BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Changing two-party system

There already is and always has been more than two political parties within the United States. One could argue that the others have no congressional representation but you would be wrong about that as well. There were at least 5 different parties offering 2012 presidential election candidates. Your argument that we should change the two party system in a falsity as we do not have a two party system. http://2012election.procon.org... http://www.infoplease.com...
Changing two-party system

Having basically only two parties (Democrat and Republic) in the Congress make them hard to be consistency, thus they caused dysfunctional congress. Since they are like two extremes- one is more liberal and one is more conservative, it is not likely for them to have one hundred percent agreement on them same issues, and their unwillingness to compromise makes it even harder to pass laws. Instead of really serving for the people, the two parties seem to care about more the competition going on and on between them. Either of them would not give up or change their opinions for their mutual goal of getting laws ratified.
Large class sizes vs. Small class sizes

Rules: 1) No semantics, trolling, etc. 2) This is meant to be a casual debate so both sides will have the benefit of assumption. But if you would like to cite evidence, feel free to do so. Definitions: Large class: A class which contains a high student to teacher ratio such as 1:25-30 Small class: A class which has a low student to teacher ratio such as 1:10-15 Superior: In the sense of our discussion, this word will be interpreted as "having a greater capacity for academic and personal achievement.
Large class sizes vs. Small class sizes

This round is for the opening statements. Make you case here. Do not refute statements until the 3rd round. 1) A larger class size will allow better teachers to exercise their skills. With larger class sizes, the classes can be condensed. Rather than having say, 26 students split between a great teacher and a good one, all 26 students can be taught by the great teacher. The teachers who lack the enthusiasm or skills needed to be a teacher can be fired or teach another class. 2) Because fewer classrooms are needed to teach the courses, the emptied classrooms can be used to add other courses. The course selection list can be expanded significantly. 3) Students will be able to help each other out more because with more students having the same assignments, there is more consistency and students can help each other out.
Libertarian economic theory and pure capitalism contains major flaws

I would like to begin by refuting my opponents counter contentions, and then re-affirming my own contentions. To begin I would like to address my opponents example of hereditary aristocracy. Although he makes a fine point against individuals, he fails to address the possibility of aristocracy exiting through Corporate control. Large corporations do not have children, or family, or even necessarily death for their money to disseminate through inheritance. Corporations can gain control over certain necessity industries and monopolize products and services and form an oligarchy not through hereditary aristocracy but instead through corporate aristocracy. The reason certain individuals gain and lose wealth over time (as presented by my opponent) does indeed make sense. This dissemination of wealth and power does not, however, apply to individual corporations who do not typically willingly "die" and disseminate wealth. Furthermore, I did not suggest that pure socialism was ever a viable form of economics either. My next point regards my opponents claim that as long as all customers have a basic understanding of what they are buying, the free market works. This is simply not true. First of all, not all customers will have a basic knowledge of what they are purchasing other than what its purpose may be. Second, Adam Smith writings in "The Wealth of Nations" explicitly indicates laissez-faire economics will only work if consumers have perfect knowledge regarding their purchases. Advertising gives certain products the upper hand every day in the consumer market and is probably the most important aspect of a successful product. Without government regulations, however, companies would be allowed to blatantly lie about their products. Consumers could be misinformed and tricked into buying poor products. Furthermore, my opponent creates the precedent of describing a true monopoly, but then goes on the say why it isn't really a monopoly, showing an obvious gap in his point. A true example of a monopoly is that De Beers family monopoly on diamonds. Until recent government regulation and action against this monopoly, the De Beers family (founded by capitalist Cecil Rhodes) has completely dominated the diamond mining industry. This has allowed them to set the prices of diamonds way higher than their actual value regarding their rarity, and cost to retrieve. Due to the lack of real hard evidence regarding the value of diamonds and the rarity of diamonds, diamond appraising is a relatively inaccurate and unscientific field of study. The family used their massive control over diamonds to overcharge, and even fund terrorism and other horrors (I. E. Conflict diamonds). (1) (2) (3) Government regulations have always been necessary throughout the years to prevent monopolies. AT&T had to split, and Teddy Roosevelt split countless companies in the interest of a more fair economy. I think I have shown the naive nature of my opponents claims. I eagerly await his response. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://ask.slashdot.org... 3. . http://www.today.com...
On balance, jury nullification in the United States is just

This debate is for the Autumn tournament, round one. Resolved: On balance, jury nullification in the United States is just. Some definitions: Jury nullification is defined as the practice of a jury nullifying a law by returning a verdict of not guilty even though they believe that the defendant is guilty because they believe the law to be unjust. On balance: with all facts considered. I will define justice as giving each their due. What exactly is meant by "just" may be a point of contention between my opponent and I. Let the duel begin!
Should Boys and Girls Play on the Same Team

No, Boys and girls should not play on the same team I do however believe that for every male sport there should be a female counterpart. The sports between men and women are separated for a reason if boys and girls played together no one would be able to play at their best. You have the problem of sexual harassment on the field the girls could be hazed or there could be a hesitation due to feelings for one another. If you have boys and girls on the same team then personal relationships would no doubt get in the way of the performance. For example if a man and woman were playing soccer in their team and this particular man and woman were in a relationship when it comes time to pass the ball and the girlfriend wants the ball or vice versa I can guarantee that the man or woman will pass to the latter on a bias judgement.
Should Boys and Girls Play on the Same Team

You don't understand swimming is a mixed sport because lack of contact. You are in your own lane doing your own race and you do not have to worry about the competition. During sports like swimming, skateboarding, skiing, snowboarding contact with the opposite sex is unnecessary so therefore mixing them will do no harm. But sports like football, basketball, soccer, boxing, ufc, and baseball are all contact sports where contact is unavoidable so they need to stay separate. I hate to sound all sexist but the way the world is and works men are naturally stronger and sturdier than women. Men develop muscle naturally and in order for a woman to become a body builder she needs to take heavy hormonal pills and take steroids every so often.
Should Boys and Girls Play on the Same Team

True, feelings might get in the way. Girls and boys also have different strengths, but those strengths could be a great benefit. I know some girls don't really care, but the ones that do won't let anything get in the way. I am on a swim team with girls and boys, in fact, if I do have feelings it makes me work harder so I can look better. :) Some girls, might let feelings come between them, but that is natural. Sexual harassment can happen anywhere, like school, but does that mean boys and girls shouldn't learn in the same school? No!
It's time to apply positive discrimination to the entertainment industry

Most people who work in television and the theatre are either women or gay men (and even some of the men you probably think are normal are, in private, screaming homosexuals, though obviously I can't mention any names for fear of legal action but Tom Cruise and John Travolta will know who I mean). This underrepresentation of straight men extends beyond the stage and screen to the executive management level of the entertainment industry where the decisions on what shows to produce are made. That's why all the big shows on Broadway and Shaftesbury Avenue are productions like "Mama Mia", "Billy Elliot" and "Grease" which can only appeal to timid old ladies, starry-eyed little girls and roaring poufs. And that's also why there are so many programmes on television about cooking and fashion and housework. And don't even get me started on "Will and Grace". Furthermore, there are entire channels devoted to shopping so that lazy fat housewives can waste their husbands' salaries on overpriced tat without having to get up and go to the mall. Meanwhile, however, there are very few television programmes about cars and other forms of transport because the female and gay male television executives in charge don't personally enjoy those sorts of programmes. I, therefore, affirm that in order to redress the balance the entertainment industry must be forced to implement assertive action policies designed to employ and promote more straight men in order to reflect the demographic makeup of the general population. That way we can look forward to more great programmes like "Top Gear", "Ice Road Truckers" and "The World's Wildest Police Videos" and fewer inane broadcasts like "Can't Cook, Won't Cook", "The Clothes Show" and "How Clean Is Your House". Thank you. REFERENCES --------------- Affirmative action / positive discrimination explained: http://aad.english.ucsb.edu... The homosexual male domination of Hollywood explained: http://www.afterelton.com...
Harry Potter is better than Twilight

My opponent has the burden of proof. He has to prove that : 1. One piece of art can be better than another piece of art 2. He is measuring art correctly. That is he isn't trying to measure time with a ruler. 3. When art is measured correctly Harry Potter is shown to be the better piece of art. Definitions: Better: "of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech." Art: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." Dictionary.com Thank you, V0Antras
It is Logical to Assume That a God Exists

It should be a blast! ===Arguments=== 1. An all-powerful God is impossible. It is logically impossible for a God to be all-powerful because that causes contradictions. I'm sure you've heard it before; if God is all-powerful it means he can create a stone which he cannot lift. To not be able to lift it means he is not all-powerful but to not be able to make it means the same. 2. A perfect God is impossible based on the nature of things. If God was perfect it would mean he would never create anything because perfection is already obtained; things could only become worse. 3. An all-powerful God is further more impossible if he is also all-righteous. Suffering exists in this world. All that is pleasure is good and all that is displeasure is bad. If a God was all-righteous, it would be in his will to stop that which is bad. If God is all-powerful he would have complete power to act on his will. Since suffering exists in this world, an all-righteous and all-powerful God is impossible. 4. An all-righteous and all-knowing God is impossible if he is the creator of the Universe. To say that God created all is to say that he sent all things into motion to what they are now. To say that he is all-knowing is to say he knew what effects it would have. There is currently suffering in the world. God would have knowingly created suffering which means he cannot be all-righteous. ===Epic quote=== Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ~ Epicurus [341–270 B. C. ]
It is Logical to Assume That a God Exists

This debate will be on whether it is more logical to assume a God exists than to otherwise not assume existence of God, as in the position of an Atheist or Agnostic. God being defined as a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-righteous entity, who is the creator of the Universe. I will be on the Con side of the debate which means I will be arguing it is not logical to assume a God exists.
Harvard is Wrong For Allowing Female only Gym Time to Accommodate Muslims

I was a christian and I'm telling you 95% of christians would not ask for accommodations. These colleges we are speaking about are competing for the best college students in the world. Considering Islam is one of the biggest religions in the world it would make sense for these colleges to cater to muslim students. If these schools in fact want the best of the best then odds are some of the best are going to be muslim. Therefore in order to attract these muslim students they make accommodations. One more thing i would like to point out. I wouldn't swear on it but I would think that the total number of muslim students would far outweigh the number of orthodox jews that would ask for similar accommodations. Therefore you and I will obviously hear about these accommodations being made more often. The real question is are you basically saying that some of our more liberal schools are anti-semitic? Is this what your argument is really about? I can take you on in that argument too.
Harvard is Wrong For Allowing Female only Gym Time to Accommodate Muslims

Some accommodations?? First of all many Christians and Jews have very high standards of Modesty as well. As an Orthodox Jewish male who will not go to a co-ed Gym, separate Gym time for men would be a good start. Many Christian women feel similarly. If this request had been made by Christians or by Orthodox men, it would definitely have been denied or at the very least highly protested if granted. Other accommodations: Orthodox Jews must wash their hands in a special fashion before eating bread. Washing stations should be provided with washing cups in all cafeterias. At all Public events Kosher food should be given as well. Or how about the case of the Orthodox students at Yale that i mentioned in the opening argument? Or we could go to more extreme measures. It is forbidden for Orthodox Men to hear live women singing. Spontaneous outbursts of singing should be forbidden by women. Modest Dress should always be enforced. I cant really answer for all denominations of Christians, not being one, but I am sure there are numerous ways their religious lifestyles can be made easier on college campuses. There is plenty we could do to accommodate. But the question is, why when It is Muslims is the red carpet being rolled out when Jews and Christians have always been told that a Liberal College Campus is not a place for religion.
Harvard is Wrong For Allowing Female only Gym Time to Accommodate Muslims

I think the answer to your question is that the muslim religion in general is more extreme in some of its beliefs compared to christianity and Judaism as a whole. Therefore there are certain accommodations needed to muslims that Judaism or Christianity would not ask for. Just because Schools provide these accommodations for muslims doesn't mean they are acting in support of these groups. This is just being respectful. By the way, what accommodations would a christian ask for? I understand some orthodox jews needing some accommodation but other than that what other accommodations would other jews and christians need? Just because the Muslim group ask for accommodations and most jews and christians don't need them, I think this is coming off to you as our schools being partial to one group over another. I just don't think this is the case.
Harvard is Wrong For Allowing Female only Gym Time to Accommodate Muslims

In 1996 Yale University instituted a requirement that all Freshman must live in their co-ed dormitories. 5 Orthodox Jewish students objected to this requirement on the grounds that it violated their religious beliefs. Yale refused to allow them to live off campus and the five students were forced to bring a lawsuit. Contrast that with how Muslims are specifically given their own gym time at Harvard. This is not simply separate time, i.e. Mens hours and Womens hours, but time allotted specifically for Muslim women. Other instances of Muslim accommodation are rampant across college campuses. From building feet washing rooms to split sex areas. Why do Liberal Colleges to go out of their way to accommodate Muslim religious needs, yet not do the same for Jewish and Christian needs? Is it because we consider their "convictions" greater than ours?? Is it fear?? I anxiously await someone explaining this to me.
Harvard is Wrong For Allowing Female only Gym Time to Accommodate Muslims

My argument is not that they are anti-semitic. And currently in the United States there are more Jews than Muslims, and I would certainly argue that Harvard has more Orthodox Jews than devout Muslims. My argument (or question really) is that why did these colleges never try to accommodate Jewish students. You're answer seems to be that they are favoring Islam since they want more overseas Muslim students who would not come otherwise. A fair argument, but the Colleges should at the very least acknowledge that they are playing favorites when it comes to religious accommodations before more resentment is created.
One Child Policy

"I agree with my opponent when he says some countries population rate is appropriate. however the resources humans need (oil, and food mainly) do not support this growing population"We are aware of this though and we are making progress towards reducing how much oil and other such resources we can use without sacrificing production. Fertilizers, more high tech cars, more efficient factories and power plants, etc all help reduce the amount we consume without driving society into the middle ages or enacting population control. "China which is the country to have this policy has stopped about 300 million births"Because they at the time actually HAD A GROWING PROBLEM..... The US doesnt have a growing problem, nor does Canada, or Brazil, or just about all of Europe either..... Only countries that actually have growing problems should consider the one child policy, dont impose it on all the whole world when only part of it are the ones screwing up. "Eventually we will reach carrying capacity"The carrying capacity though keeps being raised since new techs and all kinds of stuff allow humans to yield more from land and resources then in the past..... The US and europe can double their population and still be reasonably well off, its other countries in Africa and India that are near carrying capacity, not the world"The United Nations indicates that about 850 million people are malnourished or starving"And most of them are in Africa or India living on less then a dollar a day"With 10 billion people projected by 2100, if population control is not enacted many will live in complete misery."YEAH, MANY. NOT ALL THOUGH, THATS THE POINT..... Countries that have a population problem should be the ones instituting such a policy, this shouldnt be imposed on the whole world as you are proposing.
One Child Policy

My belief is that China's one child policy should be globalized. Firstly people are starting to outnumber the resources. I agree with my opponent when he says some countries population rate is appropriate. however the resources humans need (oil, and food mainly) do not support this growing population. China which is the country to have this policy has stopped about 300 million births. Imagine that! I am not suggesting that if a second child is born it should be killed. I am suggesting that there will be no second child due to parents becoming sterile. Unfortunately humans have been very detrimental to the Earth. Global warming, and air pollution is just two of the things that can be pointed to humans. The Earth's land is not infinite. Eventually we will reach carrying capacity." The United Nations indicates that about 850 million people are malnourished or starving,[111] and 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe drinking water". Do you thing adding another billion people will help that ratio of people. With 10 billion people projected by 2100, if population control is not enacted many will live in complete misery.
One Child Policy

Many well developed and post-industrialization societies have stable populations that are not growing at an explosive rate: http://en.wikipedia.org... Only a dozen countries or so have a growth rate of above 3%, with a vast majority of countries being close to 2% (which is what maintains a current population), or even less then that. Hell some countries are even losing population due to emigration, so we dont need a world-wide one-child-policy policy
Was Obama a Good President

Obamacare has actually helped many people and many people have signed up in Kentucky, New York, Washigton D.C and California. These are few of the things Obamacare does for the people of America. " The Affordable Care Act expands the affordability, quality, and availability of private and public health insurance through consumer protections, regulations, subsidies, taxes, insurance exchanges, and other reforms. " The fact is ObamaCare does not replace private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid. " ObamaCare doesn't regulate your health care, it regulates health insurance and some of the worst practices of the for-profit health care industry. http://obamacarefacts.com... Thank you for this debate i enjoyed it
Was Obama a Good President

That may be true but he has created jobs as well. over 7,000 jobs were created in the private sector "his remarkable record of accomplishments: extending health insurance to 32 million Americans, staving off a major economic collapse, rescuing the auto industry, reforming student loans, ending discrimination against gay soldiers, pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, killing Osama bin Laden, and passing one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history." Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com... He has done alot for this country and he still is trying sure he has some flaws but so does everybody. He is working to increase the safety of everyday Americans. Many people think gun control is bad but he does this to avoid incidents like school shootings.