your stance is on this subject. Round two is for initial evidence. Explorations of your position are important to the overall decision making process Round Three is for refutation. You think I'm wrong, I think you are wrong. Wait for this round to say why. Round Four is for Rebuttal. Further evidence to define your own position. Round Five is for Agreements and conclusions. If I make statement that you agree with, let it be known. Do you continue to hold your position?
We live in a sick world.

Since definitions were never implemented, lend me the honor of doing so. Sick- "Of or relating to those who are ill" World- "All of the people, societies, and institutions on the earth" By these definitions, you have the BoP to prove that *all* of the people (meaning everyone) are of an illness. Sources: 1]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Yo momma joke war

Quite the contrary, Pro. To rebut, I'd like to disclose that she is verily one to enjoy licking other fingers. Say a stranger walks into the room. Say this person asks to, in front of everyone else, whilst you are eating your meal, surrender your fingers to her wet, drooling mouth.How much money would you have to be offered to allow such an act?Alas, you probably haven't the experience to know. However, it's probably unanimous (nearly) that it would be quite a sum. My mother has the means of paying such a sum, and thus, my momma is not so poor. Also, I will not "shut up." That's a contention that doesn't correlate with the first round.You'd think your mother would teach you such manners, to stay within the rules of what was done first. You really ought to have asked before trying anything new.Ha.I'm kidding, of course. I can see the resemblance. I don't blame you at all. You clearly attained it through heredity. Your mother and I tried new things all the time.
Yo momma joke war

I suppose that by "nuff said," you intended to convey no interest in this. This disappoints me. I'm one of quick, lasting wit and many find it to their satiation. In fact, that's what this site is about.We are here to put the lasting ability of our wits to evaluation. Our systematic deconstruction. Our proneliness to logic and reasoning, all in a timeframe caliber. Your lack of interest in my caliber is particularly disappointing, considering your genetic disposition, of which I had firsthand experience. I'm glad someone appreciates my ability to last to their satiation through my thick caliber.
Yo momma joke war

Motionless was my posture. I awaited your round to be fulfilled.Now, there has been talk of a forfeit. Perhaps that was fulfilling in some sense, I had no means of discerning. The arrival of a verdict wasn't important to me, as I had an overwhelming sense in my mind. Notwithstanding my verdict of not wanting to find a verdict, I analyzed it. What was the purpose behind accepting this Debate? Insufficient time between rounds. Insufficient payoff. Insufficient premise.I suppose my trigger finger was working against me. Accepting all these Debates, hardly thinking it through, watching my finger put a Metal Storm to shame. I wish it wasn't so. I wish it wasn't like this. However, I suppose that my will is only the counter charge to the fact that I must now be motionless in my posture, waiting your round, knowing that though my rapid-clicking finger wasn't rewarded by you, it was at least rewarded by your mother.
Yo momma joke war

"...philosophy..."http://www.youtube.com...How much volume my mother takes up shouldn't dictate whether one is or isn't able to explore her. We've explored the oceans, and I'd be certain in saying that the oceans are fatter than my mother. We've explored space as well, and space is probably a bit fatter than my mother as well.[citation needed]Dora, I imagine, would find my mother not impossible to explore at all. In fact, my mother's therapist is named Dr. Dora, and everything's simply been hunky dory.Your mother, on the other hand, has been explored by her therapist in quite a different manner. Not through means of the therapist, mind you.But through her means.Her therapist(s) weren't making advances anywhere below the neck, so to speak. However, her interpretation of the fact was...unconventional. I suppose you could say they explored her...long and hard. I should know. Ask my Ph.D in psychological counseling, and whatever else you'd like to ask your father while I'm here.
Moral codes from God are subjective.

I would perhaps agree with you if the entirety of Christianity had a definitive consensus on what Christ's moral code was. However, we see an estimated 45,000 Christian denominations worldwide. (http://www.gordonconwell.edu...). This to me screams subjectivity. This problem, I think, stems from my original argument that until a God can be shown to objectively exist, any moral code attributed to those Gods are subjective by default. Adding to the objectivity issue is the question, "How does one determine which translation of the Bible is correct in order to know the true moral code?"
Moral codes from God are subjective.

Thank you for accepting. May the most compelling argument win. I left the resolution more vague than I should have and apologize for that. Maybe it will make for a more interesting debate? I will make arguments from two different interpretations of the resolution to "cover my bases," so to speak. First the obvious argument: 1. Until a single God is shown to be objectively existent, all moral codes offered as "from God" or "being of God" are offered by humans and are by definition, subjective. Going a step further: 2. Assuming God actually does exist, any objective moral code would be moral, non-reliant upon God's existence and God simply reveals this code to us to follow. But then, that wouldn't be considered "from" God but "through" God as a moral messenger of sorts. Accounts of God's given moral codes to each respective belief system (as each belief system is equally likely to be true) are sometimes so varied and often contradictory that it leaves little hope of ever living "Real God's" moral code, since such a determination must also be done subjectively.
Guns at the Altanta Airport - House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014

There are many alternatives to regulate gun control in the airport instead of just banning it completely. In general, everyone needs to feel safe, especially those who are against having guns in the airports. The first solution could be that those who are carrying a firearm in the terminals wear a sticker or badge acknowledging they have a concealed weapon. This will notify security and other citizens that they are armed with a licensed gun. The whole point of the bill is to give rightful allowance to "those law-abiding Georgians who are rule followers and have went through our process of obtaining a license."(2) I believe more people would feel better about the idea if there was a way to distinguish exactly who was armed and who wasn't. Those who are going to abuse the bill were most likely going to do it anyways. The more people that embrace this freedom to self-defense and the right to bear arms will ultimately result in justification for good people. This bill could be the solution to criminal violence and potentially decrease the amount of crimes in airports. "It re-establishes a lot of our freedoms that we should already have," Jerry Henry, executive director of Georgia Carry, told msnbc. "We just want to be able to protect ourselves no matter where we go."(1) Criminals may be less likely to attack in a place where they know many people will be armed with licensed weapons. It's important that every individual feels they are safe at all times and obtaining a firearm in Georgia can achieve that. 1)Richinick, M. (2014, March 14). Georgia bill could allow guns in bars, churches and airports. Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.msnbc.com... 2)Gun bill claim under fire. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2015, from http://www.politifact.com...
Guns at the Altanta Airport - House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014

What can be done? There a few options that should be looked at to airport safety in regards to firearms at the airport. One option is for lawmakers to enforce this Bill as it relates to their own workplace. No weapon is allowed in the capitol building, therefore, no weapon should be allowed at the airport. According to Flagpole.com, "When he signed House Bill 60 into law, Deal remarked, "The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should be at the forefront of our minds." That"s an interesting comment, considering that the governor and the legislators who passed the gun law work in a capitol building where visitors are absolutely prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights. There are metal detectors at every entrance, and the capitol building is constantly patrolled by state troopers and police" (Crawford, 2014). Another option is to allow the airport to decide if it wants certain areas restricted other than those high secured areas. The airport should have a choice just like churches and other public establishments. These places are given the decision to legally stop someone from bringing a gun on their property. "Bars, churches, government buildings, and schools are now the only Georgia establishments that can legally stop someone with a Georgia Weapons Carry Permit from bringing a gun into their facilities. But, the decision is optional" (Marie, 2014). Unfortunately, gun violence has occurred in publics places, which is very unsettling for everyone. The Second Amendment gives the citizens of the United States the right to protect our families, and property. It is definitely a good thing to carry, own and use a firearm if needed. The airport is a place that is stressful; it may not be the best place for people with guns. References Crawford, T. (30 April 2014). The unintended consequences of georgia's 'guns everywhere' law. Retrieved from http://flagpole.com... Marie, B. (2 July 2014). Churches can still ban weapons after Georgia's open carry gun law goes into effect this week. Retrieved from http://www.christiantoday.com...
Guns at the Altanta Airport - House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014

The allowance of firearms in the terminals of airports is important to the safety and advantage of self- defense. This topic is an issue, because according to The Huffington Post, "In the first six months of this year, Transportation Security Administration screeners found 894 guns on passengers or in their carry-on bags."(1) This many guns being caught at security would happen either way, because we live in a world full of criminals. It's the right of all Americans to have a firearm on them in the terminals for personal-protection. Therefore, we can see security is doing their job at eliminating anyone breaking the law or potentially getting onto a plane with an unwarranted gun. Atlanta, also recently put in place more officers and trained them in random inspections (2). This is another protocol in addition to the normal security that will decrease gun smuggling (2). This is regards the right of protection in conjunction with the amount of protection. It is fair to say the government is doing their job to protect Americans by increasing security and giving everyone the right to personal protection. 1) Boscamp, E. (2013, September 1). Guns In Airports On The Rise According To TSA. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2)Atlanta airport boosting security following gun-smuggling bust. (2015, January 7). Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://www.ajc.com...
Guns at the Altanta Airport - House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014

In Section 1-9, Code section 16-11-130.2 of the House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, "Guns are not restricted in such areas as an airport drive, general parking area, walkway, or shops and areas of the terminal that are outside the screening checkpoint and that are normally open to unscreened passengers or visitors to the airport" (legis.ga.gov., 2014). The House bill that was recently amended in Georgia does restrict weapons in and at the security points of the airport. While I am definitely proud to live in a country that believe and practice the right to bear arms, it is my argument that this is not a wise provision of the bill. My concern is not just for the acts of violence that potentially can occur in the airport but I am concerned that this bill will not deter acts of violence on the airport grounds.
Guns at the Altanta Airport - House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014

As the new provision in Georgia allowing guns in the terminals at airports may by unsettling to many, I believe it to be comforting. The government is giving each citizen their right to self-defense and personal protection. This falls under the right to bear arms and if anything they are providing us with the freedom we should have already had. Those who bear arms had to go through the process to license a gun. Therefore, the more trained individuals that obtain guns, the safer everyone will be. "While residents can carry guns inside airport terminals in Georgia, they cannot take their weapons through security to the gates." (1) This is fair, because before security we are still have the right to self defense. After we transport through security towards the gates we are under the security of the airport and government legislation. Airport's are some of the most dangerous places in America and it's important that every individual has the right to protection at all times. 1.Johnson, P. (2014, April 23). Georgia adopts law allowing guns at airports, bars, most other places ( video). Retrieved April 27, 2015, from http://www.csmonitor.com...
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

It's still wrong. If humans were made to have sex with animals, then it would have been so. But it isn't. It goes against nature. Humans have no right to forcefully have sex with animals. And again I say, an animal cannot give consent. All it can do is bark, meow, grunt or whatever. People can take that to mean many different things. Animals are smart but they don't have the ability to speak to humans in human tongue. You also have to look at the animal's point of view. The animals probably doesn't want to have sex with a human. Why would it? It's an animal. It wants to have sex with other animals of it's species. This is a human idea created by sick perverts.
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"You're sick, do you know that?"No, ad hom"Basically, what you're saying it's okay to have sex with a creature that can't say no or fight back. You know that is basically rape right?"The creatures I am talking about could communicate "no" and can fight back."And if an animal kills someone who was trying to have sex with it, good for them. "ok?"It's not a willing partner. It cannot say yes or no."See my argument.
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"I'm going to say this and hopefully, I will only have to say this once." hehe, I hope you only say it once too; I despise debaters who feel the need to periodically restate their conclusions emphatically especially if they didn't support them in the interim. “AN ANIMAL CANNOT GIVE CONSENT TOO SEX!” YES HE/SHE CAN, and I can promise you that is the last time you’ll get that from me; I will not participate in an infantile yes no contest. My round one argument is my support for this statement, read section E again and explain to me what you think it means. “An animal cannot speak in human words. It cannot tell you stop. Therefore, it's wrong for someone to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself.” You’re missing an awful lot of premises for that to be an argument. Why does an animal’s inability to speak or tell you to stop mean it’s wrong to have sex with a creature that cannot defend itself? Have you considered that speaking is not the only way to communicate that you would like another creature to stop what it’s doing? Have you thought about what it means to say “can’t defend itself”? Do you know that humans can have sex with animals that weigh 2,200 lb without use of ropes, whips, or even treats? An animal like that could crush a human to mush if they wanted to and all you would hear about is the naked corpse of a zoophile being found later. Better update it, not “can’t defend themselves” but “don’t seem to think they need defending.”
Zoophilia/Bestiality should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"You haven't proven anything. Those are animals trying to have sex with other animals! There is nothing wrong with that.".... You know humans are animals too, this whole thing is about animals having sex with animals of another species. So yes I have proven that it's not only humans who think it might work. Humans aren't the only ones who are willing to try.If there is anything unique to humanity on this issue it's our cultural resistance to the idea. It's a relic of religion just like homophobia that remains strong because many people think of their pets as childern, call themselves pet parents. They ignore the fact that these creatures are fully grown and even if they will never reach human intelligence their sexual desires and capabilities do develop.That's not what people want, they just want an eternal psuedo-baby to take care of. They can't imagine that their little puppies could ever see them as objects of sexual interest so they tell themselves absurd stories about how they are just playing or trying to asert dominance.Even though you haven't tried at all to meet the burden of proof I guess we'll see if some good can come of your last round. So I have a question for you, throughout the world artifical vaginas and mounting contraptions are used to collect stallion sperm.What if (as in the story of the minotian queen Pasiphaë and the white bull) you put a human in one of those collection machines? Do you think the stallion would care? When does it become rape and why?