BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system

As your argument is very lengthy, I shall address each of your points individually in order to provide a contrast between our opposing ideas. You say that it is possible for the average Joe to participate in well-organized, live debates. This simply isn't true. Even DDO isn't made for that. "Every single person" can't possibly participate in a debate at once - perhaps you could provide an example. The idea of dismantling congress also brings up a lot of issues, such as representation. The whole "electoral college" system would also have to be reworked. The problem with having political parties led by the popular instead of politicians would prove troublesome. Most people simply aren't capable of managing those who follow you and those who oppose you, all while making sure that you don't say the wrong things; the head of a political party holds a lot of influence - we cannot let just anybody lead a party. The main dish on this buffet menu - vote manipulation. Whether it be through rigging systems, psychological trickery, bandwagon, untrustworthy individuals, or causing social dilemmas, allowing for anyone to make laws and vote for them is a silly idea due to the instability of such a broad and indefinable group of people. It is an insurmountable task to balance out a dynamic system such as yours in a way that makes it stable like the congress is. You provide the fact that people will not be pushed to vote on very single topic that comes up - this isn't a good thing in my eyes. You talk about power to the people, but then go against your own argument and say that we should let someone else do whatever they want with possible law. In addition, reducing the size of the federal government would cause more issues than it would fix, due to a sudden "spreading of powers," and a probable lack of government control that would likely grow stronger as the years would progress. Congress does, at times, act under the will of organizations instead of popular ideas. Not only is this not always a bad thing, but it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. You say that donations influence law-making - why wouldn't it influence a people's legislature? Finally, you state that if there are people who all have the same amount of power in their voices, then none of them will try to gain more influence. This is a ridiculous idea that is disproved around the world daily. It is referred to as "tyranny of the majority." [1] If there is no one to represent man's will, who is there to restrain man's greed? Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system

Basically, the system would be that the people themselves would be the law-makers. There would still be a president, and (s)he would be the commander-in-chief and can veto legislation brought out by the people, who then still need a 2/3 majority to surpass the president's veto. The supreme court would still exist and can declare things unconstitutional as they do now. Basically it would work the same as it does now, just we are replacing congress with the people.
The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system

1) I can't provide examples because it hasn't yet happened. We have not changed to a direct democratic voting system. However, how can you not see it? If our current system is susceptible to fault, then why wouldn't your also be when it is based on electing common men to represent and popular vote?2) "How many people do you think votes for the lesser of two evils..." I fail to see how this is a bad thing. That's quite literally what you do when you vote for the president. For your idea on third parties, you should know that third parties are irrelevant until they are allowed to debate (which I see happening in the near future).3) Yes, we've been through this. You aren't doing an excellent job of explaining your ideas.4) There's a big problem with local governments. Not only is there lots of dispute between states that can start because of it, but state-enforced laws don't usually have as much as execution as federal law does. To finish, you use climate change as an example when that is something that would be controlled by the federal government, as it is a worldwide issue and not exclusive to any states.5) "...the people cannot be susceptible to corruption nearly as much..." I explained why this is wrong early on in the debate when I explained man's greed and the pursuit of power.6) Your whole paragraph fails to defend against my many notions against the concept of direct democracy and "tyranny of the majority." I presume this means that you understand that your idea of change is very flawed. Transitioning the United States of America from an organized government to a people's democracy will only make corruption and racism more widespread, and even worse, seen as less of an issue than it is.For all of these reasons, the United States congress should not be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system.
Deism vs Theism

If you don't know right from wrong, then you need your moral compass re-calibrated. I have friends that are atheists, that have never believed in any type of deity, yet are some of the most compassionate and benevolent people you'll ever meet. Children emulate what they see and hear, and often times will connect with whatever their parents believe. If they have good parents that teach them morality, chances are they will be moral as well. Or, at least they will know right from wrong, even though they may choose to do something in the wrong category. You don't trust Scripture that contradicts a verse that you deem to be moral or good, which means you pick and choose. That is one of my biggest gripes with Christianity. There is a lot of cherry picking going on, and the rest is tossed aside. I do not believe in miracles because of free will. All holy books were written by humans and contain human errors. I believe that Jesus was a great teacher and prophet, and if more people would follow his teachings, the world would be a better place. But he is not the only "wise man" from history. Deists believe in God because we connect with nature and/or the cosmos and see design and purpose, not randomness. I have a post on the forums talking about deism. Feel free to explore it. So you agree that a World Prayer Day won't change anything, because of free will?! Excellent! Then why do YOU believe in miracles, if we have free will and God won't intervene? A debate like this is not meant to change one or the other's mind. It is designed to explore ideas and concepts, and perhaps look at the other side of a coin. However, there is a reason that Richard Dawkins refuses to debate a deist. He knows he would lose because you can't disprove the deist position. There's nothing to attack or go after. I look forward to your summary.
Deism vs Theism

What if I DON'T know right from wrong? does that mean what i have observed to be right(even if its wrong) is good? If i don't have a book(or some other source) to tell me what is right and what is wrong how would i know what is right? If I live in a hole my entire life how am i going to know what color the sky is unless someone tells me so? Yes humans can corrupt and twist the bible, that's why i don't trust scriptures that contradict other ones. For example(hypothetically) if the bible tells me that murder is wrong then tells me to kills someone ti will not trust that scripture. Also i you done believe in miracles, a holy book, GOD talking to you, or Jesus, how do you know that god even exists. From the sound of it deists have no true reason to believe in GOD, and might as well be atheists! You also say that if we make a world prayer day and pray for world peace it will not happen, that IS true. Because we would be praying for there to be no evil people basically, GOD WILL NOT take away our free will so praying for world peace is useless. GOD has worked in my life, and my faith in him has got me through hard times like divorces. Also this debate is useless and is not gonna change you or anyone else opinion, it like telling a Muslim to convert to Christianity!
Deism vs Theism

I did not say that deists do what is right in their hearts. I said we observe nature/cosmos and use our personal observations for the belief in God. What was stated was that morality is based on knowing right from wrong, and choosing to be a moral person. As to your Hitler reference (even though you said Hither), he was raised as a Catholic by his mother, and often stated that he supported Christianity in his public speeches. No, he was not a deist. The Bible, in its original form, is unknown to us as the Autographs were destroyed ~2,500 years ago. And if you think it is nothing but good, do you realize that it sanctions slavery, the murder of children and rape? It was written by men, in a primitive time, and from what would be considered a barbaric culture by today's standards. I did not say Adam & Eve WERE in the Garden 6,000 years ago. I said they were certainly NOT in the Garden 6,000 years ago. The Earth is far older that 6,000 years. I am not a Young Earth Creationist. Once again, the Bible never says the Garden of Eden disappeared. Therefore, it should still be there (hint: it's not because it never existed). The story is allegorical anyway. As for the exodus, you are not grasping the concept that 1,000,000+ people living in an area for 40 years would leave a trace of their civilization. There's nothing. I don't believe in miracles, not because I don't believe in God (I do), but because divine intervention goes against the concept of free will. How many veterans that had an amputation and prayed for a miracle regrowth received said miracle? ZERO. Here is an experiment: designate a World Prayer Day. Have every believer pray at the same time for world peace. Surely God would honor such a vocalized request! Then wait and see how long it takes before another terrorist act is committed. My guess is less than a week. Deism trumps Christianity (and pretty much any other religion) as far as the logical belief in God. Just know that deism is not a religion; it is a philosophy.
Deism vs Theism

OK you said that deists base what they do off what they think is moral in their hearts right? doesn't that mean that Hither and Josef Stalin are great deists? What they did is what they thought was right and moral in their hearts. Yes The Bible was wrote by humans but humans have the ability to do great good as bad. The bible is not bad it is good depending on how literally you take it, or if you twist it from its original form. Also you bring up one scripture and multiple forms of it? bringing up one scripture and saying that proves your entire point is like me saying that all amusement park kill people and then bring up one time were someone died at one. Bring up more than one scripture OK? You said that you never said adam and eve were in the garden 6000 years ago? Here is a quote from you, "Garden of Eden: we did not come from a single pair of humans called Adam and Eve, and certainly not 6,000 years ago." You said there's no imagery of the angel right? OK! #1 why would GOD want you to see that angel? He wouldn't! also if the garden were destroyed over time why would the angel stay there? As to what you said about the exodus, you are making no sense at all! If you were living in middle of the desert for 40 years, with limited resources why would you leave your pottery, yolks, or anything behind? Also they could have brought anyone who died with them, or just buried there bodies without graves. If you were hated by a pharaoh would you say, "hey lets bury their bodies and give an indication of were they are! so they can tamper with their graves!" No you wouldn't! OK if they could cross the Reed Sea with chariots wouldn't they not bring their chariots? Also someone could have found those perfectly good in-tact chariots and said, "hey look i found these perfectly good mint-condition chariots maybe ill pick these up, and take them home!" Also if your a deist, and do not believe in miracles doesn't that mean that praying for help is useless? Yes, it does. Christianity is obviously the best take on belief in god!
Deism vs Theism

If there is no bible, no divine intervention, or miracles how do we know what is true or what go wants us to believe in? If im a deist(for example) how do i know that t is not gods will to kill all non-deists?(if god does not communicate with us) is it what you think is right in your heart? If so it was right in Hitlers heart to kill all Jews so is it right? no, it isn't(obviously) Also you say that the people who were possessed in the bible just had diseases like epilepsy? So your telling me that if i get so strong that i break out of metal chain run around naked and cut my self , and also say that im a legion of demons its just epilepsy? that is completely illogical! You say that Adam and Eve only existed 6000 Years ago, and that there is no angel with sword? OK let me break this down the bible not once said when the world started, or when adam was born OK? Plus you also say that, "there is no satellite image of the angel with the flaming sword" OK if you think that the garden was to be protected GOD would let you see the garden(on a satellite image?)? also what if the garden was destroyed so then angel no longer had something to protect? You say there's no archeological evidence of the exodus? So your telling me that if walk around the desert eating nothing but magical food from heaven that rots within a day is going to stay in a desert for thousands of years is still going to be there? You said well there is no chariots. So what if the chariots already got discovered and taken out when the sea receded?
Deism vs Theism

Looking for a debate about which is more rationale toward the existence of God: deism or theism. I will be in the position of pro deism. Deism is defined as the belief in God based on your personal observations of nature or the cosmos. It rejects holy books and divine intervention. Theism is defined as the belief in God based on divine revelation (holy books), divine intervention, miracles, and God being active in the world. The 1st round is the acceptance round and further defining your theist position. The 2nd round will be opening arguments. The 3rd round will be rebuttals. The 4th round will be rebuttals. The 5th round will be closing statements. Voters: please be honest and weigh both sides of the debate. The side that seems to be the most logical, regardless of your religion (or lack of), should earn your vote. Thanks!
Deism vs Theism

OK you say that if GOD intervenes it means that he is taking away free will, This is ridiculous! I can want my family member to be healed and pray for it, and GOD could answer my prayer, and he wouldn't be making me do something i don't want to do(thus not taking away free will)! the only reason that praying for world peace would take away free will is because he would have to change what people believe and their personalities to do it! As to cherry picking, if someone tells me to kill someone, then later tells me to donate to the poor, not listening to him telling to kill someone but donating to the poor is not cherry picking. Saying that you believe in GOD because you look at the cosmos is non-intellectual. because the definition of cosmos is, "the universe seen as a well-ordered whole." so that makes no sense. I believe in GOD because he has worked in my life, and done miracles for me and my family. There is a lot to attack about deism and my arguments have proved that! So i Hop people will look at the facts, which is that deist is a twisted form of Christianity/Judaism/Islam. AND gives no good reason to believe in GOD, all Deists with the facts they state might as well be atheist!
Evolution is a part of atheism

It is certainly true that providing a mechanism for how live arose on this planet does very directly allow one to consider the possibility that life arose on this planet via that mechanism. However, it doesn't seem to be even remotely relevant to the question. One need not believe in special creation to believe in God. One need only view evolution as the handiwork of God. There are plenty of theists who believe in evolution and God. In fact, in the United States, there are more theists who believe in evolution than there are atheists period. Atheism doesn't have any parts, therefore evolution can't be a part. Atheists and theists both can and do believe and not believe in evolution. -- The fossil record is remarkably compelling evidence for evolution. If you wish to have a debate on that topic, feel free to ask. I'll gladly comply. Surveys do find that many atheists do believe in evolution, and that some do not. Surveys also find that atheists tend to have higher IQs and oppose the death penalty. Are intelligence and death penalty opposition also part of atheism? -- "Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they are an atheist." Actually, yes it does. That's exactly what it means. A- without, -theism belief in God. Atheism is being without a belief in God. If they believe in any God they aren't an atheist. If they are part of a theistic religious group they are not an atheist. When asked the question, do you believe in god(s)? People will answer. Those who don't answer yes, are atheists. You are an atheist with regard to the millions upon millions of various gods believed in by various religions... atheists just go one God further. -- Thank you for the debate. I see no compelling argument given by Pro to suggest that evolution is a part of atheism. I see a few odd suggestions about various related notions and a suggestion that statistically atheists are more likely to believe in evolution (quite true, quite irrelevant). Beyond demographic considerations, no good arguments have been offered. The fact that Christians are likely buy laundry detergent makes no compelling case that buying habits are part of Christianity. -- That simply doesn't follow. Without any compelling arguments offered and considering the arguments I've presented. My Job as Con is done. Thank you all for reading.
Evolution is a part of atheism

The theory of evolution does not say anything about the exsistance of God; you are correct. However, it detracts from the idea that God created each individual creature. I would also like to say that the fossil records do not support the theroy of evolution. There might be many atheists in your opinion, or to your knowledge that do not believe in the theory of evolution, but the fact is, most of those that have been polled in surveys admit that they believe in the theory. http://www.conservapedia.com... Just because someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they are an atheist. There are many different religious groups that believe different Gods, so how can we ever prove that an Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God? Everyone has a different opinion of who or what God is, so who is to say that someone is Atheist because they don't believe in the God that I or whoever else believe in?
Evolution is a part of atheism

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God. Atheists existed before Darwin's theory of evolution, not because of it. Atheism includes no belief at all, it simply consists of not believing in God. In a very real sense, babies are atheists. They don't believe in God and they also don't grasp or understand evolution. There are plenty of atheists who don't believe in evolution. Some simply don't understand the theory or care, they just understand that religious claims are completely hollow and vacuous. They don't care or understand the theory which serves as the cornerstone of biology and they don't believe nonsensical religious claims. Also, seeing as atheism is simply a lack of a belief in God. The position includes nothing. There are no parts to it at all. There's nothing to it. There's not believing this one thing and you're an atheist. It's an adjective not a group. >>What would they believe besides the theory of evolution if they do not believe in God? Anything. If they don't believe in God then they are an atheist, regardless whether or not they accept or deny evolution or think it was aliens or bigfoot or anything. If they don't believe in God, they are an atheist. >>Also, If we evolved from monkeys/apes, why are they still alive? http://www.talkorigins.org... If Americans and Australians both originally come from the English, why are there still the English? We share a common ancestor, that's all.
Evolution is a part of atheism

While I will agree Atheism has been around far longer than the theory of evolution I will not agree that they don't go hand in hand. The theory of evolution basically states that there is no God, and the followers of Atheism do not believe in God. So let me ask you two questions. What would they believe besides the theory of evolution if they do not believe in God? Also, If we evolved from monkeys/apes, why are they still alive?
Evolution is a part of atheism

Despite common claims that evolution is simply preaching atheism, this is not the case. Evolution is a well established and evidenced theory which explains the progression, form, organization, and distribution of all the life on this planet without the need of any outside forces. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. There were plenty of atheists before Darwinian evolution became widely known and easily properly understood as the mechanism for the design of life. While there is some congruity between having a firm and robust theory which allows us to understand all life on the planet without needing to genuflect to God and not believing in God. They are completely different. Ken Miller: Ken Miller is a theist and a world class biologist who fully understands evolution. Raelians: Raelians are a religious group who believe that aliens created Earth and the life on this planet. They don't believe in God and thus are atheists while they believe in creationisms and often deny the basic science behind evolution. Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

the opposite position of belief is disbelief, the opposite of belief is knowledge belief=belief=i dont accept i dont know disbelief=belief=i dont accept i dont know non belief=i accept i dont know if i believe your claim i believe your claim not disbelieve it, you are either telling the truth or not belief=theism is it true that the chair in the room is red? words mean what they mean, you can change it by lying to yourself, but we have different words because they dont all mean black