BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S having a 2 political party system

"They only cannot get their message across because of the tyranny of the two party system raking in the funds that prevent any other message to get across"There is a huge difference between using funds to prevent others from getting the message out and using funds to promote your own message WAY better than anybody else..... And thats whats going on with the two party system in America. The Democratic and Republican parties just know how to appeal to people and raise money the best. " If the green party was in power it would be obvious not to sign a bill that would cause more harm than help"The green party has only one goal and that is to protect the environment under any circumstances. Any issues outside of the environment though and the green party adopts stances similar to the Democratic or Republican party. This makes the Green Party a more extreme version of the Democratic or Republican party, and considering the lack of funding or support from Americans many, including me, see the party as too extreme. "They work together singular to ensure that not one party can become that X party."So now the Republican and Democratic parties are coordinating to make sure that all of the third parties dont combine together to make a new party that could threaten them....... These small parties dont want to form a super party with all the other smaller parties, they just gear their stances on issues towards one ideology or goal, never change their stances, and get creamed every election because they are either too extreme in the eyes of Americans, suck at getting support, suck at getting funds, and suck at getting their message out.... There most certainly is not a conspiracy by the two major parties to keep all the smaller third parties from combining to form one mega ultra party....."If people still think of the Patriotic American Dream idea that an individual can move up the ranks of social mobility that is a lie.........Does not the CIA exist in the foreign spectrum and the FBI in the domestic spectrum?"Try to focus on the debate resolution rather than just go on an incoherent tirade, it will most likely cost you votes considering nobody knows what the hell your talking about or the point youre trying to make anymore. " The Two Party System is a tyranny. What do people have to loss by advancing more parties to the ballot"They are on the ballot its just that nobody knows who they are because the parties representing that candidate have no idea how to win a damn election as well as the Republican or Democratic parties!To the voters still reading this, I dont know what crawled up the Con's a** but this debate has turned more into a tirade against............. Hell I dont even know what the Con is yelling about but he has failed to give much evidence suggesting that all the independent parties are being kept down from the Republican and Democratic parties to form one super party, or that the Democratic and Republican parties are using their money to somehow stifle the voice of the other smaller independent parties through an unknown means......
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Social media is not the reason as to why there is an increase in mental health issues, Especially in the youth, Because although it may contribute, It can not take the full blame. Media can be beneficial in many other ways, Such as to communicate or to find support and escape from the real reasons as to why they have fallen into their state. It can be a contributing factor but again, Not media, It's the people, But overall, Not a consequence of it.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

The internet has become such a huge part of our lives, Especially in adolescence, So big that people can feel symptoms of withdrawal as well as being unable to function normally without regular online contact from there devices because we put such a mental dependence on online activities. Researchers have also linked compulsive Internet use to a range of mental health concerns including low self-esteem, Loneliness, Depression, Social phobia, And even suicidal thoughts.
The internet is responsible for the increase in mental health issues in youth.

Social media is not the reason as to why there is an increase in mental health issues, Especially in the youth, Because it's not the media that is affecting them, It's actually the people behind the screens. Every problem on the internet can be traced to something and it is always a person. Say a mean text was sent, And a person falls into depression, Would you blame media or the person who was behind the text?
The US should adopt the British honors system

I will respond briefly to the crux of his rebuttals that At the end of the day, people are all the same all over the world. Why do people aspire to own the fast cars my opponent mentioned, for instance? Is it because they are more in a hurry than other people? I have seen plenty of Lambos, Porsches, Ferraris, Aston Martins and Maseratis in Hong Kong, for example. where there is only one or two stretches of highway and even there the speed limit s 50mph. These supercars hardly get out of third gear. The owners buy them not because they need a fast car but just to prove to other people they are successful. They are status symbols just like designer clothes, expensive jewellery and big houses in posh areas. It is the same principle behind conferred titles. Being a Sir or a Dame says to other people that you are successful, and implies a certain social superiority. Americans are no less aspirational than any other group of people on the planet and they are just as likely as anyone else to flaunt their success given the opportunity to do so. An honoury title would be the ultimate status symbol for a successful American and obtaining one would be a goal in life for hard-working Americans of all social backgrounds. Thank you. PS. Regarding the American spelling in the first round, but this was deliberate as I know most of the readers on this site are American rather than British and I wanted to make them feel at home. I have used my native British English in the second round though!
Does God Exist

You don't get the whole point behind religion do you? It is a way for people (84% world wide for your information) to have a reason to live. People like the idea that there is something waiting for them after they die in reward for all that they have suffered in their previous life. You also can't disregard the fact that humans' believe in mystical creatures/events have been around for as long as humans have. Maybe you can't essentially proof that God exists with your cameras and science, but you also can't proof every little blimp in the timeline of creation with cold, hard, scientific evidence. Some events (or miracles) just can't be explained, so it is natural for people to assume that the incident was the work of God. Religion has been around for a long, long time after all.
Does God Exist

Everyone thinks 'God' is some great power who is going to come and rescue all of us from suffering and take us to an after life full of happiness and bliss. Well NO. People need to get it through there heads that God doesn't exist . No one is coming to save them from suffering. It is apart of life. What proof is there of God. Apart from that book known as the bible, using proof like that I could argue that Spider-Man existed. If God has all these wonderful miracles lined up for you where is he now , people , children, innocent children are dying everyday , and the ones who aren't doing anything about it are the ones sitting on their asses praying to God, instead of going out and doing something useful. The earth is dying climate change will be the end , but people who believe in God, just think 'no it will be ok God will save us' well no humans have to save ourselves we can't survive with religions using there 'prayers' to save us because we won't be around because we will have died.
Death Battle: Pikachu vs Jibanyan

I think I waited long enough. Here are Jibanyan's stats:Strength: Jibanyan's main attack is his "Paws of Fury", which is a fast pummeling move. It's so powerful, it sent Nate (who is roughly 10 years old) flying incredibly high. When it's not sending children blasting off, it's fighting off cars for about 3 seconds. In the games, his Strength stat is 56 at level 60. Agility: In the cartoon, Jibanyan hasn't been shown of any real speed feats, but he is fast. In the games, his Speed stat is 68 at level 60.Durability: Jibanyan has endured being flattened, falling from around 20 feet, and even an attack from Gargaros who, as one of the Terror Time Oni, is very strong. In the games, his Defense stat is 104, and his HP is 208 at level 60.Abilities: In the games, Jibanyan can cast fire attacks, which isn't incredibly powerful, but still effective. His Spirit stat (which is like the Special stat from Pokemon Red/Blue) is 97. He also has the ability of Inspiriting: In the anime, he goes inside of a person, and makes them almost get run over by cars. In the games, he paralyzes the opponent, lowering their speed. According to what some Yo-kai say when inspirited by Jibanyan, it's similar to an electric pulse, though I have yet to confirm this with my copy of Yo-kai Watch.Jibanyan is also capable of thinking for himself, and his main strategy consists of Paws of Fury. He's lazy, though. Chances are he's not coming up with any real tactics.Assistance from Nate Adams: Nate can come up with some pretty good strategies to make up for Jibanyan's lack of tactics. He almost always knows what to do in a given situation.Again, the Trainers aren't allowed to actually enter the battle, but they can instruct their friends.So what does Pikachu have over this cat Yo-kai?Sources:In-game stats: http://yokaiwatch.wikia.com...VS Battles page: http://vsbattles.wikia.com...
Death Battle: Pikachu vs Jibanyan

A long time ago, I concluded the Yo-kai Jibanyan can defeat the mascot of the popular series of Pokemon; Pikachu. Then, the user Strategery accepted the debate I posted, and I learned to consider different areas, both in making sure the rules don't allow for cheats, and also validity.Story time aside, I once again raise the question: Which monster collection mascot it the strongest? Ash's Pikachu from the Pokemon anime? Or Jibanyan, the Chocobar loving cat Yo-kai residing in Nathan Adam's room?Of course, there will be rules you have to follow.1) Evolution or Fusion of any character is forbidden. Meaning Pikachu is unable to become Raichu (even though it will never happen anyways), nor can Jibanyan fuse with any Yo-kai to become Baddinyan or Thornyan.2) Neither character can recieve backup. It will be only Pikachu and Jibanyan fighting. However, Ash and Nate can instruct their partner, but Ash and Nate aren't allowed to actually enter the battle. Also, Any other "-nyan" Yo-kai are forbidden, such as the gem-nyans, fruit-nyans, Robonyan, Goldenyan, or Shogunyan. Even if Shogunyan and Robonyan are technically Jibanyan. It'll be only Jibanyan and Pikachu fighting.3) No held items will be allowed. So Pikachu can't have anything, nor can Jibanyan.4) We can use data from the video games to determine base stats. But I would like to bring something up: in Yo-kai Watch, there is a "Spirit" stat, which is both the attack power and defense regarding 'spells', or elemental attacks used. This Spirit stat will be treated like the Special stat from the 1st generation of Pokemon. But Pikachu will have Special Attack and Special Defense like all Pokemon have nowadays.5) While we can use data from the video games, ultimately, we're using the characters from the cartoon. The majority of arguments should come from feats accomplished in the animes of Pokemon and Yo-kai Watch.6) The battle will take place in a stadium this time, similar to the arenas Ash is in occasionally. There is no homefield advantage.7) We will be arguing for 5 stats: Strength (how much damage the character deals), agility (speed and nimbility), Durability (how much damage the character can take), abilities (special powers, such as elemental attacks, or spiritual prowess), and Partner; how helpful Ash and Nate are in terms of instructing their respective friends.8) Saying that a franchise is more popular is not a valid argument. We're focusing on this battle as unbiased as possible, even if some fan makes some death battle where Pikachu wins. (Or maybe the person's a Yo-kai Watch fan)9) I'd prefer you have an argument constructed before accepting this debate. If you can't come up with an argument, say "pass" or something along those lines to the debate doesn't freeze, at least.10) Failure or refusal to follow these rules risks an automatic loss.I'll let the Contender choose to argue for either Pikachu or Jibanyan. I personally need to study these two more thoroughly.
Capitalism

You've made the following comment a few hours ago about capitalism:"it can be a good idea if you have a bad country and everyone is poor. but if u are living in a wealthy country it will be unfair on the people who are working hard but are getting the same amount of stuff as a dust bin cleaner "In this, you've affirmed that capitalism is a great system for bringing a third world country out of poverty. But if you can see that this system is so great at creating prosperity then why should we change it? Because some people make more than others, even if the others are working a lot "harder"?First of all, we should clarify what we mean by "working hard". Digging a hole in the ground for 4 hours, then burying it for 4 more hours can be exhausting workday, but it's not very productive. If one man uses an axe to cut firewood and the other one is using a butter knife, then the latter one would be working "harder", however most people don't really care how the wood they burn got there, they want to get what they need at the best price possible, and if a producer is more efficient than its competitors, then he can ask lower prices, thus attracting more customers. You can't expect to sell your product by saying "I've worked really hard on this". The value of your product, just like its beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.Now let's look at the other side of the story. I'm sure you, like many others, find the million dollar paychecks of world class football players too high. There are two reasons for this: first, they bring in even more money than that to their employers (and that's the most fundamental rule for any kind of employment), and second, there are not many people who are this good at football, so the people will have to outbid each other in order to get the best players for themselves. These two factors combined can shoot up the price of anything into astronomical heights.Well, I've basically just explained the concept of supply and demand, but what I'd like to hear from you is:1. Why is capitalism preferable in a poor country, but not in a rich one?2. What do you mean exactly by "working hard"?3. Why is wealth inequality so bad?
Capitalism

Please correct me, if I misunderstood something, but on the Big Issues page for Capitalism you took the Con side. http://www.debate.org... But now it seems like we are on the same side. I've seen the movie I Pencil, and even more, I've seen firsthand how people get together to form startups to get their idea out to the market. I've been searching through a lot of contractors and manufacturers, and met many investors and entrepreneurs during the past year, and believe me, I know how many people's work is required to create even very simplistic things, such as a razor or a toothbrush.I've checked at least four times, whether I've challenged the right person. Could it be that your account was hijacked by a communist who made that comment? Or maybe giving arguments to support one's opponent is just a new debating tactic I haven't known yet.Anyway, I suppose we can't really have a good debate, if we don't disaggre on the topic at hand, but it was a pleasant surprise to recieve a response like that.
Parents Should Tell Their Children About Every Different Religion Instead of Indoctrinating Them

Thank you for your argument, and for a great debate. I would first like to rebut some of my opponents points, and then I will end with a conclusion. Why is it morally wrong to teach a child to accept one religion? How is it wrong for you to not accept all religions. I accept all religions but I only FOLLOW Christianity. It should not be morally wrong to accept one religion nor to follow or practice one. Even when children are told not to touch a hot stove, they often do. This demonstrates that children are not even as close to dumb as you think they are, and are more then able to think for themselves to a certain extent. Since this blind trust is, as I have proved, not there then you cannot manipulate a child based on blind trust. One example of this is my friend, brought up a Catholic and sent to catholic school, who is now an atheist. Even though she was forced and only taught one religion she still turned out as an Aethiest, so this just shows that you can follow whatever religion you like, even though you were only taught one. Now I agree that the decision to follow a certain religion is individualistic, but it is not the RIGHT nor the RESPONSIBILITY for the parents to take their child to all places of worship, in order for my 6 year old son, to think he knows about all religions, so that he can go to the mousque while I go to my church, and have one of us take him. NO! He will go to church with me, until he is no longer in my house. (This is a hypothetical situation, I am a student) If young children cannot make this decision, why should it not be made for them until they can decide for themselves. Contracts are like this. Is religion not a little like a contract? ! As long as it is not harmful and deemed for the minors benefit, church and religion is a good thing! I would like to point out, due to the new T. V. Shows and other things on television and that we see in society, it is not the greatest way to gain a morale code. I would now like to unprofessionally scream at your last point. "Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the judgement of the parent". SAY WHAT NOW! ? So now, I cannot raise my child the way I want him to be raised, because why? Not really a reason, just people think that I am not fit to raise my own child. That nobody is fit to raise their child. If nobody raises the child then does the child not get raised? Will we have 50 year old babies as the population of the world, with no religion, and no thought? I say NAY! I should teach my hypothetical child any religion and morale code I like, as his/her upbringing is left for me to decide! In conclusion, I as side con must firmly state that I would encourage a con winning vote because every parent should have the right and responsibility to freely bring up their child in any way they like, allowing them to practice the religion with the parent, until they can practice what they wish!
Parents Should Tell Their Children About Every Different Religion Instead of Indoctrinating Them

A. It is not morally wrong to teach a child ABOUT a certain religion. B. It is morally wrong to teach a child to ACCEPT a certain religion. 1. A child is pre-disposed to trust its parents in order to survive. 2. A child needs to be able to trust its parents when it is told do not touch the hot stove or do not play in the street. 3. That same trust can be used to manipulate a child into believing certain unknowable aspects of our existence. 4. I am strongly opposed to any manipulation of a child's pure trust in order to believe certain ways about currently unknowable things. C. The decision to follow a certain religion or religious leader is individualistic. 1. Young children cannot make this decision. 2. Because young children cannot make this decision, they should not have it made for them. D. It is important to teach a child about morality. 1. There are multiple ways to derive a personal morality. 2. Religion is one way. 3. Society is another way. 4. The different means of obtaining morality should be explained to children. E. It is detrimental to teach a child that morality should be unquestioned because of a creed or code. F. Decisions regarding how a child should be raised should not flow from the personal pleasure of the parent. Thank you.
Parents Should Tell Their Children About Every Different Religion Instead of Indoctrinating Them

Thank you for that enlightening argument. I will now attempt to rebut your points, and then move on to my next constructive speech. Now for my rebuttals. I would like to ask you how it is morally wrong to teach your child your religion? If a child is supposed to be a reflection of the adult then it should be the adult's choice to teach the child. I would like to ask that if the parent teaches the child why a religion states what it states then it would not teach the child to accept things without thinking about them. It teaches the child to always ask why. As long as religion is taught in a loving and kind way to inform the child, and the child responds to the teaching then it is fine. I would now like to move on to my constructive speech. I would like to first ask the question, Would you like to teach and parent a child that challenges the very core of your being and every word you say? No I would not. I would like to teach my child my religion, and take him to church with me. I would then have him/her critically examine everything within it and critically evaluate it. Religion is not hard and fast. Everyone should have their own reason why they have their religion and why they follow it. If religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, where you are taught certain morales and values ascribing to said religion. This means that religion is directly ascribed to morale values. Now I would like to again ask a rhetorical question, Would you like a child without the same morales as you? No I definitely would not. I would like my child to understand and follow my morales and values. All of these facts and reasons are why children should be only taught the religion of their parents, as it is the parents decision what to teach their children. I look forward to your concluding round.
Parents Should Tell Their Children About Every Different Religion Instead of Indoctrinating Them

Thank you for joining me. A. First, allow me to detail that which I agree with in your first statement. 1. Parents are responsible for their children. 2. Parents are responsible for teaching their children anything they don't learn in school. 3. Religious teaching is the responsibility of the parents. B. Now, I will detail two other points. 1. I am not arguing that a government should tell any parent how to teach their children. I am in favor of parents having the ability to homeschool their children. Although, I do recognize that a poor teacher is a poor teacher regardless of their relation to the student. 2. Also, I do not care if a religion has a process to confirm any of its maturing congregation. That is beside the point I am attempting to make. C. My point still stands. 1. Parents should teach their children critical thinking. It is the obligation of a good parent to ensure their children know basic decision-making skills. They should do this regarding all decisions, but especially questions which do not have absolute answers. 2. It is morally wrong to tell a child an absolute statement which in reality is a mere belief. 3. I think that it disintegrates the child's ability to make coherent decisions because the child learns to accept things without thinking them through.