BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote

In the spirit of democracy, however, isn't the "winner takes all system" obsoleted? Doesn't it vilify the rights of minorities and favor the majority? But if the president campaigned in the big states, wouldn't the minorities of the small states migrate to the majority of the big states, therefore becoming the "majority?" So what? The constitution can be amended. Let's use Bush v. Gore 2000 as an example. Gore had 266 votes. Bush had 271. Without the inclusion of electorate votes, Gore would have won, and prevented the future collapse of the economy. Popular vote was won by Gore. Electoral Vote was won by Bush. Without the electoral college, Bush wouldn't have been elected; and, without the popular vote, Gore wouldn't of been elected. Therefore, the popular vote should not be vilified or considered inaccurate. Politicians vote on other politicians. State pretty much overrides what popularity dictates. Presidents are unfairly elected. So why do we consider ourselves a democracy if something like the Electoral College is permeated and not vilified?
The Electoral College Should Be Replace By Direct Popular Vote

I would be happy to oblige. According to http://answers.yahoo.com..., the electoral college's original intent was "The same purpose it serves today: to balance the political needs of the small states with the overwhelming power of the large states." However, I'd like to dispute the obsolescent mechanics of the system. According to http://news.yahoo.com..., "The Electoral College has outlived its usefulness and become a potential tool in the war between and among political parties. There is no reason the president can't be elected in 2012, through popular vote, by the people. Not by a college of politicians, appointed by politicians, casting votes for districts drawn by politicians." With all this being said, I am taking Pro of this argument. I do not believe the electoral college is a modern process that should be taken during presidential elections. It was made years ago by our forefathers when doing so was essential; however, times have changed, and citizens are yearning for their own say in what goes on. After all, without the electoral college, Al Gore would've won, and let's face it: America would've been a heck of a lot better if Gore was elected.
United States Federal Government should increase its engagement with the people's republic of China

The Peoples Republic of China is a very powerful country that we should not get involved with. Xi Jinping is a very smart man and can manipulate us. The United States reputation would also be affected in bad ways. Number one, it would make us look desperate because we're "looking for help", and number two, China has had human rights violations, an estimated 500,000 people are in punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to get to the legal system. Did you know China is the worlds leading country in the death penalty.
Catalonia deserves the independence

I"m not sure if Catalu"a will be better on their own or under the Spanish federal government. Please take in mind that while they are part of Spain, they can use the other states as a market, and many Spanish people say they will not let them be part of the European union if they get the independence. Regarding the independence: Spanish usually mistreat Catalans, especially in the state/autonomy of Madrid, which happen to be the capital of the country. During the civil war, they protect the republic (the democracy). I think this is enough to see they deserve to get the independence. Please would you talk a bit about yourself? why are you interested in this topic? regards
Catalonia deserves the independence

Violence is disgusting, that may be the only way to achieve something in this world, but it is still disgusting. Is that true? it is the only way? Any one who advocates for violence is my enemy. Any one who use violence against civilians in the name of the independence of his nation is a terrorist. violence don't makes any one to deserve anything. You know something, one day I would like to meet a someone who achieves to change my mind at least a bit
Catalonia deserves the independence

You must be kidding, because your argument assumes that the default position is that every one deserves to NOT be free, unless you prove the opposite. Catalonia deserves the independence more than USA at the time it was dependent. During the civil war they defend democracy until the very last day of the war. They create most of the industry of the country and share the benefits, and in exchange what they got???? we have militars offering them selves to reduce the protests by using weapons (if public they go to jail), we have people in Madrid making jokes of how great will be to kill them, and we have other regions of the country blaming them for being a bit more wealthy than the rest ... EXCUSE ME? why do you want them in your country? They could organize terrorism against the other nations of the country like ETA but they didn't. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO DESERVE THE INDEPENDENCE? maybe to kill other people? please any one can explain me, if the argument is good I will change opinion
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

Since DATCMOTO has cowardly refused to defend his position on this topic (twice) I open it to all... The proposition on offer is that there are simply no moral truths. In short, morality is non-cognitive in nature. ************************************************ Relevant Definitions: Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Moral Proposition : a statement of the form X is right/wrong. Example: slavery is wrong. Moral Truth : The ability to describe a moral proposition as true or false. Truth Value : the designation True or False. Cognitive : the position that moral propositions have a truth value. Non-Cognitive : the position that moral propositions have no truth value. ************************************************ Contentions: 1) Cognitive morality consists of the following viewpoints. -----a) All moral propositions are false (error theory) -----b) At least 1 moral proposition is true ----------i) Subjectivism (whatever I say goes) ----------ii) Conventionalism (whatever most people say goes) ----------iii) Idealism (whatever John Doe would say goes) ----------iv) Religious appeal (whatever God says goes) -----c) Naturalism ----------i) Analytic (nature describes what goes) ----------ii) Reductive (we can infer what goes) 2) All of the above points have at least 1 problem with them. 3) Until these problems are solved, rational beings should endorse non-cognitivism in theory, if not in practice. ************************************************ I've made this debate 4 rounds because I don't believe CON will want to argue all of the cognitive points, so I'll let him choose which one(s) to defend and we'll start actual argumentation in the 2nd round. As always, comments are welcome before the debate commences to clarify terms, etc...
Could there be a world war 3 because of ISIS

You said that if they get a nuclear weapon the world is in trouble. That is very unlikely. Nuclear weapons are very difficult and expensive to acquire. Then where would you launch it? It is inconvenient and unrealistic. And if ISIS had any sense they would not launch a nuke because they know all the world's powers have far superior nuclear missiles. Also, just because that child is holding a gun it doesn't mean he knows how to use it. Or if he does, use it well. ISIS may be growing in number but with number comes the need for supplies, which ISIS are getting less of. And anybody with a quarter of a brain knows how dangerous ISIS is and how their extremest views differ from Islam. People are perfectly comfortable coming out of their homes in many countries. The world isn't a Syrian city, you know. And the increase in terror attacks just means an increase in security. France has suffered a lot from ISIS so it will receive international military support. Same with places like Turkey. ISIS is not the worst problem today, governments have just been scared to launch the first nuke due to international image.
Could there be a world war 3 because of ISIS

According to you it is correct but day by day few people are joining ISIS . If At all they acquire a nuclear weapon the whole world is in trouble .And also they are spreading terror groups in Libya and other countries and if at all you drop bomb recently the attacks on Paris . They are giving warning signs to USA,RUSSIA and other countries .A photo in which a child of 4 or 5 picks a gun in his hand so imagine what will happen when he is full grown up.And many of people in the ISIS and Btech Graduates and daily we track one or few people travelling to Syria to join ISIS.We cannot get it lightly it is a world Fear around the world.In around the world people are afraid to move out of there home because of this type of terror groups.
Could there be a world war 3 because of ISIS

First off, I would like to introduce myself. I am HRSuperior and I accept your debate. I hope there will be no foul play in our session. Now personally I disagree with you. There are many things we must consider when we are talking about a third world war. The whole world needs to be involved, for one, if it is to be classified as a "world war". Also, the War on Terror isn't technically an actual war. No war has been (or can be) declared on ISIS because it is a terrorist group and terrorist groups don't have the power or influence leaders of nations do, and thus cannot be treated as possessing said power. Another reason WWIII is not imminent is because quite apart from separating nations ISIS has made the world's military powers unite against a common enemy. International tensions only go as far as Russian planes being shot down over Turkey in panic. And to be perfectly honest ISIS is not as powerful as you may think. You can go on about bombs and destruction but at the end of the day this terror group is literally just that- a terror group. The only reason it's still around is because countries are scared of heavy civilian casualties which may result from mass bombing. During WWII and WWI times were much more dangerous and unstable. Countries did many things which by today's standards would be unacceptable. And because of these actions we have learnt from our past and built a safer, friendlier world for all. If ISIS was around in 1940 it would be crushed and dismissed a weak side-enemy. We have all the power to do that today, but we don't in risk of further conflict between nations. ISIS knows that places like Russia, America or Britain could destroy them completely if they had to, so they watch their still watch their step.
Jesus son of Zeus, pie in the sky mythology

Alright, it's my last argument! Thank you for your points and your information- I'm enjoying your perspective and the chance to evaluate your questions about Jesus' existence and what that means to Christians. Your points themselves don't make a whole lot of sense. You said that my sources prove nothing because the idea that they are trying to prove is ridiculous. You said, 'These sources prove nothing. They compare to the Talmudic ridicule of Jesus son of Zeus'. However, this argument itself makes no sense at all- the documents themselves prove that the idea of Jesus ISN'T ridiculous. They offer real, historical references that back up the idea of the existence of Jesus. Most of them are written by Jews, Atheists, and Pagans, who would not have asserted Jesus' existence unless it was the undeniable truth. You are right that Tacitus killed Christians and despised them [1], but, contrary to what you suggested, this actually proved my point. If we have a non-christian source written by someone who despised Christianity, that makes their assertion that Jesus was real all the more credible. After all, if Jesus was made up, Tacitus would have done everything in his power to prove this fact, but instead, Tacitus asserts Jesus' existence. If we were trying to prove Jesus' divinity, this would be different, but we are simply trying to prove his existence. You ask me to 'prove that Zeus physically lived, and then you have solid proof'. The idea of this is ridiculous, and I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Christianity and Hellenism are two completely different religions from completely different time frames and people groups [2] [3]. Proving Zeus' existence will no more prove Jesus' then proving Jesus' will prove Zeus'. Both are entirely unrelated to one another. I am fully aware of the Catholic church's arguments about Jesus being an only child, but I disagree with them. I think that there is both historical and biblical evidence that Jesus really did have siblings. Josephus asserts this, as I have already discussed. And in the Bible, verses like Jude 1:1, Acts 12:17, John 2:12, and many more also discuss Jesus' siblings. [4] However, I do not believe that this is relevant to the subject. The question that you are trying to argue is that Jesus never existed (or so I assume, because this is what I asserted at the beginning, and you never corrected me). By saying that Jesus didn't have siblings, you are basing that on the assumption that Jesus existed in the first place, so you may as well have already given in. [1] https://www.britannica.com... [2] https://www.greekmythology.com... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [4] http://www.bibleinfo.com...
Jesus son of Zeus, pie in the sky mythology

"All of the other manuscripts and references that I gave still stand, including Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and especially the gospels." These sources prove nothing. They compare to the Talmudic ridicule of Jesus son of Zeus. The Talmudic ridicule mocked the believers in this myth. Unless you believe that placing the Divine Name - no where found in the Xtian bible none sense - permits a person to fly - like the Talmud writes that this imaginary man did which caused him to do all his miracles. Satire does not make the people of Lilipoot real. ""While Tacitus did not spend more than a page on the section about Jesus in the Annals, I don't see why this proves your point." Tacitus killed Xtians. He despised and abhorred their religious abomination. Attempting to employ an enemy of that vile religion as proof that validates that Jesus son of Zeus physically lived, utterly absurd. Prove that Zeus physically lived and then you have a solid proof. "" but Jesus is certainly present, and the mention of his existence is enough to give us a source from a long time ago."" No. All that his writings prove, that their existed Xtians in his day that believed in this mythical none sense. ""Josephus has referred to Jesus in other places, and this time,"" Jews do not buy this false messiah none sense. The gospels - written in Greek - appealed to Goyim who worship mytholgy. "" a heartless Sadducee"" At that time, the P'rushim [translated as pharasees] had expelled all Tzeddukim [translated as sadducees] from all Jewish communities. Meaning if a Sadducee wanted to marry a Jewish women - then he would have to convert to the Jewish faith! "" "Sanhedrin"] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah " James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.' "" The Catholic Church argues that Jesus was an only child. 1, https://www.catholic.com... "The scene is Jesus' own district, a synagogue, probably in Nazareth itself, where Jesus and Mary undoubtedly had many relatives. The speakers in Mark 6:3 are the fellow-villagers of these relatives. There is no need in this text to restrict the meaning of adelphoi/adelphai to uterine brothers and sisters. Mark 6:3 is in perfect accord with Catholic doctrine." "If Jesus were the uterine brother of the other four (James and Joses and Judas and Simon), then Mark would write ho adelphos. But no manuscripts give that reading. Adelphos without the article is non-specific and non-exclusive: Jesus is a relative, one of many, of the other four. Notice also the repetition (called polysyndeton) of the word "and" (kai) between the names of the other four. This suggests that Mark is presenting them, not as a cohesive group, but as four disparate individuals."
Jesus son of Zeus, pie in the sky mythology

I acknowledge my mistake in that Josephus is a suspected forgery- this is actually something that has been brought up in a previous debate, and I forgot to take that link out before I posted my argument. Nevertheless, all of the other manuscripts and references that I gave still stand, including Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, and especially the gospels. Pliny the Younger (a staunch atheist) also gives a reference to the explosion of Christianity soon after Christ is believed to have died, which certainly gives credence to the idea who rose from the dead. [1] While Tacitus did not spend more than a page on the section about Jesus in the Annals, I don't see why this proves your point. [2] Tacitus may not have spent a large amount of space writing about Jesus, but Jesus is certainly present, and the mention of his existence is enough to give us a source from a long time ago. Also, I'm going to come back to Jospephus, because, while the Testamonium Flavinium has been proved to be a forgery, Josephus has referred to Jesus in other places, and this time, in a negative light, making it less likely to be another forgery. Josephus says, in book twenty of Jewish Antiquities, 'Being, therefore, this kind of person [i.e., a heartless Sadducee], Ananus, thinking that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus had died and Albinus was still on his way, called a meeting [literally, "Sanhedrin"] of judges and brought into it the brother of Jesus-who-is-called-Messiah " James by name, and some others. He made the accusation that they had transgressed the law, and he handed them over to be stoned.' [3] While the other reference most likely was a forgery, this mention is much more reliable, as it is more compatible with Josephus' supposed views [4]. [1] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.magister.msk.ru... [4] https://bible.org...
Jesus son of Zeus, pie in the sky mythology

Hey, thanks for sending this to me! I'm excited to discuss this together. I'm a little confused by the topic itself, but I'm going to assume that this debate is centered on Jesus' existence, and not his divinity. If I'm wrong, please do correct me. There is actually real historical evidence that Jesus did exist, even outside of the four gospels. He is referred to in Josephus' Testamonium Flavinium [1], Pliny the Younger's tenth letter to Emperor Trajan [2], and Tacitus' Annals [3]. Jesus can be found in archeology [4] and secular records [5] [6]. I'd like to hear your evidence for why you believe that these events are imaginary. I will take up the burden of trying to prove both historical evidence for Jesus outside of the gospels, and why I believe that the gospels are reliable sources. [1] http://people.uncw.edu... [2] https://reasonabletheology.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org... [5] https://www.bethinking.org... [6] http://coldcasechristianity.com...
Jesus son of Zeus, pie in the sky mythology

The Apostle Paul never saw the books of the gospel codifications which the catholic church fathers sanctioned. Some 100 gospel books written, all of them no less than 60 to 80 years - the book of toilet/prostitute client ie john - some 200 years after the imaginary events which that dude claimed to have personally witnessed. How does the Hebrew Bible - its called T'NaCH for Torah Prophets and Writings - view false witness testimony? Clearly the new testament authors held a different view point!! That the church fathers catholic and protestant foist the gospel fraudulent books as absolutely accurate, this proves that all stripes of Xtians love lies. Perhaps someone might take offense at this opening statement. To bad. Yo Oh Saved ... how does the prophet Moses define the word truth? LOL
There is a historical lack of interest in African music among American and European music scholars.

I have already rebutted all of my opponent's arguments last round and he has not brought any new ideas forward. This leaves me with nothing to do except give my closing remarks. It was a good first debate for me and I gained a lot of experience. Everything that I needed to say about this topic has been fully explained in the preceding rounds. Thank you Frostblade for participating in this debate.
There is a historical lack of interest in African music among American and European music scholars.

My opponent starts his argument of saying that the lack of interest in African music is evident, however it is not historic. However, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the word 'historic' means something that is "known or established in the past". Ruth Stone documented this lack of interest in her book Africa (Garland Encyclopedia of World Music, Volume 1). This book was written in 1997 so it would make sense that she had begun her studies to reach these findings at least some time prior to that. One can quite easily understand that 1997 was 17 years ago. Ergo, 1997 was in the past. When one realizes this, one can state that this lack of interest is historic because it was both known and established in the past. My opponent then goes on to say "It is no secret that a culture will put its music before other cultures," However this does not serve to explain the almost complete lack of American or European scholars of African Music. Even though there are American and European scholars of other types of music there are very few, if not none, for African Music. Richard Wolf, for example, is a professor at Harvard mainly devoted to Indian Classical music. My opponent also mentions that Western civilization had a strong influence in Africa and then gives examples of this. However he fails to explain how this relates to the debate topic. The debate is not about the cultural impact of western civilization on Africa, instead it is about African music. My opponent also says that the study of African music can be linked to the study of Native American music due to the fact that he claims that both don't have scholars outside their ancestry. However this is not the case. One can look to Joyce Szabo an art historian specializing in Native American art and music. Joyce Szabo is not of Native American ancestry.
There is a historical lack of interest in African music among American and European music scholars.

Although there is a lack of interest in African music, it is hardly historic. It is no secret that a culture will puts it's music before other cultures. It is also true that a controlled area were two cultures collide ends up with cultural diffusion. Such as the Romans and the Greeks. The Romans began to copy Greek music, architecture. Western civilization had a strong influence, especially in the of Africa, were Britain controlled many areas. There was a great fight as the Germans and British vied for Mastery of the North African shores. Taking towns over for strategic advantage. There are also some colonies that were in Africa that became countries such as South Africa. It still very much copies a good amount of western culture. As far as a historical lack, the study of African tribal music can be linked to the study of Native American music. They both do not have many scholars outside of their ancestry. So their isn't a historical lack. While there is some