BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace Electoral College

Ok, so I am going to clarify the difference between constitutional republic and democracy in elections. By definition, a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. In politics, it is a constitutional republic. The president represents the people and makes the decisions. In elections, it is democracy, because it all depends on the people and the president is chosen according to the votes or "majority". In the case of Electoral College, to be more specific, US is a representative democracy. Either way, US is still a democracy in terms of choosing the president, which is what we are debating about right now. I hope this has cleared things up. Going on from this, I have stated quite a few times that elections is all dependent on the people, not the candidates or the government. Seeing this, doesn't it make more sense that we should do this in a way that PEOPLE want, not the way the government says? After all, this election is about people choosing the president who they feel will be the best for them. But how can we do this if many people are not being heard? My opponent states that it protects the smaller states from the bigger states, but the fact is, many people, more than what could result from Direct popular vote, are being ignored. In direct popular vote, states don't matter. All votes are equal, they are all heard, so every person has at least a say in this. In Electoral College, the minority in a state are ignored, many states with less votes are not as important, so some people don't even get a say. Also, sure two party seems great if you want to run in either the republic or democratic, but what if you have other opinions? Even if they run, they are as good as not running, because they won't get as much as influence as the two major parties. I would just like to emphasize on the fact that PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING HEARD.There are swing states that the candidates only have to focus on, so what good is it for you if you live in a state with only one vote? You know your vote won't count as much against others, so how can this be FAIR? One vote equals one vote, not two or three. It doesn't matter it protects the smaller states from the bigger ones, because there are flaws where many states are at disadvantage. So if you want a fair vote, have an equal say as others, and want your voice to count, vote for pro, because by changing to direct popular vote, the government will make sure your votes are not being ignored, and it won't matter what state you live in.
Government By Casino Lottery

We should have a government by casino lottery. It should be an assembly of whoever shows up to play the lottery at the National Casino. There people will propose policies, and then people will take bets on them. A "wheel of destiny" will then be spun to determine whether or not it passes. If we do this it will eliminate bias from politics, because the outcome of political decision-making will be random, and people will naturally bet for what they think will be more likely to pass. Since there is no bias as people are not actually choosing policies based on politics but rather in an attempt to make money people will have a bias towards betting towards policies that will be helpful more so than not, since there is no bias to shift people towards bad policies.
Government By Casino Lottery

It is not giving the society preparedness, it puts them in a state of unease, anxiety, inequality and complete chaos. If laws are random then why are there laws?? Why is their even a government if everything occurs by chance. You don't have solid Justification for a chance based society. How does the money benefit anyone if stealing could be uplifted?? Also many of the issues are major because if they are implemented or rejected they have moderate to drastic effects on the society and people don't necessarily agree. That is what makes an issue major!!THIS KIND OF IDEOLOGY IS CRAZY!! AND ISN"T JUSTIFIED!!I STRONGLY URGE TO VOTE PRO FOR A LOGICAL SOCIETY NOT BASED ON CASINO GAMES
Government By Casino Lottery

Points: 1. All difficulties people face in their lives help people to build character and to learn from their experiences. Having a government by chance means people have plenty of opportunities for things to change in challenging ways. It will prepare the nation for anything. That some of these experiences may at times be unpleasant is a small price to pay for preparedness. 2. Just because this site asks for our opinions on them doesn't make them "major" if "major" is taken to mean "critical". No matter how much people may care about abortion or gay marriage the government's stance on those two particular issues is ultimately minute in the grand scheme of things.
Government By Casino Lottery

My rebuttals: 1. My opponent considers abortion and gay marriage major political issues. Since when is a medical procedure and a contract signed between consenting adults major political issues. I don't personally care, but I'd bet that people be allowed them, because that's where we're headed in our cultural values. And that's a good example right here. People will tend to bet with the flow of the cultural values, not against them. This will lead to greater harmony among people and less disagreements over silly issues like abortion hysteria and anti-gay prejudice. Regardless of what the law says things will continue to change naturally in the culture. You can't really do anything about it. However, if you had no government groups would fight each other. The best way is for the government to just be a "go with the flow" government that rubberstamps the prevailing cultural values. People will of course place their bets more on those things they expect to happen, and people will expect things to happen that are in flow with the cultural values. This in turn will make the public more interested in paying attention to how the culture is changing and taking responsibility in their own personal and family lives to leave an impact that is positive towards what ever they are betting. The result is people become more agreeable and together, but people are more apt to take notice of each other's problems and difficulties and consider them knowing it could have implications for the future of cultural trends and hence the value of their bet on a given public policy. It also means that when the majority makes a mistake in guessing how the trends will go and how they will lead to public policies the minority of people who guessed right get rewarded and then carry more weight on which policy passes in the future. Look at America today. There is political apathy everywhere. Creating a betting politics will get more Americans interested in learning about public policy, and the trends underlying its evolution. And to refute the point about murder or rape being legal. Theoretically this could happen even in America's government now. The legislatures just need majority votes, and the president or governor would need to sign the bill. In this case a few times that would randomly happen. But it would be short-lived because the system would tend to flow with culture and no culture can continue with such things legal. These random occurances of "bad" policies would challenge citizens in their everyday lives to be ready for anything should the need arise. Think of the random bad bets being chosen as "tests" and "training". Anything can happen in a culture, in a society, so it is logical to have a mechanism that peppers in a few bad policies and policy effects as "testing scenarios". But since most people will bet for things that are likely to be proposed by others these rare occassions will only be rare.
Government By Casino Lottery

What the opponent saidSystem of government based upon chance (spinning a wheel) where people only benefit based on the amount of money the put on a policy or law etc. Policies and laws based upon chance.RebuttalChance based Society (laws and major political decsions based on probability) and effect on MoralityThis system of government you propose where you said "the outcome of politcial decision making will be random" is very dangerous and detrimental to society to say the least. The fact that you propose MAJOR POLITICAL ISSUES such as abortion and gay marriage (both of which i condemn) be based upon a spin of a wheel makes me question if you truly pondered upon this. Laws would be all over the place, there could be contradictory laws ex the legalization of drugs and the banning alchohol.The part where you seem to provide justification (eradication of bias) for this ideology is illogical. You say that the politicians will bet for policies that will be more helpful, this is false. It doesn't matter which one they bet on because it is simply a matter of money and chance. Instead of betting all on one, it would actually be more smart for them to bet on a lot of policies a group and split the money since their chances of winning become much much higher. THE ISSUES DON'T MATTER ITS SIMPLY A MATTER OF THE MONEY. Morality would completely go out the window...I will ask you a question if you think everything I addressed so far doesn't make sense to you: Would you be willing to live in society where ANYTHING is possible?? Would you be ok if murder, rape, drug legalization etc were by chance legal? I ask PRO for more justifications regarding this ideology if he still insists it is true and to refute my arguments against this ideology.
plastic bottles should be banned

Okay. So, the way I see it, you're saying that we should get rid of plastics because there is some sort of new material. But, if we were to ban all plastic bottles, or plastics overall, then where would we put the plastic? Its not like we have huge landfills laying around where we can dump the billions of pounds of plastic. So, where would we put the plastic? Also, what about the plastic currently in circulation? How would we deal with that plastic? So we are killing animals and destroying the environment, and I am admittedly against this as well. But face it: if we're going to eliminate all the plastic, we have to consider the cost, as well as where it would be relocated to. I look forward to seeing your response!
plastic bottles should be banned

Plastics should be banned. In the ocean, plastics are killing thousands of animals each year! They don't decompose or benefit the environment in anyway. Even though we use them for daily use, animals shouldn't pay because you wish to consume some over-sugared drink. New scientists have discovered a type of material that can take the place of these plastic bottles, so why keep them around? We need to put a stop to the destruction of animal life and think before we take action. Factories that produce these bottles also are releasing green house-gases into the atmosphere! This means that, as well as killing our animals, we are destroying our planet as well!
Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

I agree, I too did not want to argue about how the debate was set-up, language or punctuation. I would have much rather preferred the debate.But here is the deal, I didn't set-up this debate, you did.Specify being AGAINST the point : ""religion "hasn't" and "isn't" a force for good.""...is to confuse your position. Because if one takes that position (being AGAINST the point : religion "hasn't" and "isn't" a force for good) that means then you are against religion NOT being a force for good! You're then basically saying that it is a force for good. (AGAINST : hasn't and isn't)Think about it - DUH!(AGAINST : hasn't and isn't)At best its unneeded wording that cluttered and overly obfuscated your position on the motion.Now you're tying to play with colons to try and save face and say how your use of language is correct.But you have to understand what you've created by the way you stated your little additional point.Its as if you have taken two separate positions. One on the motion and then a second on the point you added. You have taken a one position on the motion but then your use of language on the additional point is the opposite - even though you'll say otherwise.Had you not added your additional point and worded wrong - we wouldn't be in this predicament.I'm taking a firm stand on specifics; accuracy and principles here. And here is why:1) If you are to instigate a debate it should be made clear and concise (this one of yours wasn't).2) If you cannot communicate and instigate a debate properly and smoothly and that is well thought-out, a price should be paid (at the very least responsibility should be accepted on the instigator's part when errors do occur when a debate is not clear as in this case). In this case you haven't once but have instead offered to debate your use of the colon.3) Instigators and initial debate format should be held to a high standard to maintain a better quality of future debates so these issues do not continue to happen.
Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

The attempt to use extended abbreviations (like it is not instead of it"s not) doesn"t impress and neither does your use of bold and underlining. I said "I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force." If you knew how grammar worked you might have recognized that I used a colon and more importantly that the "that point" I stood against was clearly the mentioned in the previous sentence, not to mention the headline for this debate. If the point is "Religion is predominately a positive for humanity" Then CON position would be that religion is in fact NOT a positive force for humanity. It"s logical. You made a mistake. Stop using confusing language to spin and belabor this point. I don"t want to debate whether or not you correctly accepted this debate.
Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

No, it is not a mistake on my part.Isn't it you who said, "I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force." This indicates that you should have made yourself "PRO" of the motion then.Again, the motion was issued on the AFFIRMATIVE - in which case you have indicated that you wish to argue AGAINST the point that religion isn't and hasn't been positive.Contrary, you have set-up the debate incorrectly. If you intended to be CON of the motion then you would be arguing in favor of the point.So which is it?It looks like you have confused yourself.
Religion is predominately a positive for humanity

There appears to be some confusion about the motion of the debate being an "affirmative position" and then the Instigator taking the "Con" position.If the motion is: Religion is predominately a positive for humanity (and you intend to argue for this motion) - then you should be Pro of the motion.I'm assuming that the statement, "I'll be arguing against that point: that religion isn't and has not been a positive force." means that you are Pro of the motion even though you have selected the Con (?)Clarification needs to be made.I selected this debate in opposition of the motion and yet found myself to be "PRO" when I do not take this stance on the motion.Please advise.
Credit cards are among one of the worst ways to make purchases. There are more effective means.

Again it is unfortunate that my opponent has not posted another argument. Since the resolution was his and I have disproved it, I encourage all voters to vote Con. As promised I will finish my list of explanations. 5. Many Credit Card Companies allow the credit card user to view their bills online which can easily be transferred to a computerized budgeting system, which save the consumer much time when doing bill paying and budgeting. 6. The Federal Govt. allows consumers to dispute fraudulent purchases on their credit card. So if someone steals your debit card and uses it, you are out of luck. However if this is done via credit card you can dispute the charges and not be charged for the fraudulent purchases. Additionally if a credit card company is charging you falsely for a bill that you didn't use on your credit card you can dispute the claim and usually win. Since my opponent has forfeited both rounds and has not resolved his resolution I encourage all voters to vote Con. Please provide a reason for your vote. I do not count votes without reasons for each point attached.
Credit cards are among one of the worst ways to make purchases. There are more effective means.

Ahh, it is unfortunate that my opponent has declined to post an argument in the previous round. However, (as promised) I will proceed with listing and further explaining the benefits of credit cards. First of I will list them and then explain what they mean. 1. Floating 2. Theft Protection 3. Credit History 4. Card Benefits 5. Tracking expenses 6. Fraudulent Purchases Now I will provide a detailed explanation of what each is and why it is beneficial. 1. Floating, you're probably imagining something floating in the air; however this isn't what this term means. Have you ever heard "0.0% APY for 12 months"? This means that if I purchase an item, I donï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½„ï¿½t have any interest on the purchase for a whole year. Disciplined people with good credit scores can get huge limits on their credit cards. They then can get "cash back" with their purchase to the point of their limits. They then can put this "cash back" into a money market or C.D. for a year and receive up to 4% in interest. Through this way credit cards are valuable tool to the consumer. Example: Bob has 3 credit cards each with a limit of 50,000 dollars. Bob goes to make a purchase and receives 100,000 cash back from two of his credit cards. Fortunately both credit cards provide 0.0% APY for 12 months. Bob immediately sticks this money in a savings account and pays back the 100,000 he borrowed over a twelve month period. Meanwhile that 4% on his hundred thousand is earning him say $3,000 in interest for the year. Therefore Bob can make an extra 3,000 dollars a year by doing essentially nothing. 2. Credit cards offer theft protection. If I have 100 dollars in my pocket and am robbed or the 100 dollars gets lost then I am out 100 dollars. However if I have my credit card in my pocket and it gets robbed/lost I lose nothing because I can simply call my credit card company and cancel the card. 3. Credit history is an extremely useful tool that saves the majority of Americans loads of money. Americans who pay there credit card payments back on time receive a sort of "A+" with the credit companies. This allows banks to shrug off some of the fear that you won't be able to pay them back on time. Since they have less fear that you won't pay them back, you get a lower interest rate which saves you tons of money. This also helps banks determine which consumers won't have the ability to pay them back saving the consumer much headache of losing their homes. Furthermore the credit history is reset every 7 years. So if someone has a terrible history, it allows them to start over so to speak. 4. Frequent flier miles, Cash back, and discounts when buying certain items is obviously a major plus. When the fine print is read, consumers can save a lot by taking advantage of these deals. I would like to thank voters for reading this round and I will post points 5 and 6 in the third round. I sincerely hope my opponent will find time to post in the final round.
Credit cards are among one of the worst ways to make purchases. There are more effective means.

While the American public has been portrayed countless times by the media to be deeply in debt, however, a relatively small population with huge credit card balances can skew the average to make it look like the typical American is carrying a much bigger debt load than he or she actually is. In fact, 55% of Americans owed absolutely nothing on their credit cards. Coincidentally only 6% of the population owes more than 8,000 dollars in credit debt. For this reason alone the Credit Card industry does not hurt most Americans. Only 21% of Americans owe more than 2,000 dollars in credit card debt. "The Fed statistics pretty much gibe with what Fair Isaac, the creator of the FICO credit score, discovered when it reviewed millions of credit reports. There are a few differences between the universe the Fed examined and the one looked at by Fair Isaac. For one thing, credit reports are individual -- there's no such thing as a household or even a joint credit report. Also, you have to have and use credit to have a credit report. Finally, credit reports don't typically distinguish between balances you pay off and those you carry each month. But again, Fair Isaacs statistics show a world in which most people are light to moderate users of credit: About 48% of credit card holders owed less than $1,000" This being simply put, the majority of the American consumers owe little to no credit card debt. . http://moneycentral.msn.com... Furthermore, my opponent has remarked that the credit card industry has put many more people into debt than any other industry. This fact is also completely untrue. The credit card debt for Americans is $2.6 trillion dollars. However when we observe that in 1999 the debt amassing in the housing industry was over 6 trillion dollars (6.3) . http://allcountries.org... Therefore I refute my opponent's claims that the credit card industry is responsible for the majority of consumer debt. "Can you stop a debt collector from contacting you? You can stop a debt collector from contacting you by writing a letter to the collector telling them to stop. Once the collector receives your letter, they may not contact you again except to say there will be no further contact or to notify you that the debt collector or the creditor intends to take some specific action. Please note, however, that sending such a letter to a collector does not make the debt go away if you actually owe it. You could still be sued by the debt collector or your original creditor. " . http://www.ftc.gov...
Credit cards are among one of the worst ways to make purchases. There are more effective means.

Credit cards do more harm than good to the consumer as a whole. The credit card industry has caused more people to go into debt than any other industry. They have been the source of more heartache, grief, and deceit than any other industry save perhaps the collection companies. However, credit card companies have their own collections departments so they still fall into that category. It is a poor way to operate ones personal financial life by using credit cards to make purchases. There are more effective and smarter methods that can be utilized by the consumer. 1. use a debit card. This eliminates the temptation to go into debt for purchases and spend money they don't have. 2. use cash. This brings emotion into spending and generally causes the consumer to make wiser spending choices. by using the before mentioned methods of spending this would reduce consumer debt, and alter peoples spending habits thus allowing people to have more money for themselves and therefore save more money than if one utilized credit cards. Credit card companies have led us to believe many myths about credit cards that draw people in. Myths such as gaining points, flyer miles, and cash back. These are not perks that can only be attained by the use of credit cards. One does not need to use a credit card to gain these "rewards" when they could gain them on their own with much less risk to themselves.