BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Electoral College

My argument is that the electoral college should be reserved, At most with minor reforms. The most important context to understand behind this debate is that we were not modeled as a democracy, And we are not a democracy. We are a republic. The difference is that a republic has representatives, Usually elected by the people, The government does not make actions directly by the vote of the people. In a democracy, People vote directly for government actions. The biggest reason for a republic is the idea of the tyranny of majority, Where the political majority will make decisions undermining the needs of the political minority, As is the case in direct democracy. The founding fathers greatly feared this concept, Where the majority will act against the minority in their votes. So, They made a government where the minority had relatively fair representation and power, This is why we have a senate and a house. It is a great compromise between the needs of the smaller states and the larger states. The house gives power fairly, Where bigger states have more of a say, The senate gives it unequally, Thus so small states have proper representation and are not ignored. The electoral college is designed directly off of congress, Where each state's electoral votes is their number of senators (2) plus their number of representatives. Thus the electoral college is there so small states have their say, Candidates have to pay attention to the needs of small states. This is not necessarily my full, Expanded argument but I will expand as the debate continues.
Being Christine is so much better than being Kayla.

Reason Number One: I'm so popular I don't need to create my own debates. People come to me. Reason Number Deux: I got a full panel of interviewers and competed against numerous other candidates that day and they chose me. They had no one else to compare you with that day, so none of the competition was fresh in their minds. Reason III: I'm better at life. Reason Cuatro: I provide the fuel for said "That's What She Said" jokes. You can't have the comedian without the strait man to set him up. Reason Quinque: I have the freedom to choose whether or not I want to wear shoes, which is much better than being forced to do so. Reason Sex: Pants are overrated.
Being Christine is so much better than being Kayla.

Reason Number One: I am better at creating debates. Reason Numero Deux: I'm a MONDAY 1906 Scholar, which means they had to do more work to find me, and found it worthwhile. Reason Number III: I'm a better writer, speaker, and reader. Reason Number CUATRO: I come up with the BEST "that's what she said" jokes. Reason Number Quinque: I wear shoes. Reason Numero Sex: I wear pants.
my trans plants have been sprayed with some kind of poison and i dont know what to do

My parents got a guy out of the goverment to come check it out(the plants that is). He sais it was either sprayed or there is some kind of poison in the water system. He quarentened off the green house and took a bunch of plants for testing. He is 99% sure it was some kind of poison (not in the water). Also my parents are out $8000 and we have alot of saddened customers I put the in comments when it wasnt my turn to debate, I well tell you what killed the plants when the results come.
my trans plants have been sprayed with some kind of poison and i dont know what to do

Would some one sain threaten to come again with a gun because he dint get what he wanted. Its hard to explain he has this evil glint in his eye like he being controled some how. He drives around all day and night showing up at his own sisters door and just barges in. Also for better clarification he is my great uncle, are family also has a long line of mental problems. My dad thought god was talking to him (negativly ak suicide and killing or more simple revenge) my grampa was brought in by my dad, my other uncle tried suicide and a few other family members did simaler types of stuff. I have only ever sean my one uncle in this state the rest happened befor I was born, my dad on the other hand has sean it happen many time, he brought my grampa in as well as himself. Trust me if my uncle has lost he can tell. Its usaly just a one time thing and it is over except my uncle wont except treatment. Oh and dont worry about me my dad is very chill and so are my relatives, it only happens when there 30 to 50 and usaly once.
my trans plants have been sprayed with some kind of poison and i dont know what to do

He might have actually needed all those plants he tried to buy, so maybe that is why he went away mad. And have you ever played the game Telephone? The point of it is to see how messed up the original message gets as it goes around the circle. So what your father or someone else told you about the things the "crazy man" did might not be right, and they could be saying them in anger. What I think is that your opinion of this man is fueling your posts, and you might want to try not giving what people tell you about him too much belief, and trust what you think of him, not your parents. Apollodoros
my trans plants have been sprayed with some kind of poison and i dont know what to do

We have all sorts of plants tomatoes, egg plants, peppers, ongions. Any way my father sell are extras to family, friends and other people and plant the rest (we have about 2000 plants for every type or more we sell a dollar a plant). The man decided he wanted to buy them all, he told us he was mad at my at his sisters who by plants here. My dad told him he couldnt it wouldnt be fair and the man left furiouse. we tried getting him in a mental hospital but the thing is he has to accept. He lost it about a month ago, h walk in too anyones house rented 200 acers of land because he was made at the person who usally rened it, forced my grama to change her will and bought 2 new house in winipeg(2 hours away from here) As for the comfort thing, that real would not work he wont eat much any more and has a gun regisered to brother(who he is also mad at) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Decideing the debate well be simple, I find out as much as possible and if you can think of someting that well work(legaly) than you win if it seams very unlikely your ideas well work then it can be a tie or whatever the voters decide on
my trans plants have been sprayed with some kind of poison and i dont know what to do

It will be sort of difficult for me to debate this, since it is only a question, but I guess it will be more of a long answering to your question. This could have been posted easier on the forums, by the way. ----- Ok, first, some questions. What kind of plants are they? What did your father do to the "crazy man" to make him want to take revenge? How did you try to get him mental help, and did you tell him beforehand? My answer to this by just looking at the first statement is that; You should confront the crazy man, ask him why he did what he did, or even IF he did what you think he did (It could simply be a misunderstanding) If he is truly crazy, it might make him feel threatened that you came to him and asked about it. If it is a hostile conversation, he might be defensive about it, or he might have no idea what you are talking about, and if offended. Ask around about him. Some people might know things you don't. And how are we going to complete this debate? Apollodoros
my trans plants have been sprayed with some kind of poison and i dont know what to do

This is not realy a debate but more of a kind of question, my fathers trans plants all started to die the other day and it was easy to tell they were sprayed with something. im not sure wether to take legal action or to re grow them. these plants make him a fair sum of money and i am looking for advice. My dads realy deppresed about it, we think we know who it is. We think its a man who has sorta lost it, he is getting revenge on anyone who ever did him wrong. We tried to get him mental help but we cant do anything unless he excepts it.
IN MY OPINION, God does not exist.

As an atheist, I think this is an important, interesting, and very enthusiastic issue to talk about on both sides of this issue; theism and atheism. I will obviously be taking the side of atheism on this topic. I will simply go over initial claims as to why I believe that God has no credible evidence towards his existence so far that has passed successfully through scientific skepticism and questioning. Not all of them however, because there is so many. I will only go over the main ones. Side note: I will be debating only the christian God. I do not know enough about the other deities of other religions to bring myself to properly debate them, but so far, I do not believe in them either. But that's another argument. Number 1: The Adam and Eve story. The Adam and Eve story is absolutely ridiculous and out of touch with reality. And was clearly made in magical thinking. First of all, for an initial argument I just want to go over a couple questions. What if man DID obey God? Wouldn't the end result of that be just a massive overpopulation of the earth, and basically the point of life would be eradicated because we would all be immortal and have nothing worth striving for because we have all life to do it? And not to mention that we probably couldn't do it because the earth would literally be flooded with people. No exaggeration. And secondly, we humans need to die. Our just that happens. If I didn't know any better, I'd say God needs sin in order for his design to work. In which case, why did he even create 'sin' in the first place if it already has to happen in order for it to work? And why would sin count as eating a "forbidden" fruit off a "forbidden" tree. First of all, if its forbidden, why did God put it in such an easy to get to place? And why does it exist at all if he didn't want them eating from it? And since he is all-knowing, he knew they were going to eat it. So he cast all of his own 'creations' to damnation of mortality just because Adam and Eve ate some fruit that he knew they were going to eat anyways? You see how many contradictions and absurd ideas are there in this story yet? Number 2: The contradictions of God himself. God himself has a lot of contradictions. A couple God paradox's if you will. .. 1. ) If God doesn't know what lust feels like, he isn't all knowing. If God does know what lust feels like, then he isn't all good. I could say this for many things. If God doesn't know what sin feels like, he isn't all knowing. If he does know what it feels like, he isn't all good. You get it? 2. ) If God gave us all free will, then why does he have a plan for all of us? 3. ) If the Abrahamic God is real, then He cares more about the rapist's freedom to rape, and the murderer's freedom to murder, than He cares about the lives of their victims. -DarkMatter2525 That's just some of the reasons, I won't go down the whole list because it is late where I am. But you do hopefully understand the position I have.
Communism works as a political ideology.

Thanks - new to the site so unsure of all "rules" as of yet. Thanks for accepting my debate, I look forward to your argument. I believe Communism is the best way to govern a country for a number of reasons. 1. It is human nature to help others - indeed we would not be here had we not helped each other in the first place. 2. True Communism abolishes inequality. There would be no currency in true Communism, therefore people would not be more powerful than others. People within society would work hard to produce goods that can be distributed evenly throughout the system. Of course people will take more and people will take less, but generally the idea would be of equal opportunity. 3. Communism is the ideal economic structure. In capitalism if you work harder, you get paid more. You use this extra money to buy things that benefit yourself. Whereas, in Communism, if you work harder everyone benefits. Surely a society in which everyone is working together rather than individually would be ideal? 4. Communism gives people an incentive to work - laziness is effectively eliminated from society. If you do not work, society does not benefit and you are therefore not worth being part of it. People who do not contribute will not be accepted and helped either. On the contrary; someone who isn't willing to work for the greater good of the nation should not be a part of it. Thanks again, good luck.
Communism works as a political ideology.

My opponent holds two positions:1) Communism could exist in an effective and efficient way.2) Communism is the best way to govern a country. In this debate, I will try to refute both of these positions by rebutting my opponent's arguments and by constructing arguments of my own. I'm no expert on communism, but I hope I will a good match for my opponent nonetheless. I hope for a stimulating debate.
Communism works as a political ideology.

I am going to argue that Communism is an ideal political system that would effectively and efficiently be able to exist. "Communism" in the past has received a lot of negativity, but countries like China, Cuba and the USSR were never truly Communist. They were, in fact, offshoots of Leninism and therefore not a valid example of Communism failing. The true values of Communism (a stateless, moneyless and classless nation) would be the ideal way to govern a country. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Is the law easier on celebrities? Pro-yes, Con-no

"There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One is for people with wealth, fame or influence who can afford to hire top-notch attorneys and public relations firms, who make campaign contributions to sheriffs, legislators and other elected officials, and who enjoy certain privileges due to their celebrity status or the size of their bank accounts. The other justice system is for everybody else." (1) This could not be more true. Celebrities get off so easy whenever they commit a crime or get caught doing something they should not be doing. Why should they get special treatment just because they have more money than everybody else? I think they should be treated just the same; we all can't buy off the judge or the police like they seem to. Every celebrity jail time number I have heard has never been what they were supposed to be in jail for. Some are only in for a few minutes to a few hours before they get out with a slap on the wrist. Just so they can turn around and do it all over again. Everybody else has to sit and wait in jail sometimes for years while they are waiting for their case to be heard; whereas celebrities often get out that same day to go live their glamorous lives until the court decides whether or not they are going to do something about whatever is was they were accused of. (1)https://www.prisonlegalnews.org...
Is the law easier on celebrities? Pro-yes, Con-no

First I will be rebutting my opponent's rebuttal and then go on to voting issues. So rebutting my opponent this time will be a bit sad, mostly because my opponent failed to rebut with any meaning. Honestly it makes me wonder if she even read my rebuttal or my case in its entirety. She failed to mention the distinction between the law, the legal system, or the people who run the legal system, a key point in my case, she failed to mention the distinction of being treated easy due to wealth rather than relative fame, she fails to mention any of my rebuttals, she fails to mention any of my contentions, save for one sentance of it, and worst of all, she attacked my only providing one example, right after she only provides one example. Her entire rebuttal is a massive show of a lack of will to put any mental effort into this. It's basically just my opponent saying I'm right because I say I'm right. And to answer your question in paragraph 2, LatinaGirl8894, his trial actually went relatively quickly. Now onto voting issues. You should come out of this debate voting for me for a few reasons. First, my opponent did not adequately rebut any of my contentions. The most she did was hypocritically attack one sentence in my case, saying I only had one example while she only provides one herself, and ignoring the entire other half of that contention. Second, she failed to address any of my rebuttals, meaning all of them stand and her cases do not. Third, I've had more sources throughout the round, using actual examples while my opponent only used a quote that proved nothing. Fourth, I have presented sound logic throughout this debate, while my opponent has only made a handful of statements, showing no reasoning complicity whatsoever. Apologies if that was at all unprofessional, it's just that I was hoping for a good debate, and I was given an opponent who put little to no effort into the case.
Lawyers increase crime.

Seeing as I am pressed for time and must retort or forfeit, which is a despicable form of losing in my mind, here it goes. Lawyers do increase the number of laws, because they work hand in hand with politicians in order to write laws which will be upheld a constitutional, and that is a fact. By increasing the number of laws they increase the number of people who fall outside the law, and are therefore are now criminals. Hence, lawyers increase crime. Take it or leave it.
Lawyers increase crime.

1. Yes. And? 2. But they don't make Laws. 3. Many Politicians are Dentists and stuff like that. However, they are not Lawyers when they are Politicians. Thus this is irrelevant. The jobs are not linked. I provided the definition of 'Lawyer' above. 4. And? Relevance? See above. 5. Lawyers do not increase Crime through the simple reason that they are Lawyers. That is ludicrous. A Lawyer has in no way personal influence over the Law. Or makes Laws. And that is the main thing Pro assumes.
Lawyers increase crime.

No fact yet provided by my opponent. As per definition, Lawyer is defined as "barrister, judge, attorney, counsel (counselor at law) or solicitor". None of these people make laws, change laws or anything like that. Besides, since laws first were established, 4000 years ago, they haven't changed an awful lot (the basics at least). And lawyers thus had little to do with that. 'That is just the plain truth.'.
Lawyers increase crime.

My opponent is yet to present an actual argument. Logically speaking, Lawyers have no correlation to crime (committed), yet apparently cause an increase in it. This would mean that lawyers either a. commit crime or b. advocate it in some sense. If this is apparently the case I would expect Pro to easily be able to prove this. Lawyers would 'benefit' from an increase in crime (at least certain lawyers), yet I cannot see them being connected to an increase in any kind of way.
Lawyers increase crime.

I accept. Normally I don't debate under 5000 characters but as a Law Student I am quite intrigued to see your argument. Opening argument: Lawyers, who are individuals who practice Law (attorney/judge/solicitor...), do not create Laws. It is normally a case of parliament (congress in the US). As an example, current US President Barack Obama, as well as his wife, both studied Law at Harvard. However, Obama is not practising Law at the moment, thus not a lawyer.
The US ought to submit to jurisdiction of a world court designed to prosecute CAH.

As I have only a limited amount of time, I will address the core of the debate, the nitty-gritty so to speak. What does this all mean, and what does it mean to me? First, we must establish what value we are going by today. My opponent values international justice, while I simply value justice. International justice is all well and good, but simply cannot be achieved. We can try, and possibly even succeed in some small degree, but can never achieve it. What we can achieve is justice for those within our borders. A country must first establish rights for others before it can even think of trying to do the same for the rest of the globe. As I will show you later, by submitting to an international court, we would forfeit our own rights. Therefore, we cannot go by international justice since it is implausible, as well as contradictory to its meaning. My opponent's criterion is human rights, while mine is the rights of our own citizens. Here is the thing: its one or the other. If we submit to an international court, we may try to protect others' rights, but we forfeit our own at the same time. Are we going to protect our rights, or the rights of the world? One or the other. My opponent's only real point is that by submitting to an international court, we would be upholding US values, and vice versa. This is certainly not the case. How are we upholding our values if we give up our constitutional rights so easily? How is that sticking to our values? I agree with his saying that crimes against humanity are unjust, so I only need attack this point. Since it is contradictory, it falls. I uphold my case with the fact that submitting would undermine our constitution, and the fact that there are other ways to accomplish what an international court would try to do. (Without the forfeiture of rights) So we must now look to which case provides for justice? For protection of our citizens' rights? I will leave that decision to you, the voter. The US ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Negated.
modern living has made the people of india sick,weak and disease prone

This is my first online debate. I have read many other debates on this site, which I really enjoyed. Without much ado, I stand in the CON position because my opponent is rather incoherent and utterly absurd. My opponent has offered an argument that is quite unclear, furthermore, we cannot vote in favor of an unclear advocation. I will address his, er babble, in order to inquest for further clarification as well as to propose arguments in refutation. My opponent claims, that Indians are becoming poorer due to modern living. He does not offer any type of justification or warrant for his claim. He fails to show HOW this true [FACT/EVIDENCE] and why this is true [REASON], and he doesn't clearly show how being poor would lead to sickness and disease [LINK]. Insofar as these three critical components of argument do not exist within his analysis' there is no reason for you to vote in his favor. Thereupon, he makes a critical contradiction, "the poor become sick because of natural reasons and NOT due to modern living.rich make themselves sick" This means opponent concedes the fact that people get sick because of natural reasons and NOT due to modern living. This is despite his previous notion that modern living is the cause for sickness in India. He also concedes the fact that it is NOT modern living that has made the rich sick, rather, it is they themselves whom make each other sick. Therefore, since my opponent offers a utterly incoherent argument, you should vote CON. I await my opponents response, and I would like to offer him a chance for clarification, as long as it doesn't drift from his initial argument, of course. Thank you for you time. -Protagoras