BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

I have one argument, of why it is impossible to affirm. [Definition - Voting] 1. a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative. 2. a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion Now, why does this lead to a negation, simple: My opponent has expressed this: "Basically, the more ideal system I propose entails the use of more vigorous debate. Simply, instead of halting a debate before it comes to a conclusion and then voting, the House and Senate should COMPLETE a debate in progress. For example, let us assume federal lawmakers were considering whether or not to implement a law regarding universal health care. Likely, most of the democrats in congress would vote for it, while the republicans the contrary. However, some type of debate would be pursued regarding the particular bill, but this debate, likely, would not come to a conclusion. That is, both sides (proponents and opponents of the bill) have not reached any type of mutual conclusion. Logically, if a debate were to be pursued vigilantly, with everyone having the chance to debate and create rebuttals against other claims, congress would be able to deduce, with mutual agreement, a shared conclusion to the bill." My Response: Voting will always be done. Looking at the definitions of "voting", even my opponents proposed plan is voting, for it is "a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion". Once the congress comes up with said mutual agreement, then they all have voted pro/con for a proposed bill. After all the debates have be done, what will happen? According to my opponent they will have a mutual agreement. THAT IS VOTING, because each member has either agreed or disagreed with the bill (Like I said before). Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

My argument is simple: I. Voting will ultimately be used. There is no other way to implement an action (i.e. the establishment of laws) without a vote being done. Essentially, since the US is a democratic republic, other forms of decision could be unconstitutional. Like, having only one person decide what is right. In essence, voting will always be used on the fact that either: A) The other system is ineffective, B) It undermines democratic ideals. II. Rousseau's "General Will" argument According to this theory the general will or majority ultimately has the power. A society can only function if there is some sort of power base; in the US that's the congress passing laws by majority vote. =============================================================================== Rebuttal: "Federal laws are created in the United States House and Senate. I am arguing that merely voting on a particular measure is a flawed method to create a law. Merely voting means that the majority wins." My Response: It is not a flawed system, it has worked for centuries. You, on the affirmative has no other system to replace voting. "Because voting is largely subjective, necessitating its voters to determine what may be preferable to them, instead of what is indeed right, the process of voting if inherently flawed." My Response :Most likely what is right for them is good for them. Subjectivity is essentially your downfall. There is no way to say what is right. It's up to the people to decide. You will say that there are certain truths, like trees grow in the amazon. However, that is true, but in this debate you are talking about truths that go beyond physicals. E.g.: The Chinese eat fetus soup. How can we know for sure that its wrong or right? Its up to that particular culture or people to decide. Therefore, voting is the democratic ideal in the US, the majority rules. Now, you will say, but whats "right" isn't always what the majority votes for. Then I say, its impossible to know whats "right" since right is subjective, and furthermore the majority has the rules and decides what is right. "So how do we determine what is right? Well, logically, what is right can be deduced via debate by those involved in the particular measure that would otherwise be subjected to a vote." My Response: Again, subjectivity. However you say debate. Lets go on this for a sec. Essentially you say debate turns to truth. Well, debates go on for weeks or months in congress before the final vote. Link this to my 1st contention. (Ultimately voting would be used) *I place an affirmative burden on my opponent: He must propose a back up plan to the voting system. The debate is not just about principles, its about the application and thus the implication of those principles. ============================================================================== I reserve the right to add more arguments if necessary Thank you ladies and gentlemen
The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

Greetings, In this particular debate, I will be arguing that, because voting is a flawed method for establishing federal laws in the Untied States, the act of voting should not be used in the United States House or Senate. Definitions: Voting – casting one's preference for a particular measure or resolution. Flawed – having an imperfection of defect. Federal – of or relating to the central government. Federal laws are created in the United States House and Senate. I am arguing that merely voting on a particular measure is a flawed method to create a law. Merely voting means that the majority wins. My main case in this debate will be the following: "What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular." This quotation depicts that there is a "right" (and therefore a wrong, as well) that is present. Similarly, there is also a "popular" (and therefore an unpopular, as well). The process of voting fails to take into account what is "right" or "wrong," but merely what is "popular" and "unpopular." This, in my view, is wrong; and what is wrong should, ideally, not be implemented into federal level. Because voting is largely subjective, necessitating its voters to determine what may be preferable to them, instead of what is indeed right, the process of voting if inherently flawed. So how do we determine what is right? Well, logically, what is right can be deduced via debate by those involved in the particular measure that would otherwise be subjected to a vote. I can get into this in subsequent rounds, but I would also ask that my opponent read a previous debate I have had, regarding a universal truth, as parts of it may be relevant in explaining and deciphering what is correct. http://www.debate.org... As well, my opponent in this debate should be in favor of the process of voting to establish federal laws in the United States. Again, in this debate, I am arguing that voting is a flawed mechanism for establishing federal laws in the United States. Because it is flawed, it therefore should not be used. I look forward to the debate.
Death Penalty

You say imprisonment is the best route to take, but the death penalty is for INHUMANE crimes. I'm sorry but if it is unjustly to be put to death for murdering, raping, spying, terrorizing; how are those not inhumane as well? Also in prison, prisoners can access books, television, calling and visiting their loved ones, better health coverage than most unemployed Americans and three meals a day. Yes, what a punishment that is.
Death Penalty

Clearly there is an issue in this country when prisoners are treated better than the law-abiding citizens. However, that does not, in any way, effectively argue for the death penalty. In my previous debate about this topic, I effectively argued against it and eventually crushed my opponent. My opponent in this debate should thorougly read my previous debate. None of my opponent's points effectively debate the real issue; whether or not the death penalty is just. Tell me, if a person massacres many innocent individuals, do you want him to endure a real punishment - life in prison - or simply leave this Earth forever - the death penalty? Look, some people are worthy of a second chance. I am wondering, why has my opponent ignored EVERY question I have asked? Every single question and every real point I have made has been ignored. The better debater shall win. Good luck!
Death Penalty

My opponent is now saying a question of an an opinion. Does rewarding murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc. Is that right? Again, prisoners are rewarded with better health care than the average unemployed American. Also, little known fact; prisoners are treated better than the elderly. How does jail solve the issue when statistics show that 67% of prisoners are re-arrested within three years of release. Clearly, life in prison is not a deterrent of crime. My statistics are based on the bipartisan Commision on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons.
Death Penalty

How am I solely arguing my opinion? A man named Tim spent two years in prison and says "First off, you get your housing where you will live, then most likely you will be assigned a job such as cook , grounds keeper, field worker etc. since the whole unit is ran by the inmates. After that its a routine of going to work and going to chow and spending the rest of your time in your cell except when your allowed to go to rec and play ball or work out which is generally once a day. You can also apply for classes to try and better educate yourself while your in there to help you when you get out. Its all about repetition every day." I don't believe you or my opponent will be thinking of simply "an eye for an eye" when it's them or another member of your family.
Death Penalty

Two wrongs do not make a right. My opponent should know this. One person kills another and he says he should be killed as well. Death is not a punishment. Life in prison is indeed a punishment. My opponent argues using his opinion. I argued using facts in my previous debate about his topic. Did my opponent even take the time to read that debate thoroughly? I clearly won and crushed my opponent, showing that the death penalty should not exist. My opponent has made a claim, yet did not provide a source. That is negligence. If my opponent wants to win this debate, I would suggest that he writes a thorough argument, effectively arguing his stance.
Death Penalty

My opponent is arguing solely using his opinion. However, I sufficiently argued this in a previous debate: http://www.debate.org...Many people sentenced to death are actually innocent individuals. If you had done nothing wrong and had no connection to a crime, yet were sentenced to death, what would you think and say? Would you say, "This is so unfair!" or would you say, "Okay, sure, go ahead,"? This is a valid question. My opponent must answer it. In my previous debate about this topic, I wrote, "It is not our right to choose who lives and dies. That is fate's duty. My opponent's philosophy is clearly "kill and be killed." Granted, when you murder someone, there must be punishments put in place. However, death isn't a punishment. It is an inhumane act. Instead of the death penalty, a suitable punishment would be life in prison. Also, the justice system in the United States is flawed. Often, completely innocent individuals go to prison and sometimes even are put to death. This is injustice."My challenge is for my opponent to deny that.
Online poker websites

Its not completely clear what my opponent is arguing for but I will attempt to interpret his argument as best I can. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the resolution appears to be something along the lines of "Online Poker websites need to be monitored and regulated by law". It is not clear to me what those regulations should be exactly. I hope pro will address this in more detail next round. His main example is that of a website enticing people to play, and moving games along more quickly, by increasing the proportion of so called "monster hands" that occur during play. I fail to see how such an action would break any laws, however. In the same way that real casinos feature players who allegedly won thousands of dollars (even though the majority of players never win nearly that much), online poker sites dangle the possibility of winning big money in front of players hoping to entice them to play more. Unless they are forcing people to play against their will, or explicitly lying to players about the probabilities of winning, they have committed no crime and need not be regulated. Its well known by most people that casinos, including online casinos, skew all the games to their favor; if they did not do so, they would not make a profit and would be closed down. To fault a poker site for ensuring its profits is to destroy the ability of anyone to successfully run an online poker site, thus directly going against your objectives as a poker fan. The other issue I have with Pro's argument is that he doesn't consider the practicality of what he is arguing at all. Laws against fraud already exist; if an online poker site cheats its customers in the aforementioned ways, they can already be prosecuted- whoever runs the site and in their own country. Additional laws specific to online poker are not needed. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to establish jurisdiction online. If the website server is based in one country, the owner in another, and the players in a third, fourth, and fifth countries, what governing body has the authority to prosecute any of them for anything? Inconsistent regulations between countries would make it extremely difficult for anyone to be prosecuted; the only way for a government to regulate such a thing would be censorship- banning of the sites it finds distasteful. This would be an extremely politically unpopular move and is unlikely to be supported by anyone. Indeed, though online poker is illegal in the US, many Americans are still able to play online. [1] Unless my opponent can provide a clearer case as to which regulations he advocates, and how they can be reasonably implemented, he has failed to support her assertions. I look forward to his thoughts on the matter. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Online poker websites

I think the main issue with online poker is clearly being overlooked. Governments around the world really should censor not only foreign/offshore poker sites, but also local ones. Or to be more accurate, monitor these poker sites. It's true, the government should not act as a babysitter and decide how people spend their own money and their own time. But they should certainly act as an authority, and make sure these poker websites are not robbing people of money. This is not a debate on is poker fair, or are these online poker websites rigged. It is simple: what proper monitoring is there of these poker websites? Can they actually even monitor these online poker sites if they are offshore? Who knows what goes on… A computer programme is written by someone, and has whatever parameters they want, i.e. the best example is giving two or more people ‘monster' hands (for those not familiar with the terms, a very good poker hand), and thus encouraging them both to play – inducing action. This contributes to the size of the pot and in turn the taking of the poker website; also to finish the game quicker and move on to the next one. Sounds to me like a simple and efficient way to make more and more poker sales. There are many ethical debates on gambling, international money transfers and all that. And anyone that is an avid poker fan (like me) will easily try to rebut my comments, no doubt, especially those winning at the moment. But even so. Some people have to win. And then these people also become your strongest allies. Personally, I have not loss in poker (yet), but have been monitoring various sites to see what their trends and habits are. However, there is only so much you can prove with this. We need real action. It has become ridiculous. I will ask the question one more time…who or what proper public authority is monitoring these poker website's behaviour and practice and making sure they are not today's biggest corruption? I am a fan of poker, and I want it to continue; online and live. I am just asking for fair and legal practice.
Tim Duncan is better then Kevin Garnett

Yes,Tim Duncna is the best PF ever.Also he's the best rebounding and most dominating PF of all time His resume is awsome -4x NBA Championships(at the end of his career he will have 5/6 rings) -3x Finals MVP -2x MVP -His Finals Series in 2003 22,2 PPG,17,2 RPG,5,6 BPG in one of the best individual perfomance ever but yet underrated -Has career stast of 21,1 PPG,11,8 RPG,2,3 BPG.................
Tim Duncan is better then Kevin Garnett

Tim Duncan Vs Kevin Garnett very Interesting... thanks for the debate challenge Kevin Garnett: Career stats 20.2ppg, 11.1rpg, 1.4bpg, 1.6spg 1x NBA MVP 1x Defensive Player Of The Year Championships are a team effort. No one man wins championships. Teams win championships. When comparing these two power forwards who's stats are almost identical, I will give my opponent the edge by saying Duncan does have better stats than Garnett in the categories he mentioned by maybe ONE POINT or less which were Points Per Game, Rebounds Per Game and Blocks Per Game. Garnett has some categories where he trumps Tim Duncan which are Steals, Assists, and Turnover Ratio. Kevin Garnett I believe is a better player than Duncan because Garnett is just a bigger threat to face. I say that because when defenders guard Kevin Garnett they are not just worrying about his inside presence but his outside presence as well. Garnett can shoot the outside jumpers and pretty well too. Tim Duncan has not proven to be a good outside shooter except for that one miracle shot against the Phoenix Suns in the playoffs. Garnett has the ability to guard the perimeter as well as the inside too which you can see from his steals. The difference between Garnett and Duncan is Duncan excels in some aspects of the game but faces big weaknesses in many other parts like his Free Throw percentage (lowly 68%) and like i said his lack of perimeter D. Free throws might not seem like a big stat but its a part of the game that has haunted big name stars other than Duncan from winning like Shaquille O Neal (thus thee invention of Hack a Shaq), Dwight Howard, and LeBrick James. Garnett is better than Duncan because he is the COMPLETE player he does not have any weaknesses. He can shoot outside jumpers, he can jam it in inside, he will swat your centers, pick your guards, out rebound everybody on the court (4 straight rebounding titles), the man can pass the ball as well he is just that unselfish (17 career triple doubles!) and fouling him in the last minutes of the game will not do defenders any good because the man has made himself into a 80% free throw shooter over the past 5 years of play. With all of these facts GARNETT is the better PLAYER here
the US should not attack Iran

This is a 5 round debate. only serious candidates willing to go all the way should accept. thanks. Debate breakdown: 1. Acceptance; brief intro 2. Pro' s opening arguments/ Con's rebuttal 3. Pro's rebuttal/ Con's 2nd rebuttal. 4. Pro's 2nd rebuttal /con's 3rd rebuttal. 5. Closing arguments and final rebuttals Brief Intro: I am totally against any attack on Iran. in this day and age any diplomatic solution is better than outright war. Main reason for not going to war: The economic perspective war with Iran will adversely affect not only the US economy but the world's economy. some countries such as Greece are still recovering from the economic melt down. the US is also not totally out of the woods. the economy is improving however is not yet totally stable. war at this time will cripple the economy and slow any progress. Many people are still unemployed, the housing market is still in the slum and the country has huge debt from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. the country cannot afford another war at this time. the peoples money should be spent on the economic recovery that will benefit all Americans than on a war that will benefit just a few. The US cannot afford a war at this time
the US should not attack Iran

~~Correction heres my Final Conclusion~~ My points still stand. Iran has promised to blow us and Israel of the map. This should not be treated lightly since we have clearly seen in the past hat denying a threat could lead to horrible evens such as the attack on Pearl Harbor and 9/11. We have sefficiant reasons to attack them since they have armed our enemies and have cost our soldiers lives. We have great economic reasons for invading Iran, since in the past wars such as WW2 have greatly stimulated our economy and that Iran has a vast amount of natural resources that we cdould use. We also have a moral obligation to advance liberty into the region and end the horrible atrocities that the Iranian government is doing to it's people.Note: not one of my cases have been refuted.I enjoyed this debate. I would like to encourage the voters to vote con.Thank You for Reading. :)
the US should not attack Iran

Conclusion: A recent Poll as of Mar 14, 2012 clearly states that 41 percent of the population supports a U.S. attack on Iran while 53 percent is opposed to such an attack. voice from the regionHezbollah Deputy Chief Sheikh Naim Qassem has stated that if Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear sites, the Middle East would be set ablaze setting off a conflict that is bound to get out of control. Per Hezbollah Deputy Chief Sheikh Naim Qassem "America knows that if there is a war on Iran, this means that the whole region will be set alight, with no limit to the fires,”. In closing I would like to highlight the fact that According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States has 8,500 nuclear weapons. Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity but is recognized as a nuclear state by friend and foe. The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Nuclear Notebook estimates Israel has between 75-200 nuclear weapons, at least as many as both India and Pakistan. Even if Iran had half that number , which they do not , there is no concrete proof that they would try to use them against Israel or America who have declared they are willing to strike first.Earlier this year Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons, the same conclusion reached by National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the Israeli intelligence community.The oft-repeated concern that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology could trigger a Middle East arms race is therefore a flawed argument. That race began with Israel decades ago and continued when Pakistan tested their own nuclear weapon in 1998. Even if Iran tried to build nuclear weapons (a goal they have repeatedly renounced) they would not be starting an arms race, but reacting to it. It is interesting to note that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has called nuclear weapons “un-Islamic” and gone so far as to issue a fatwa (religious decree) against them.I am therefore firm in my resolve that the USA should not attack Iran. I would like to thank my Con for engaging in such an interesting debate.Sourceshttp://articles.latimes.com...http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.asianews.it...http://www.civilbeat.com...
America isn't free

1. So many laws The United States has an extreme amount of laws and regulations on people, business, etc. With so much control over our lives by the government it is wrong to say we are free. Freedom is not being influenced from anything but yourself. 2. Can't do anything even when it's not murder We aren't allowed to do things that harm no one in any way. Gay marriage, drugs, going to school or not, etc. We don't have the freedom to do anything even when it's harmless to others. The government doesn't let us live our lives freely.