BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electoral College

Once again, your arument stems from the assumption that the electoral college protects the minority from the majority, but this is simply not the case. Rhode Island and New York are states similar in both geographic location and voting habit, yet a Rhode Islander's vote counts for significantly more than a New Yorker's-- this isn't protection, it's simply weighting votes based on physical location. Again, there is no getting around the fact that the electoral college also takes away the power of the people. Although it hasn't happened yet, upon voting, the electoral college can go rogue and elect a president the people never wanted. This isn't a failsafe, it's borderline tyranny and authoritarianism. In order to explain your need for the electoral college, you'll first have to explain how the system protects the minority from the majority. It's also important to explain the need for a final buffer against the wishes of the people, as the college does more to undermine democracy than enhance it.
Electoral College

I read your rebuttal (which was intelligent and well thought out) and did some extended research on exactly why the Electoral College was introduced. I did not research everything, as I suppose it could take years. However, in context, the electoral college was introduced as a sort of fail safe. It essentially acted when news was not readily available nor was it possible for everyone to be well informed. I could actually make an argument that the same exists today in a similar context. That said, it does not nullify my prior point. The electoral college, while thought antiquated, does indeed serve a purpose, even if the Forefathers never saw that purpose. As I contended earlier, it allows for one group to be unable to dominate another group. In other words, you as a candidate, would need to win multiple groups, based on geographical location. With popular vote, domination will always be possible by a certain group of people. Suppose a certain family only believed in having ONE child (who grows up sharing their viewpoints) while another family does not have that same view and has TEN children. Do we penalize the minority and their votes because their are "more of them"? That would be unfair and the electoral college protects the minority. The electoral college should be maintained on ethical reasons, not to mention our Forefathers tradition (which was well thought out IMO). Also I would like to apologize. You see, I am not an eloquent speaker, nor skilled in grammar. My education is more electromechanical. That said, I do have a logical and fair mind. It is because of my logic I am for the electoral college. Without the electoral college, the minority has no voice. Under the electoral college, both the majority and the minority can win and voice their vote.
Electoral College

The Electoral College was setup by our founding Fathers. The purpose was to stop ANY particular group from becoming all powerful. For example, you could have a billion people living in one city who believe in murdering grandma and selling baby Suzanne as a slave. Yet the minority has the power to stop them in this instance and their sociopathic nonsense, all thanks to the Electoral College. That is how intelligent our Forefathers were. Recognizing certain groups would naturally congregate to different areas offering different upbringing and opinions. Just because one group breeds on a more regular basis than another doesn't nullify another groups vote.
People only do good things for selfish reasons.

You haven't argued a point, You've only brought up a psychological condition and called me a sociopath. So, Why are people altruistic? Just because it's "the right thing to do"? There's no such thing as a purely good person. Everything a person does they do for themselves, Even if they don't know it. A person does a good thing for someone because of their feeling that they should. That feeling is that if they don't, They will regret it, And not be able to comfortably live with themselves. Also, I never scoffed at altruism. I said that it is good when people do good things. I'm just saying the reasoning behind it is not purely "it's a good thing to do. " Human beings are much more complicated than black and white.
People only do good things for selfish reasons.

Yes they do, You project your own socio pathology on others Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. [1] For example, A person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting. The reason you scof at altruism is because as a sociopth you don't understand what it is.
People only do good things for selfish reasons.

No one does anything purely because it is good or "the right thing to do. " They are all done for purely selfish reasons. A lifeguard saving someone from drowning does not save them because it is good, They are only doing it because it is their job, Because they want to look good to others, And/or they do not want the person's death on their conscience. If a Christian founds a charity, He does not do it just because it is good to do that; he founds the charity because he believes that is what God would want him to do, Thereby further ensuring his passage into heaven after his death. If a man saves a child from a burning building, But tells no one about it, It is still a selfish act as he is doing it to keep the child's death off of his conscience. Now, I am not saying that it is bad that these people do these things, As the effect is desirable. However, I am arguing that their purpose is entirely selfish.
The Christian God As Described In the Bible Does Not Exist(2)

Let me begin with a list of paradoxes. 1) If God is all powerful (omnipotent) then he can create an object he cannot lift. However, at the same time, if he cannot lift the object he is not omnipotent. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist. 2) Humans have free will. Or do we? An all knowing (omniscient) God would know the future. This means that he knows what we are going to do before we do the action. Therefore we do not have free will. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist. 3) If god is omnipresent (everywhere at once), then can observe everything at all times. This means that God can observe all quantum superpositions. Observation collapses quantum superpositions. Therefore God would collapse all quantum superpositions. All quantum superpositions have not collapsed. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist. 4) If God is omnibenevolent (all loving), He cannot commit a mean act. The Bible states that God did commit a mean act. Drowning millions of people in the flood was pretty mean. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist. 5) "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26) If all things are possible with God, then there is a possibility of there being no God. If God exists it means he might not exist. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist. 6) God must have had a creator. He couldn't have just come into existence. If God needs a creator and does not have one then well... The God of the Bible does not exist. 7) God cannot be omnipotent and omniscient. If he is omniscient then he knows what is going to happen. Thus he cannot be omnipotent because he is powerless to change the future, because it is predetermined. To be more concise,God cannot change the future because he knows that he will change it. He does not have the power to do something that he cannot predict. Therefore omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist. Conclusion: The God of the Bible does not exist.
The Christian God As Described In the Bible Does Not Exist(2)

Rules Round 1: No arguments. Just acceptance. Round 2/3: Arguments and rebuttals Round 4: Closing statements. No new arguments No "god of the gaps" arguments allowed. Any violation of the rules results in conduct points going to the other debater. Mutual violation results in a tie for conduct. Definitions: God of the gaps: If science can't explain it, god did it. Exist: To be real God of the Bible: Any characteristic of God that can be found in the Bible I look forward to a good debate. If you cannot accept it, it is because you have not completed a sufficient amount of debates. I argue that the Christian God as described in the Bible does not exist.
Belief in White Privilege

Alright, if you want to talk excluding moral feelings and 100% fact, ill do so. Whites doing worse response: That chart is there not to prove that you are wrong but rather the opposite, which is what i actually said. Blacks are making less money response: https://gyazo.com... That is a chart that tells us that blacks are again, more unemployed than whites. That tells me that they are doing something wrong to make themselves that way, and before you say "Must be a white/racial issue", here is a poll that suggests otherwise: https://gyazo.com... meaning that its just a fact that other people believe this. Unemployment of Blacks v Whites argument: I have absolutely no idea where that came from...but the answer is no. Racism is not Bigotry argument: The people that you are defending are triggered SJW. Obviously, real racism is bad, you dont have to be a genius to figure that out. However, you are defending the same ideologies that those triggered SJW's are rioting on the streets for. Obviously, you are more educated and i dont believe that you personally would be an SJW. Also, only actual racists would decline someone for being black, and the argument was started over the questioning of white privilege. And yes, i do know that White privilege has everything to do with white being privileged but it has nothing to do with being racist, two different topics. "If a Black guy" scenical argument: Racism is not bigotry, because like i said, disagreeing/not listening to an opinion doesn't equate to racism, It just demonstrates a lack of care for an argument. Also, let me add another interesting argument. "why all this left-wing talk about white privilege? The major reason is in order to portray blacks as victims. This achieves two huge goals for the Left " one political, the other philosophical. The political goal is to ensure that blacks continue to view America as racist. The Left knows that the only way to retain political power in America is to perpetuate the belief among black Americans that their primary problem is white racism. Only then will blacks continue to regard the Left and the Democrats as indispensable." Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com... Central argument: I feel like you are getting Racism mixed up with privilege. Otherwise, i used absolutely no moral ground here. Good debate.
Belief in White Privilege

The problem with that is most White people are actually doing worse. Trends in key economic and demographic indicators provide some context for the experiences and outlook of blacks today. While there has been clear progress in closing the white-black gap in some areas, particularly when it comes to high school completion rates, decades-old black-white gaps in economic well-being persist and have even widened in some cases. Here is a statistic; https://gyazo.com... So you are correct, but the question is, why are blacks making less money? Blacks are making less money not because of racial preferences, but simply because they are not looking enough. I am not saying that they are lazy because if anything they are more active than whites with jobs. The BLS data show that the unemployment rate for Hispanics (or Latino), 16 years and older, seasonally adjusted, was 6.3% in October. Blacks make up 13 percent of the U.S population and whites make up around 77 percent. So i wont do the numbers, but if you take the unemployment of Blacks v Whites in numbers, then statistically there are more Blacks. So if anything, Blacks have a bigger privilege than whites. To address the "Social" part, let me start with the definition of Bigot as sited from google; "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." Racism is not Bigotry. I could be intolerant towards your opinion but still not be racist. For example, if a black guy were to walk up to me and he wanted to have a perfectly reasonable debate and i didn't listen, would that be called Bigotry? Or would that be called Racism? And even if Bigotry hurt people, if someone else's intolerance to listen to an opinion offends you, than thats nobody else's problem but your own. Furthermore, most people cant actually define what exactly they think White Privilege is when they sure love to argue that it exists which in turn just immediately discredits them. In response to "A call for racial equality", i have a couple things to say to that. 1: Blacks, as i just proved, have a bigger advantage economically than whites. 2: Blacks have the Liberals on their side, which is insanely powerful in on its own because of its media influence. 3: If it isn't about hate tell me why those same people, the people that are chanting in the streets, are/were going around and burning American flags, breaking random store restaurants windows, and physically injuring people from an opposing party. If anything, that right there, is Bigotry. Burning American flags is the worse of it too, its just absolutely disgusting to see those people burn down a symbol of something that stands for so much they believe in. Anyways, getting off track. I am not saying you personally are doing these things. I am saying however that the people you defend are. I also do hope this is a pleasant debate and hope you understand where i come from.
Belief in White Privilege

The idea behind white privilege is very easy to understand: on average, white Americans have it better than nonwhite Americans. White privilege has two main components: economic and social. Let's open with economics: ECONOMICS The average white has more economic clout than the average nonwhite. *** * HOUSING: Black families making $100,000 typically live in the kinds of neighborhoods inhabited by white families making $30,000. This is largely due to past racist federal & local housing policies. [Atlantic] * INCOME: The median white has an income of $57k, compared to $39k for Hispanics and $33k for blacks. [BI] * POVERTY: 9% of whites live in poverty, compared to 24% of blacks and 21% of Hispanics. [KFF] * WEALTH: The median white has $141k in assets, compared to $13k for Hispanics and $11k for blacks. [CNN] * HIGH SCHOOL: 87% of whites graduate high school, compared to 73% of blacks and 76% of Hispanics. [NCES] * COLLEGE: 47% of whites had college degrees, compared to 33% of African Americans and 23% of Hispanics. [HR, 538] * EMPLOYMENT: Black college graduates seem to have about the same job application success rate as white college graduate felons. Or: blacks and white criminals (!) have an equal playing field. [SP] It should be clear that the average white has substantial advantages over the average black -- they are likely to start higher up on the food chain AND to have an easier time climbing the food chain. *** Exception: Asians make more than whites, primarily because Asian immigrants are wealthy, educated Asian emigrants. Coincidentally, this is why Americans think Asians are smart and successful. Sample skew is a helluva drug. SOCIAL I won't talk too much about this, unless it's controversial. Racism exists. Racism is bigotry. Bigotry hurts people. There's vastly more bigotry against blacks than bigotry against whites. [Please don't ask for a citation!] And the bigotry against blacks more often comes from positions of power -- eg, racist federal redlining, Representative Steve King -- than the bigotry against whites -- eg, disabled kid kidnapping. In short: the "racism balance" leans heavily against blacks. ENDNOTE I hope this is a pleasant debate, and hope further that Con gains an understanding of what activists mean when they say "white privilege". The phrase is not -- or should not be -- an accusation, but rather a statement of fact. White privilege doesn't imply white guilt. It's hard to blame individual whites for a problem that's been going on for 300 years and has occurred in every state and in federal office. The phrase isn't a call to shame, but a call to action. It asks people of all races to work towards a more equal United States. In short: "White privilege" is a call for racial equality, not hate. REFERENCES [BI] http://www.businessinsider.com... [CNN] http://money.cnn.com... [Atlantic] https://www.theatlantic.com... [NCES] https://nces.ed.gov... [HR] http://hechingerreport.org... [538] https://fivethirtyeight.com... [SP] https://thesocietypages.org... [KFF] http://kff.org...
Each state should allow same sex couples to adopt children.

It is overly optimistic view that children would want to be adopted regardless of who their parents are going to be. Most of children will want to stay where they were if it is anticipated that their new family is going to be different from other families. The children will have a biased view about gay people because of the pressure that their surrounding environtment gives them, such as ridicules and comments from their friends or neighbors. It is a selfish act for gay people to adopt childeren for their own satisfaction, disregarding the children's opinions, or overlooking the obstacles that their adopted children will get through entire their lives.
Each state should allow same sex couples to adopt children.

1. The United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 states, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not offering equal protection to gays under marriage laws is unconstitutional. 2. The Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal." And on the front of the Supreme Court building the words are etched in "Equal Justice Under Law." Equality is a basic American principle that should be respected. 3. The American Psychological Association and all respectable, unbiased psychological organizations agree that gay couples are just as good parents as straight couples. 4. A child is happier when the child has a family. Many children are tormented without loving families in underfunded, loveless foster care centers. These children could be rescued by loving couples if all states would allow it.
developing countries adopt one party rule instead of multi party democracy

I will take the absence of this as an indication that i am allowed to argue from the get go We should aim to promote democracy be it in developed or in developing countries, as this is the backbone of modern day politics. It encourages a system where governments are obliged to be transparent and efficient when delivering services to its people, especially in developing countries. The presence of an opposition party creates an environment where the ruling government can be held accountable for decisions it takes. For example look at the case of South Africa, where a secrecy bill was recently passed by the ruling party, ANC. The existence of a relatively strong opposition, criticizing the ANCy bill, effectively resulted in the bill being amended to produce a more constitutionally fair bill . http://www.da.org.za... North of South Africa, lies a little state known as Zimbabwe, another developing country. If we were to accept your position that multiparty democracy should be replaced with a one party state in developing countries it would be condoning a situation whereby a country is ruled by a single dictator for 33 years. . http://www.biography.com... This very same leader single handedly destroyed the economy of a once prosperous country, ordered the killing of farmers and opposition. Is this the single party rule you envisage? . http://www.zimeye.org... "Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely" A wise historian and moralist John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, was once quoted as saying. We need to understand that a multiparty system provides checks and balances which prevent any single party from having absolute power. History speaks for itself, most if not every single party state, failed its people in one way or another. Furthermore why should we deny the people of a nation their right to choose who governs them, why should this choice be so restricted to such an extent that it might as well not exist. One of the rights recognized under the United Nations' Human Rights Charter is the right to freedom of choice. In respect of the right of a nation, be it developed or not and respect of their right to dignity, multiparty democracy should be adopted I leave you with a quote by Madeleine L'Engle "Because to take away a man's freedom of choice, even his freedom to make the wrong choice, is to manipulate him as though he were a puppet and not a person. "
Patriots running up the score

To counter the spygate scandal, all the Patriots had to do was win games without stealing signs. It doesn't matter how much they win by - just winning without video-taping the other team's defensive signals is counter enough to the idea that the Pats only won their first game by stealing the Jets' signs. That being said, running up the score is not necessary to dispel the spygate scandal (which happened 14 wins ago - I don't think there's any doubt now.) Since it's not necessary to counter the scandal any longer, the Patriots' running up the score will only be taken as unsportsmanlike, and not received well by fans or commentators. Given all of those things, I think it's safe to conclude that if faced with the option, the Patriots shouldn't knowingly try to run up the score to demonstrate their superiority.
Patriots running up the score

But when people saw the Patriots running up the score, they thought that they were being unclassy, but they just want to win and they don't care how much they win by. The Patriots running up the score is saying that the spygate scandal was nonsense and they don't need to cheat to win. The game after Week 1 vs. the Chargers was a way to show that they are the best and that they could silence the media about the spygate scandal. If you go to this website http://sports.espn.go.com... you will find that the Patriots aren't trying to embarrass their opponents, but tring to use the spygate scandal as a motivation.
Patriots running up the score

You said: "Meaning that they will run up the score to 75 points, if necessary to win the game." If scoring 75 points is necessary to win the game, it's not running up the score. If you think running up the score just means scoring a lot of points, then you're not using the term correctly. Running up the score means something like instead of calling plays designed to run out the clock when you're up by 3 touchdowns with 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter, you go for that extra touchdown. It's generally considered to be unsportsmanlike and arrogant, and I don't believe it's in the Patriots' best interest to do it. I have no idea why you think the media will talk negatively about the Patriots if they DON'T run up the score, as you haven't said anything to lend credence to that idea.
Patriots running up the score

But if the Patriots don't want to be talked about on the media, running up the score is their only option. Bill Belichick in the the article in the second round shows that their team shows no mercy to anyone! Meaning that they will run up the score to 75 points, if necessary to win the game. Meaning that running up the score is unsportsmanlike conduct. Unsportsmanlike Conduct means unsportsmanlike - violating accepted standards or rules; "a dirty fighter"; "used foul means to gain power"; "a nasty unsporting serve"; "fined for unsportsmanlike behavior" but nothing says about running the score or a more simpler definition "not fair or sportsmanlike". So running up the score is like a opinion that means different things to different people.