BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

Resolution ==== The predominant two-party system in the United States does not work, and has led to a chaotic governmental gap that results in a severe lack of results on all three branches of our federal government and in local governments, easily skewed media perceptions which promote uninformed and voting and Duverger's Law, and an increase in cognitive biases in voters and politicians (namely Confirmation Bias, Bandwagon Effect, Herd and Ingroup biases, and Selective Perception). Claims ==== - The two-party system discourages an actual representative democracy by limiting the pool of possible and plausible candidates. - The two-party system encourages media bias and uninformed voting by giving simple labels to large and varying social, political, military and economic ideals. - The two-party system encourages social cognitive biases that decrease critical thought on candidates and depletes the ability to judge a candidate for office on actual abilities, credentials and promises but rather on immediate impressions and assumptions made based on their own parties standing and the candidates party standing (biases I will cover and prove are listed in definitions). Definitions ==== Two-Party System: A style of political separation in which two parties maintain the great majority of control. Representative Democracy: A style of democracy in which citizens may vote for representatives to make important decisions and expenditures with the expectation that they will act on the will of the people. Duverger's Law: a principle that asserts that a plurality vote will eventually foster the creation of a two-party system Bandwagon: a cognitive behavior in which when making decisions, there is a tendency to jump on the most popular option when you hold little information Herd/Ingrouping: a cognitive bias in which people automatically agree and support people whom they have determined are a part of their "group" Confirmation Bias: a cognitive bias which asserts a tendency to agree with people and opinions that confirm their pre existing beliefs
Which super power would be the best to have

Euch, next time make more rounds and set the character limit higher. Check your comments.Closing argument:Illusion is limited to illusion. While your power has it's strengths in the intangible & intuitive problem solving, my power has strength in overal versatility, especially if you consider temporary ingestion of additional matter & transforming into a very thin, enormous mouth&stomach. If we were to get into a fight, your power would trump mine-- that is unless you are only relegated to controlling human brains, (which you seem to have eluded to)- in which case you would have to resort to other humans to fight me. In summation, my ability allows super-human feats, yours is both a liability & only allows human feats.
Which super power would be the best to have

Condensed Critique of Opponent's Power1. If always on = incessant stream of consciousness = insanity2. Power = easily abused = violation of privacy & free will = near useless for a superhero3. Power over one's mind = absolute security risk = amnesia, schizophrenia, dissociation, loss of power or otherwise compromise of ones selfInclusion of opponent's new argument:4. Illusion does not convey actual ability. One cannot illusion one's way through a 4-foot-thick containment dome, nor illusion a radiation shield around oneself when the reactor is about to go critical.Benefits of powerAllows the user to make sword hands, transform into solid objects, perfect disguises, impenetrable diamond skin, flight, etc & self-identity is preserved.
Which super power would be the best to have

My thanks for this debate, though the character limit is rather daft.Due to character limit, I will post my critique of my opponent's power in the following rounds.Alternate PowerThe power I propose is as follows:The ability to reform the cells in your body at whim for up to 8 consecutive hours. This includes reformation at the molecular level, partial or total. This also includes the ability to reform into inanimate objects, partially or totally. We assume the ability is regulated by an autonomous mechanism inherant to one's body, which mitigates any possible lasting damage and assists in refomation into functional objects and items at all levels of the process.I can list positive benefits to this power in the following rounds.
Which super power would be the best to have

I believe the ability to choose what people are thinking would be the ultimate super power to have because it allows you to also have many other super powers, for instance if you could alter what people think you could make people think they don't see you, which would technically make one invisible. Or you could alter your own mind to think your flying which would be exactly like really flying without the dangers of crashing. That is why I think altering peoples minds would be the best super power to have
People Under 18 Should Be Banned From The Internet

I will commence my rebuttals. I will be doing a sentence-by sentence commentary. Rebuttal to Contention 1: The library is free, and encourages one to develop their searching skills. After their mind becomes dulled by simply being able to search online for anything, they will not be prepared to face adulthood, or the grocery store. Not everyone will want the same book. Indeed, files on the internet are easily displaced or destroyed due to crashes, deletions, hacking, viruses, e.t.c. Students not meeting face-to-face causes a lack of social skills. Not sure if you have heard of a newspaper, some are published every day; besides, there is also the news channel. If a kid cannot keep track of an essay, should he be on the internet? Rebuttal to Contention 2: Debate.org is fun, but nothing like real life debating. In real life many of your answers must come on the fly, and you do not have three days to give your argument. There are other factors involved like the audience, the other debator, e.t.c. Rebuttal to Contention 3: Yet you do not have experience with the physical world and alphabetization. You may one day break your phone and computer and have to call the repairman. What then? O.o Rebuttal to Contention 4: You forget that cyber-bullying is a major problem on social media. They can text, but can they talk? Do these children and teenagers know how to deal with complex emotions and feelings? No. They text: 'wats up wid u', and the like. Horrible grammar is a great reason why social media is bad. Conclusion: Thanks Cutiepuffle. No doubt either no one will vote or you will win due to popular opinion. Non-Serious debate though... Kind of a nice diversion.
People Under 18 Should Be Banned From The Internet

Ok, sorry, I thought I added a rule about forfeiting twice in a row resulting in disqualification, but I must've overlooked. No matter how safe you try to keep a child, they will always see things not meant for young eyes on the internet. Only with a complete ban would it be possible to restrict them from seeing graphic or explicit material. Browsers like Google Chrome have extensions for a website whitelist. By using this, it is possible to block out most bad things on the internet. Internet or no internet, there will be things a kid will either see or hear from a friend. The only way to truly protect your kid from everything is to lock him in a dark room for his entire childhood. Parents should monitor younger children while they are on the internet. By the age of 10, most kids should be able to handle anything that comes up. If they are troubled, they can speak to an adult. Before the internet, children read books.Before the internet, there was TV and video games. I'm pretty sure most children are going to be using those more often than reading. There are good things the internet helps you with. Minecraft expands your creativity and tests your resourcefulness. They soon become intellectually ignorant...As I have shown earlier, the internet does help with education by allowing new possibilities for students to learn and enjoy class more. Projects are more entertaining and interactive than worksheets and essays. They very often get hated, simply because of the stupid things they say or do. And they mature from it. When they get hated, they most likely will change their attitude and mature up as time goes on so they won't be hated. This rule is most evident in web forums like NinBuzz and SuperSkarmory. They cannot handle the complex social arena of adults.Usually sites like YouTube, web forums where you'd actually probably see a kid on, and online games are dominated by the 10-19 demographic. 7/9 of those ages aren't adults. Adults usually have work and are too busy to be on the internet for much social activities, and when they do, they usually join adult dominated communities.
People Under 18 Should Be Banned From The Internet

In most debates a forfeit would mean automatic disqualification, however, I will overlook this and present my arguments. Due to the fact that my opponent used no references, I will assume it is okay for me to do the same. Contention 1: It Exposes Them to Explicit Material No matter how safe you try to keep a child, they will always see things not meant for young eyes on the internet. Only with a complete ban would it be possible to restrict them from seeing graphic or explicit material. Contention 2: It Encourages Low Intellect and Low Fitness Before the internet, children read books, played game, and did many outdoor activities. Now many children spend hours playing games such as ROBLOX, Minecraft, or on social media, such as Facebook or Twitter. They soon become intellectually ignorant and physically unfit. Contention 3: They Do Not Have the Maturity How often have you seen people from the 7-12 raging, flame-warring, or simply spamming and asking stupid questions? I assume if you spend any time on forums of chats, you have seen it. On certain games, you can literally tell someones age just by the way they talk. They very often get hated, simply because of the stupid things they say or do. They cannot handle the complex social arena of adults. Conclusion: Thank you for replying Cutiepuffle, albeit late. I did not thoroughly research this topic, therefore, my contentions may be slightly weak. Back to you Con.
People Under 18 Should Be Banned From The Internet

I would like to aplogize, as over this weekend I have been busy.Argument 1: Educational ValueRather than having to search libraries for information, students can now quickly search on the Internet for information in reports and projects making it more convenient. Books have to be shared and can only be used by one person at a time, while websites can be used by any amount of people. Also a library may not have enough books or can have books be displaced or lost. You can't misplace the internet. Sites like Google Drive allow students to collaborate more effectively, rather than having to meet up. The internet gathers new INFORM quicker than books . Take an essay on the Arab Spring I had to do a few months back as an example. This, being a rather recent event, had hardly any information in book form, while the internet was flooded with information. Also when you share your essays in Google Drive with your teacher, you cannot say you lost the essay. It also helps with searching card catalogs. It is much easier to search a keyword rather than having to go to a section and browse book titles. Argument 2: The Internet Can Help Honing Skills EarlierDebate.org is a site where you formally debate opponents, a good skill to have later on in life. Yo're not limited to one subject, so you can pick any subject that is of your liking. If a person under 18 uses this site, their debating skills will be better than a person who may have not had practice debating. Sites like TypeRacer help increase typing speed which can help if you use a computer for your job. Making videos and creating websites allow you to show your creativity.Argument 3: Looking up ThingsWhenever you have to find out the meaning of something, you either have to ask, use a dictionary, or look it up on the internet. Using a dictionary is a slow process and people may be busy or not always know about the word. Sometimes you need to find directions or a company phone number for your parents, and it may be more conveenient for you to look it up.Argument 4: CommunicationE-mail and social networking are easy ways for friends to stay in touch even when separated by distance or time. This means kids have more time to be social and get to know each other. For younger kids, sites like Club Penguin allow an ad-free, safe enviornment for kids to communicate with others. By doing this, friends far apart can still talk with each other.
People Under 18 Should Be Banned From The Internet

Thank you for this debate. I believe in my Opinion Poll I state that I thought it was not a bad idea to ban kids from the internet, not that it should necessarily be done. I am under eighteen, so it would be quite unfortunate if something like this occurred. I will simply be arguing from the point of logic, and not necessarily conviction. I think it would be impossible to enact such a band anyway. Just to be clear: People: The human race. Under: Below, in this case an age. 18: The commencement of one's nineteenth year of living; usually signifies adulthood. Should Be Banned: Disallowed access to permanently, (Usually with consequences). From The Internet: All aspects of the World Wide Web. I will be arguing from the perspective that, indeed, all persons under eighteen should not be allowed on the internet.
People Under 18 Should Be Banned From The Internet

Rules: 1. You may not rebut anything in the same round.2. Round 1 is acceptance only.3. No swearing.4. Pictures are discouraged, but if you must, keep it small.5. Wikipedia is a valid source. If you break any rules, you forfeit the debate. Voter Rules:1. You may not take off spelling and grammar because a debater quotes a spelling/grammar mistake an opponent made. 2. Read the ENTIRE debate before voting. I will be taking the side of allowing people under 18 to be on the Internet.
People take debate.org way to seriously

Pro made no definition of "to [too] seriously," so our first task is to figure out what he was taking about. A "debate" is "A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition." http://www.answers.com... "Formal" means "Following or being in accord with accepted forms, conventions, or regulations" http://www.answers.com... Pro's objection appears to be that many people on the site want to have debates that meet the definition of "debate." That is to say that they want the rules and conventions of debate to be obeyed. Moreover, Pro complains, the people who want to debate on debate.org are so bold as to cite the rules and conventions of debate in comments and, apparently, in judging debates. By analogy, if Pro were playing baseball, he could object if an umpire called him out after three strikes, saying "That's no fun. You are taking the game too seriously. Let me just swing away as I choose." This is apparently the same meaning of "too seriously" that Pro applies to debates on this site. Pro objects that the "too serious" debaters who want to debate according to the definition of "debate" are ruining the fun of those who do not want to debate according to the definition. Just as serious baseball players believe the game is more fun when played according to the rules of baseball, serious debaters think debate is more fun when they debate according to the rules of debate. Pro thinks otherwise and takes offense at serious debaters. Because the meaning of debate is clear and the meaning is clearly reinforced by the rules of debate.org, Pro has voluntarily put himself in a place for serious debate. Therefore he has no grounds for complaint. People are not taking debate.org too seriously, they are taking it for exactly the level of seriousness implied by the definitions and rules. The resolution is negated.
People take debate.org way to seriously

This is just a 3 round debate, you will be arguing con on the topic (duh) There will be a 1 month voting period and you will have 72 hours to reply. This is from the site itself on the confirm your ID page "In order to keep Debate.org clean and fun, we require members to confirm their identity before using several features." This from deamonomic "i honestly thought this was a serious site. but it appears i was wrong." This from Xie-Xijivuli "I not so sure HeedMyFeed, or anyone, should be using Wikipedia as a source" There are many more, but I will save them for later.
People take debate.org way to seriously

con dude, I thought it would be understood, that if you are from America "too seriously" means to be not a joke or not to be taken seriously, and if you don't know what seriously means try looking in this awesome thing called a dictionary (that goes for all you readers too) and if you don't know how to use it the words are in alphabetical order, and once you find "seriously" it will have a definition and my definition is that only slightly tweaked to the lower extreme. Yea people don't have fun according to the rules online and in person, there are not actual written rules of online debating just stuff like no pornography ect. and take Second life for example, the most boring game on the web, what did I do? I got my hands on sum illegal weapons built a iron man suit that shot bananas, and became a terrorist, I was able to crash a server. I got kicked out, but it was fun. And note that we are DEBATING THAT PEOPLE TAHE DEBATE. ORG TOO SERIOUSLY, NOT EVERYONE, NOT ALL THE PEOPLE, NOT NONE OF THE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE, AND MY OPPONENT IS POINTING OUT THAT SOME DON'T, WHICH IS POINTLESS THUS YOU MUST VOTE PRO. take example, all the dudes and dudetts who get extremely POed when you mess up in a debate. If you are wondering why my argument has little to do with yours it is because I only read the first and last paragraph cause those are the most important.
People take debate.org way to seriously

Pro offered no definition of "too seriously," so I assume he accepts my analysis. I argued that one way to have fun is to play according to rules. That applies to baseball, chess, quiz shows, and virtually every organized competitive activity one can think of. Pro verifies, by citing examples and claiming even more, that most people on debate.org believe that fun derives from arguing according to the rules of debate. Moreover, the rules and conventions of the site demonstrate that the site is intended for people who want to have fun debating according to the standard definition of debate. Pro offered no rebuttal. He never claimed that people do not have fun playing according to rules or that debate.org is not intended for such people. Through most of his quotations he verifies that people on the site want to have fun in exactly the way intended. When people ask a debater if he is just trying to have fun, they are really pointing out that he only has fun when he gets to make up his own rules. They are clearly disagreeing with his concept of fun. The same "just having fun" comment would be made of baseball player who ran the bases in the wrong direction or did some other loopy thing. The comment is really an elliptical reference to "having fun at our expense." The analogy I made to baseball is appropriate. Pro claimed it was inappropriate, but his only support is from a few people who share his idea that "no rules" equates to "fun." I'm sure there are a few people who would also agree that baseball would be more fun if strikes weren't counted ... or whatever. We know that those people are a small minority, because the organized sport from Little League on up, has no venue for "no rules" players. It's the same with debate. People are perfectly free to have whatever discussions they want, but once it is called "debate" and is organized, there are rules at every level. Pro invites people who want to debate according to rules to find some other venue, so that his concepts can take over this site. That is not logical, because there are already many venues available for his style of "no rules" interchange. For example, he can text message or e-mail or argue in the hallways, and do anything he wants to his heart's content. A debate site is only needed for serious debate. The provides the fixed number of rounds, character limits, scoring mechanisms, and so forth needed for debates. I'm not suggesting that there ought to rules prohibiting dopey topics or arguments. I am arguing that it is perfectly legitimate to call such debates "dopey" ... or whatever they are called. Doing so is not taking debate.org too seriously.
Schools should be segregated by sex

In this round I'm going to explain the reasons why I think segregation by sex at school is unnecessary and what negative effects it can have.1- Sexual Segregation does not promote equality /Sexism Going to school does not only mean to sit there and memorize the subjects, but it also represents an essential part of a person' s life. It is the first place where children start socializing and learn the values, rules and norms of a society. First and foremost they learn how to interact with each other, they build friendships and they start creating an image of the people around them.With this, my point is that if we put children in boxes and start labelling at that very young age, what good could we expect from them? Segregation promotes prejudice about gender and it is detrimental to equality. Youngsters, instead of learning to see each other first as human beings, learn to interact with each other based on the gender of a person.It promotes the idea that their counterpart is different from them, thus not equal to them. It creates gender stereotypes such as :Girls are not as strong as boys, therefore not equalBoys excel more in sportsBoys and Girls should see each other just as a potential partner, but not as a human being firstAnd of course the list goes on. Single-sex schools instead of removing gender stereotypes , are actually reinforcing them. 2- Poor social skillsAt the end of your education, what you need is not only what you learnt from books but also good social skills. When you are going to apply for a job, you'll be working in a non-segregated environment. You'll meet all sort of people and if you don't know how to interact with the opposite gender, because of the stereotypes you formed during your education, the chances of being successful are few.3- It does not make school performance any betterStating that classmates of the opposite gender are the biggest distraction is just too simplistic. There also those who are totally uninterested in their opposite sex , such as homosexuals. Not only are we reinforcing stereotypes but we are also promoting the idea that there only can be attraction between the opposite gender and something between the same gender is inconceivable.Secondly, if someone wants to learn a subject, they will learn it despite the fact that there is someone who is different from them. We all try to impress someone regardless of their gender and it should not be of concern to the teachers.Also, friends can be a distraction as well.Neurologists have found very few differences in the learning styles between the genders. Instead ,we can talk about differences in regards to the socioeconomic background of someone but not based on their gender. There are girls who excel in maths and science, and others who excel in Literature. We cannot decide someone's style of learning based on their gender.Each individual learns differently and excel in different areas, regardless of their gender.As you can notice, I put the first two arguments together, because they were similar.
Italian food is better than Indian Food

please please please vote for me even if you don't like me or Indian food coz i am just like so cool and funny and my friends are epic just like me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and i like having fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Indian food rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it looks and tastes so nice!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so you know what to do vote vote vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!