BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

1. Of course it is winner take all. So is a popular vote. This is so minority voices are heard. 4. Swing states can change. And the reason is because many states that have a lot of votes have a majority, Like Texas or California. The reason state popular votes are in place is so minority voices can be heard. With a popular vote, A country can become more and more popular to one party, Eventually so that the other party is drowned out election after election, Causing no minority voices be heard, Or possibly causing an abuse of power. 5b. Can you explain more about "faithless electors"? I am lost. 6. Ties are very rare. If there is, Who else would decide the election if the American people are so evenly divided? 8. Well duh. Third parties never win. They hardly get any votes. 9. Independents (usually the third party) steal votes from both candidates. It isn't one way or the other normally.
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

1. There are some states that usually go one way, For ex. Cali or TX, True. But the majority of states can go either way, And there are swing states. Mob vote would be easier in a democratic system because the simple majority gets the win, But in a electoral vote it would only apply to a minute number of electors. 2. It does not make them equivalent in the amount of electors. The electors are based on population size. If Wyoming has one elector for 110k, But cali has one for every 410k, Wyoming votes has more based on population size. If you want a state w/ 580k people have as many electors as a state with 40 MILLION people, I don't know what to say. Population matters. 3. I don't know what you are talking about. What do you mean by drafting districts? Districts just report their votes, It is a popular vote by state. It would also have little impact on elections, In the 2016 election, Trump won by a good margin.
Why Republicans seam set on having a personal arsenal in their gun safes

I believe that the Republican Party's obsession with the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is insane. The idea that a farmer might need a gun to defend his cattle from hungry animal, or that someone might want to go hunting is perfectly reasonable. However, I have never seen a hunter go hunting with an AK-47, or a farmer kill a wolf with a machine gun. Many people believe that the second Amendment is meant to protect our rights, but I believe that the 2nd Amendment was inserted in the Bill of Rights to allow us to form militias and arm those militias when our country was threatened or when our government broke free of the bond that checks and balances have placed on it. Still, we have the largest army in the world (and most technically advanced), and our government is far from a dictatorship. Besides if either of those events happened what do you really think some hunters AK-47 is gunna do?
Why Republicans seam set on having a personal arsenal in their gun safes

I think con is drastically misunderstanding what Gun control is. The issue is not banning assault rifles, that would accomplish nothing. There are around 30,00 or so deaths per year related to gun incidents. 6,000 of which consist of handguns. An ak-47 or other fully automatic gun only contribute to 300 deaths out of this [1]. To put this more realistically hand guns cause 20 times the amount of deaths fully automatic guns cause. 300 also being only 1 percent or less of the total number of gun deaths yearly. The issue with this is that a ban on ak 47s would accomplish nothing. You would have to implement a buy back system for ars and hand guns alike that would cost in the billions and then cross your fingers people would actually turn them back in for cash. It is nearly impossible to put a limit on guns that are out in civilian hands or stop production of guns for ultimately no cause. The estimated number of guns is nearly 300,000,000[1] or slightly more in civilian hands. It would be impossible to recall or implement regulations to try and get all of these guns back. The point being is that a full scale Gun control scheme would not work. It would increase the chance of tyranny ,cost a lot of money and accomplish nothing, and it would be virtually impossible to recall all of the guns in civilian ownership. [1] http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Civil rights progress 1960 vs. 1940-1950

There was far more civil rights progress in the 1940's (and 1950) than in the year 1960. In 1941 there was a ban on racial profiling in federal and defense hiring. [1] In 1942 the Committee of Racial Equality, later renamed Congress of Racial Equality was founded. [2] In 1944 a supreme court decision decided that exclusion of African-Americans from voting in the Texas Democratic primary violates the Fifteenth Amendment. [3] In 1946 the supreme court declares Virginia's law forcing the segregation of buses unconstitutional, and Truman appoints a presidential committee on civil rights on December 5.[4] In 1947 Jackie Robinson plays for the Brooklyn Dodgers. The Presidential committee on civil rights submits its report on October 29; its recommendations include establishing a permanent FEPC with enforcement powers; ending segregation in the armed forces; and federal legislation to punish lynching, secure voting rights, and abolish segregation in interstate transport. [5] In 1948 the Supreme Court rules that Judicial enforcement of racially restrictive property convenants violates the Constitution. Truman puts out two executive orders. One to establish a Fair Employment Board, and the other to desegregate the Military. [6] In 1949 administration proposes legislation to make lynching a federal crime, create a new FEPC, abolish poll taxes in national elections, and end segregation in interstate transportation, but none of the bills are brought to a vote in the Senate. [7] In 1950 the supreme court makes three progressive hearings on civil rights cases. In Sweatt v. Painter, the Court ruled that a separate law school established by the University of Texas doesn't provide equal educational opportunity and orders the university to admit African-Americans law school; in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, the Court ruled that the University of Oklahoma couldn't impose segregated seating on a black graduate student; and in Henderson v. United States, the Court ruled that segregated seating on railroad dining cars denies the equal access to public accommodations guaranteed by the Interstate Commerce Act. [8] In 1960 just two new major civil rights progressions occur. (Criminal penalties for court voting discrimination and a supreme court hearing making it illegal to segregate buses. [9] Clearly, more civil rights progress was made in the years 1940 to 1950 than in the year 1960. 1. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 2. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 3. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 4. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 5. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 6. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 7. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 8. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org... 9. http://reportingcivilrights.loa.org...
Abortion

Pro decided to drop my entire argument, so my case stands as valid. It's curious that Pro feels they "have nothing to rebut" because they specifically tasked me to argue in favor of the immoral consequences of abortion in Round 1, which I did. By not responding, Pro has agreed to the following points from my case: 1. Human life should be preserved and protected. 2. A fetus is human life. 3. Abortion is the destruction of human life, which is immoral in accordance with point #1. 4. Any benefits of abortion identified by Pro are not sufficient to justify the deliberate violation of point #1. The conclusion of points 1-4 is: the moral consequences of abortion outweigh the possible benefits. Therefore, Con's case is stronger than Pro's, Con wins the debate. Nevertheless, I will proceed with rebuttals. =Rebuttals== All the benefits Pro cites in their case from Round 2 essentially boil down to this: a child might have a hard life if born into non-ideal circumstances, and abortion eliminates that hardship. I am not trying to straw man the many complexities of what Pro wrote, but each point (financial strain, poverty, single parenthood, etc...) returns to this basic thought. My rebuttal to this is that the possibility of hardship does not justify killing a human life. This argument forwarded by Pro makes abortion a type of mercy killing. At base, it suggests a child is better off dead than misfortuned. This is completely unreasonable. First, there is no reason to believe that a child born into poverty cannot rise and become a successful, productive member of society. Indeed, there are innumerable examples of children rising above hardship to become successful adults. Abraham Lincolin is one such example. Second, if children born into hardship are better off dead, then why stop at the unborn? According to Pro's logic, it would be more effective to wait until the child is born and see how he/she develops. If the poverty and economic strain becomes too much, then we can know for sure if we should kill them. Obviously, this sounds absurd, but it is the logical extension of Pro's argument if the ultimate goal is to prevent suffering from economic harship. Of course, the distinction is made before birth because a fetus is assumed to be non-human, thereby allowing it to be killed as opposed to a post-birth baby. But, as I've noted, Pro chose to drop my claim that a fetus is a human life from the previous round. Therefore, Pro by default agrees that a fetus is human life. Therefore, there is no distinction between the humanity of a pre and post-birth child, and so Pro's argument can indeed be applied to post-born babies as well, which is absurd. Therefore, my argument stands. Pro's identified benefits, which portray abortion as a type of mercy killing, are insufficient to justify violating the moral principle of protecting human life. Pro has agreed that a fetus is human life by dropping my argument, and so Pro cannot therefore reconcile this fact with the moral consequences of abortion.
Women will never fully be respected as long as they continue to be beautiful

"Women view a guys that way too. If a guy is ugly some girls won't want any thing to do with them at all." That may be true but it is not socially unacceptable for men to go out without make up, jewelry or revealing clothing. It basically is for women. Even if women are not in the best shape they will still make an effort to look good even if they are only going to the grocery store or a movie. Men do not have that same "requirement". "Even though woman have to keep themselves looking good because of Hollywood, same as guys." Again, we've already established that this is not about men or women whose job it is to look good. This is about normal, everyday women who make themselves pretty for day to day activities, and how doing that only continues to make them appear as sex objects to men. "Both men and woman have their imperfections that they want to prefect, so then why cant they?" Being in shape, as I've already stated, is not the issue at hand. What is is women objectifying themselves with their bodies, in shape or not. I've already stated numerous times how they do that, and don't think I need to reiterate. "Men or women are treated equally and unequally, so why does every one just makes a big deal about a woman doing something to her body when guys are doing the same thing?" Because en are not doing the same thing. In a male dominated society, they are viewed much more for their work ethic than women, who are first viewed for their looks, then by their job ability. Working past that is the goal women have to work for, and they are not going to reach it by continuing to care more about their looks than their job. There is a very distinct line between going out looking decent and going out trying to look good, and women very pointedly cross that on a day to day basis for no other reason than that's how it's always been done. So to conclude, I believe I've made it quite clear that women are only continuing to objectify themselves as a beautiful talking body rather than as a respectable person. While men and women have equal rights on paper, the mind set is not there. While this is the case, and women continue to go out with the expressed desire to be attractive than that is what they will be first.
Women will never fully be respected as long as they continue to be beautiful

woman view a guy that way too if a guy is ugly some girls wont want any thing to do with them at all. even though woman have to keep themselves looking good because of Hollywood same as guys. both men and woman have their imperfections that they want to prefect then why cant they. men or woman they are treated equally and in-equally so every one just makes a big deal about a woman doing something to her body when guys are doing the same thing
Women will never fully be respected as long as they continue to be beautiful

As pro mentioned that woman will never be respected as long as their beautiful which is fully not true there are so many men out there that respect woman but as they said dresses are worn and "sex object" men are also "sex objects" take play girl men pose nude for a woman's pleasure and this day in age beauty is important for no matter who you are. axe also shows men and same with underwear commercials. they also mention "hookers" but if the woman plans this to be her job then it is her job it's the woman's body and she should not be judge what she uses it for. same with "exotic dancers" they are planning to do this with them self's. If it was men that did this as much as woman they would not be judge as much as a woman because every thing is so biased with gender. since this is a guy http://www.piercemattie.com... im sure no one really does care but this is a woman http://img.alibaba.com... she is judged because she is beautiful and she is modeling underwear.
Women will never fully be respected as long as they continue to be beautiful

My stance is that women will not fully be respected as individuals as long as they continue to care about their looks, in particularly being beautiful or sexy. More recently in the 21st century, women have been trying to be viewed as equals to men in both the business world and their personal life. This debae is not about whether that pursuit is good or not, but whether or not that is actually achievable. I say it is not, as men in some form or fashion will still see them primarily in a sexual way, especially as long as women encourage it. This goes beyond the jobs of prostitutes or strippers who are just trying to make a living, but even to women of high status. For instance, a typical fashion for women now a days is very form fitting clothes, such as this: <http://3.bp.blogspot.com...; Dresses are also still worn <http://fc06.deviantart.net...; Cleavage as well as emphasis on other extremities are mainstream fashion <http://www.gypsyrosedancing.com...; And women are still very much concerned about looks, even in serious job positions. <http://poplicks.com...; I've tried my best to find pictures that aren't models, which is very hard to do with Google. In all these cases these are not women whose job it is to be revealing and attractive but willingly choose to do it themselves. It's an undeniable fact that the majority of women, or at least those in America, care about their looks. They only continue to propagate the image of "sex object". Because of this, they will primarily be viewed first on their appearance, then secondly their personalities. Women (such as feminists) have no one to blame other than their own gender. Because women continue to enforce this stereotype, men will never fully respect them as people without first judging their sex appeal, regardless of job or status position. It is therefore my opponents job to show that women can be fully respected first as people, regardless of whether they care about/encourage their physical appearance.
Donald Trump

Those are some fair points from Pro, but by saying "On Wednesday (January 25) we asked Euronews" viewers why they think (if indeed they do) that Donald Trump will be a great President, in order to identify the motivations of his supporters," Pro is literally asserting that Pro him or herself interviewed viewers of Euronews. It clearly shows that Pro is once again stealing bits of his or her sources.In addition to such, Pro does not provide any analysis whatsoever. Instead, Pro provides feedback from Trump Supporters to support his or her own argument. By saying "On Facebook, [Euronews] received roughly 100 comments, of which around 40 were genuinely supportive of the new US President. Slightly more (around 50) comments were negative, with the remaining few showing no apparent preference either way," not only is Pro giving a statement which does not exactly support his or her argument, but instead, it acts as a counterargument. By using this quote, Pro is saying that Euronews concluded that approximately 50% of people responded to a survey or poll on Facebook dislike Trump. Having half of all American citizens disliking Donald Trump does not demonstrate why he's a good president, but instead supports my argument. Remember, kids! This is why you don't plagiarize articles. Or at least if you do, try to not be careless ;)Pro continues to make statements such as "He will improve relations with Russia," and "He will create jobs," but fails to provide any evidence to prove this.I would like to conclude this round by stating that Pro has not provided any points that support the central point of his or her argument. Additionally, as made apparent by the previous two rounds, Pro is plagiarizing sources. This has been made obvious by simply looking over the few articles that Pro presented. I ask that voters and spectators take into account the failure to provide a burden of proof, and constant plagiarizing, and responding to such accusations by calling me a b****.
Donald Trump

Okay Cosmojarvis take me to court like you said in your "DM" but i'm winning this debate The media has been accused of being biased when talking about President Donald Trump and, on many (liberal) people"s Facebook and Twitter feeds, his inauguration was shrouded in negativity. On Wednesday (January 25) we asked Euronews" viewers why they think (if indeed they do) that Donald Trump will be a great President, in order to identify the motivations of his supporters. With many players in the mainstream media " including Euronews " as well as much of the social media conversation having been quick to highlight his contradictions and his more controversial policies, the man who won the 2016 US elections can count on tens of millions of supporters at home and an unquantifiable number abroad. It is their voices we wanted to hear. On Facebook we received roughly 100 comments, of which around 40 were genuinely supportive of the new US President. Slightly more (around 50) comments were negative, with the remaining few showing no apparent preference either way. Among those who told us why they think Donald Trump will be a great President, the most repeated reasons seem to be that: 1. He"s doing what he promised during the campaign 2. He"s not a politician (he"s a businessman, doesn"t belong to the elite") 3. He will improve relations with Russia 4. He"s not Hillary Clinton The following is one of the most consistent comments: He will create jobs for infrastructure builders. His rule will emphasize the importance US has been playing in the world politics for the last decade (as a different path will be chosen from now on, we will learn the importance of US previous watchdog position regarding world peace and politics). Improving US-RU relations could save the world from next major conflict. He will improve the life for his supporters in the central states (vs coastal). He will show the world that a a lot of traditional christian values are outdated (through enforcement of such values, though). He will show us why the world is worse off, when based on economical values instead of ideals. This could cause a big shift of thought for most of the world and he should get praise for it (which he will most likely not get that much). http://www.euronews.com...
Newly revealed natural scientific laws govern the morality of abortion

Thank you for accepting this important debate. The law debated here could alter the way people think about abortion. This debate will test a newly revealed natural scientific law that partially governs the impact that abortion has on society. If this law is valid, then the generally accepted conclusions of the pro life movement will need revision or become invalid. Natural laws are self evident once brought to light and backed up with theory. Natural laws are not invented, they are revealed. This debate will be about one revealed natural scientific law and the theories that surrounds the law. (1) There are obvious natural laws that govern the issues surrounding abortion. These laws are like other natural scientific law in that they are simple and obvious yet these abortion related laws have profound impact on the way society should judge the abortion issue. The first law: "If a woman is forced to carry to term one fetus, then she cannot normally become pregnant with another fetus in the same time period." This simple law leads to what I call "The Law of Hindered Birth". I shorten the law to say: "a forced birth precludes a willing birth." The theories surrounding the law lead to insight into the moral effect of forcing birth. One theory is that forcing birth of an unwanted child denies life to another potential child. It is a fact that pregnancy occupies about 9 months time in a woman's life. If a woman is hindered in her options of birth and abortion by a law or action restricting the right to abortion and is forced to give birth to an unwanted child; then she is precluded from giving birth to a wanted child during that same period of time. For example if a married woman is raped and becomes pregnant and is forced to carry the child to term, then she cannot in the same time period have a child by her husband. In effect being forced to have the child of the rapist causes the woman to Lose the life of her wanted child during that period of time. If the Family can only afford to raise one child, then they will be forced to live their remaining lives without ever experiencing a wanted birth with a child of the union of their marriage. Either that or they would be forced to give away a child that is conceived and carried for nine months. (2) Also, in forcing birth, a violation of the "Law of Hindered Birth" occurs that condemns the woman to risk her life in pregnancy with a 13 in 100,000 chance of dying and also forces her to "lose" the life of her wanted child. The result of the anti abortion hindrance boils down to the fact that a wanted child is lost and an unwanted child is forced to be born without good reason, or the woman dies or is injured. (1) The definition of "Law" used in by the author: http://chemistry.about.com... (2) My notes: https://docs.google.com...
Proving Your Argumentative Skills: Why DC is Better Than Marvel

(Con has forfeited, so instead of a final counter-rebuttal I will skip directly to my conclusion as to why I should be voted winner. Con must post his reason for forfeit during his turn this round, even though he has already broken guidelines, and his post should address my Round 3 rebuttal.) My opponent has failed to provide significant evidence to prove that Marvel is superior to DC. His statements have little to no merit, and are poorly structured. I have given valid reasoning for my claims and rebuttals, followed the Round guidelines, and have supported my claims and rebuttals with information about the comics, while tying in the influence they have. I conclude. VOTERS: Please try to avoid letting personal preference influence your vote. This was a debate to prove individual skill, rather than support an opinion.