BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An enforced majority government

Without one political party having the majority, governments usually consist of two large parties, which will consistently disagree with one another. This, in effect, prevents either party passing their motion, since the other will attempt to veto it. As a result, the government is unable to effectively react to the current situation. If, as opposed to the present system in most large democratic nations, whereby the government is split into two, the number of seats granted to the leading party gave them the power to determine the state's response to its environment. This would enable a more efficient, dynamic government which would have the capacity to bring about the changes required by the nation to advance itself. Obviously the main argument against this point is that the people are no longer being proportionally represented. However, an elimination process could be used to remove minor parties in favour of the voter's next choice, until one party has more than half of the seats. In this way the voter is still represented, possibly not as well as before, but since no party is capable of perfectly fitting everyone's needs, this should not be a very large problem. This method creates a strong central government that has the power to give the people what they want and fulfill the nation's goal. Yours, Solomon
Me (Pro) vs. You (Con) Presidential Debate

I deeply appologize to my opponent as I'm running short on time so I will give my shortend version of my platform and will go in depth on some of them next round if need be. Canidate: Lannan13Running Mate: SubutaiParty: RepublicanIdealogy: Conservative/LibertarianIssuesAbortion- Pass the Life at Conception ActGay Marriage- Allow Legalization gradually in the states via state legislature.Abolish all tarrifs on imports.Tax System- Go to Flat Tax 20% rate.Repeal the NSA collection programs.Pass the Defense of Envirnment and Property Act.Reinstate the Glass-Stegal Act.Pass the Monetary Reform Act.Audit Fort Knox.Move US embassy to Jeurusalum. Increase aid to Israel's Iron Dome Program.Ban Euthanasia in the United States.Legalize the Death Penalty in all 50 States.Work Towards Porto Rican Statehood and their consolidation of their debt. Give them Hawiian "escape" status.End tax credits to wind and solar energy fields.Pass the Keystone XL Pipeline. Repeal Obamacare. Government shouldn't be involed in healthcare.Do not allow people to be forced to pay for contraceptives in their health care.Allow School Prayer.Abolish Common Core.Issue school vouchers for private schools.Work to replace Welfare with Private Charity.Privatize Social Security.No raising of the minimum wage. Add Hamas and Iran back on the international terror list. Draw back involvement with the UN. Abolish fire arm bans.Repeal the Brady Bill.Establish "Stand your ground" "Defend your castle" and Open Carry Laws.Enforce tougher Drug Laws.Legalize Prostitution, but have 20% Sin Tax on it.Abolish Affirmative Action.Repeal any remaining reminants of "Don't ask Don't tell."
Me (Pro) vs. You (Con) Presidential Debate

Basically this is a mock presidential debate between me and whoever accepts this debate. We aren't representing any official candidates, we will just be our own candidate. I made this impossible to accept, so if you're interested mention so in the comments. If you want to know my stance on things go to my profile to look at the "Big Issues". I might not debate exactly according to what's there, but it will be similar. First round is acceptance and in the second round, we'll both present our platform and then begin rebuttals (a lot to cover, but hopefully it will work). Also, we're bound to agree on at least some things, so you would still mention it in your opening argument, we just wouldn't rebut that point.
Marijuana should be legalized in the US.

I fully understand the implications of legalizing drugs. My mother, in fact, is addicted to Nicotine. Long story short, banning it doesn't help and legalizing it could lower the number of drug uses. Let me explain.. Our current system is flawed. When we tried regulating products that create math, they used alternative methods. When we regulated those, we got drugs from Mexico. It simply doesn't work. And then we put them to jail. In 2009 alone we spent 2 billion on sending them to jail. That's roughly 22,000 dollars per prisoner. In 2007, 13 percent of all arrests were drug related. Now all of this may seem small in the grand scheme of things. Well if we decriminalized drugs we would save around 50 billion dollars total. Now onto the health effects. After making it illegal, drugs became more dangerous. Then there's the violence. We have seen a spike in violence because of it as drug cartels can't settle agreements through the legal system. According to some studies crime is 25 percent higher because of the war on drugs. So how do we fix this? First, legalize it. The war on drugs isn't helping anyone. Next, use the Swiss modeling the 1980's, the Swiss had a heroin epidemic. HIV rose, street crime rose, and so did poverty. What did they do? They opened heroin maintenance centers. Here's the logic: You get free, high quality heroin, clean needles, showers, beds, safe injection rooms and medical supervision. In return you have to try to stop with the help of doctors and social workers will get you a house and job. The results were amazing. HIV went down, so did crime, drug use lowered, and so did the number of heroin overdoses. Two thirds of all admitted became your average drug free workers. And on top of all of that, it was cheaper. TL;DR: The war on drugs doesn't work and we should use the Swiss model which lowered overdoses, crime, and HIV rates while also being cheaper. Sources: https://youtu.be... https://youtu.be...
Marijuana should be legalized in the US.

Why are you doing this? Drugs kill people and you want that to be happening? This world is already extremely dangerous with all of the pollution and our earth can not be handling anymore pollution, but with drugs coming here it will break the surface and let space come in and then there will be no life. God made people to have a happy life and to be kind to each other, not to put millions of dollars into drugs when actually we could be helping our earth with all that money. People either don't keep up with the end of their deal and get killed over that or they find a way to get it in houses and sell the product. The exact same with alcohol, it may seem harmless but it does a GREAT effect on your body. Please think this over. The world needs peace. Men and women sacrificed their lives to make ours better, but with drugs they fought for nothing.
Marijuana should be legalized in the US.

I, pro, will be arguing for the legalization of the recreational use of marijuana, also known as weed. Format: Round 1 - Opening statements (not arguments) Round 2 - Pro begins opening argument, con rebuttals Round 3 - Final arguments and statements Rules: 1. Don't troll 2. Use correct grammar and spelling 3. You will have 72 hours to respond. This should be more than enough time and both person's are expected to submit their arguments during this time frame to prevent bugs and glitches 4. Be civil 5. There is a max of 8,000 characters. If you need more, put it on a Google document and post the link as your argument. 6. If you need extra time or wish to continue the debate, message your opponent.
Parents should be held accountable for their children in school

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent, in hopes for a respectful debate. Let me start by asking the following question: who is considered a child? Most would define a child, simply, as a "young person," who is not equipped to deal with life's struggles independently. Legally speaking, however, the definition is a little more specific; something along the lines of "a person under the age of legal competence" (thefreedictionary.com). With that, a child reaches such a point of legal competency at age 18, at least in the United States. Thereafter, this person develops, grows, learns, and - in good hopes - thrives on there own, without their parents hovering over his shoulders. I then raise the following question: if a child does not learn self accountability before he/she turns 18, will there ever be a point at which he/she does learn genuine self accountability? Is it fair that the parent(s) of a child who is 17 years and 364 days old faces harsher consequences than the parents of an eighteen year old, based on the actions of their children? In principle, both the 17-year-and-364-day-old and the 18-year-old are psychologically competent; if one can make logical decisions in school, than so can the other. Furthermore, in proposing a system in which "parents should be held accountable for their children in school," one is presuming functional, nuclear families, that are no longer typical in the evolving world of family structures. Many minors attend public schools without having traditional parents; they are raised by older brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and friends who would not consider themselves the "parents" of that child. What would happen in such instances? Would the child receive the brunt of the punishment, unlike his friends whose parents take the beating for them? Similarly, would a single mother who works full-time be expected to contribute as much to booster clubs and parent organizations as a married mother who stays at home? You see, forcing parents to take full accountability full accountability for their children in school is not only unrealistic, but is counter-effective and unfair to struggling families. Those who propose a system by which parents maintain complete responsibility over children not only fail to recognize variants in family structures, but also negatively reduce the expectations of minors regarding education.
Parents should be held accountable for their children in school

Throughout the years, I have seen parents become less and less involved in the education of their children. It seems that in some places, the only way to get parents to show up to school is to offer free food, have a dance party, or offer a raffle with the opportunity to win something. Otherwise some of them (not all) could care less. They see the school as a free babysitting service, and if the child fails or misbehaves it's something the teacher did. I call major WRONG on that. Anything the child is doing at school also happens at home and the parent is more than likely aware of it. They just may not know how or even have the desire to handle it. My argument is that parents should be required to be more involved in any school they send their child to. Yes, work schedules are difficult but some parents don't even work, so they should be more present in the schools in a collaborative way. This does not mean they're up there trying to tell teachers how to do their job, but they are supporting the educational system that they are sending their child to and are just as much at fault if the child fails as the teacher. The teachers these days are dealing with more and more parents who would rather sit back and not pick up the phone or come to a conference. Then when the child brings home a referral or bad report card, they come up to the school ranting and raving about how the school was out of line. Forgive me, but no. Anything a child does is the sole responsibility of the parent/guardian. It's their child. The school teacher is a part of the education process but they only govern their classroom. The parents' job is to make sure that their child does their best in school. I'm open to all who choose to debate this, but please come up with arguments that make sense because I'm a bit tired of some of the excuses I've read and heard. Seems like some parents may need to go back to school because they missed a thing or two.
We should have a quota in the English Premier League.

Thank you for your challenge but I would like you to know that the english league has become very popular today because of its football style. England has great players and most of them are playing in top teams. If you look at chelsea, you have joe cole, lamard, terry, more than five great english players. same goes to Manchester United and so on. For me there is no link between the national team's failure and the premierleague. For example, lets look at France, it is full of foreign players and especially cheap ones and the league is not even that good in Europe but we have seen the french team doing great. Same goes to Brazil for instance where there is no quota but they have a great team. A quota is just an obstacle or a barrier to competition. I think clubs have the right to choose the right players for their success because they are paying for them and not the English team doing things for the clubs. Having more foreign players in your league makes it more competitive and popular. you have experience players from other nations and that is what soccer is all about. Clubs are paying huge money to succeed and in that case i dont think it is fair for the FA to impose a quota. Secondly,having an open selection will even make the english players perform hard and prove themselves. In recent players, we have seen great players in England but most problems fall under the national team management. As Frank Lampard said " we need a leader to lead this team" and that is the main problem. They have world class players in England. for example, look at the recent shock, england being eliminated by Crotia and where does the crotia league stands in europe?? no where but the players are determined to play for their country. English players should also be more determined when they play because thay is really missing there. As a brief to this first part, a quota will not solve any problem. As arsene wenger, arsenal coach mentioned " when i select my players, i dont look at the passport" he chooses on merit and that should be a way. English players should learn to compete with others. They should also try to play in teams outside england to gain more experience. Look at David Beckam, even though he is a little old now, he always makes a difference when he is playing. He has learned from both Manchester United and Real Madrid and now he is in LA GALAXY. they should also be exposed to other leagues. And if you add up all the clubs together, we still see more englishmen there and some are doing so well in their clubs...quota is not the solution, that will make the league less exciting and popular. It will also makes it less competitive and we dont want. People will just move to other countries like spain,.italy and so on. Thank you sir have a nice day
We should have a quota in the English Premier League.

the quota proposal is not a bad idea if the english were truly looking to better their national team. the EPL is basically saturated with foreign players and stars. the clubs are way too focused on trying to recruit talent from foreign countries, and they often overlook potential in their own neighborhood. the EPL isn't trying to developed the players for their own national team, but instead, are trying to find players that will faciltate most revenue. if england doesn't produce more quality players, their national squad will inevitably fail... again. if the quota proposal is implemented, more quality english natives will be produced and thus strengthening the national team. english soccer will surely succeed and once again, become a feared nation in the football community. the change may not be instant, but over time, england will prevail as a top competitor.
given the sheer size of the space, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists

The burden of proof is on my opponent. Unfortunately, Pro has spent so much time focusing on the vastness of the Universe that she has completely failed to describe how such alien life could come about. Indeed, it seems that Pro is simply asserting that with enough space and time, life will just spontaneously arise from non-living matter. In order to affirm the resolution, Pro must prove that it is reasonable to believe that abiogenesis is possible, and given enough space and time, abiogenesis will take place. Sadly, abiogenesis violates the law of biogenesis [1], and has yet to have been observed in nature. Thus Pro must prove that there are probable pathways for abiogenesis to take place, otherwise her entire position is rendered a bare assertion fallacy. I await my opponent's case for either abiogenesis, or some other means of creating alien life. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: A living human can never live their lives without sinning. A sinless Perfection debate.

I will defend against the impossibility of a person, from a point forward in their life, not sinning again. Or, I will contend a person can, while alive find themselves at a point they can not sin, and that they will not sin while they live. I will not use Wesleyan, Finnean, etc.... arguments, although undoubtedly there will be some cross arguments we all use or are similar in use. It has been apparent that when I take the affirmative saying sinless perfection (nasty and misleading term) can be and is expected to be reached in this life, people don't listen to the arguments and just argue cliches... Format makes sense to be : Affirmative presentation, Negative refutation, Affirmative rebuttal. Negative close. Affirmative close. Although the negative close should get two posts, ideally 1.5. Not sure how to arrange it.
Wait for sex with the one you love before marriage--NON BIBLICAL APPROACH Pro

Am I allowed to say LOL in a debate? with only 9 minutes left to respond before I go to work, and if I wait until after work my time will have run out. So I apologize if my responses are not thorough,Yes, I also enjoyed this non aggressive debate with respect to Con would love to do this again sometime. I present my last stance….. I do want to clarify when someone says SHOULD, it can express a sense of authority, control or superiority. I wanted to clarify that when I said we should wait for sex, if was not expressing domination of ones actions, but rather encouragement, saying should In the sense of as a friend would say it like ‘Should not drive drunk" Another clarification, in debate I was thinking on broader scope with sub issues of two people being in love, but again my 3,000 limit made this feat difficult. Such as how past sex behavior can affect marriage life. If one gives in to moral temptation before marriage, what's to stop him or her from giving in to moral temptation once married? sex partners in the past have effected marriages, they were more prone to infidelity, because of pleasure thoughts of old partners they wish they could have tried out one more time, sex is powerful and creates atomic bomb psychological attachments, we have even seen good men who loved their wife, destroyed by one case of infidelity, contrary to popular belief its been rumored that even Dr. Martin Luther King, gave in to this. Con clarified for me he was referring to testing he was only saying "We learn to communicate and love by the act of communicating and loving." However the flaw is that we are always communicating a loving, a criteria can be met, but not perfectly, and at best it is idealized, even when criteria was met before marriage, after marriage many of that criteria seems to dissipate as couples get feel one no longer meets that criteria. communication and love was is important yes, but even though Con did not say the word sex, Cons default stance in this communication and love implies though sex to be a part of that communication, I I am implying that it does not need to be. We can discuss the past and communicate and love and develop intimacy. …If we wait until marriage, that person will be the only experience, Many think a relationship without sex is no relationship at all but Sex is what is killing many relationships and leaving many people heartbroken. The longer a couple waited to have sex, the better that sexual quality, relationship communication, relationship satisfaction and perceived relationship stability was in marriage. how does a parent respond when asked, "Why did you not wait until you were married?" what example does that set for the child? If divorced, what example do parents set in regard to dating and sex? Do they believe it is acceptable for them, to have pre-marital sex whenever they feel like it? If so, should they expect anything different from their children? Now unwanted pregnancies and stds will abound. :( out of space
Wait for sex with the one you love before marriage--NON BIBLICAL APPROACH Pro

Thanks for your response, I like your writing style. it seems we got compoundedly sidetracked with the incest analogy, I cant go In depth it strays away from debate. There is a misunderstanding here, I was only responding to a statement you made about anyone can love without being married and I was agreeing with that, I added to what you were saying not a rebuttal by simply saying, that based on the Christian perspective, marriage was designed a certain way, so leeway couldn't't be created like incest or like you said marriage to a plant or animal. Although due to peoples nature, this leeway has been breached, there was a woman who married the Eiffel Tower her last name is now, Eiffel. http://www.nydailynews.com... "Con has already admitted that marriage does not imply love." I agree on the technical level that, one could marry without being in love, but I do not agree that one SHOULD get married without being IN love nor, I believe one shouldn't marry if they cannot keep a commitment and commitments are kept because they love someone, so I do in fact believe marriage is for love, I agreed with you in the sense that individuals can personally choose to marry and not base it on love within their personal concepts. "Pro has stated that testing is bad in reference to people seeking compatibility. Pro then goes on to substitute her own testing, the waiting before marriage to have sex kind of testing, as a condition of compatibility" A simple misunderstanding; I don't see waiting for sex as a test for compatibility, basing it on trying to see if variable "A" or "B" will test/prove or show that marriage, sex or love will work out, is a flawed test from the onset. Outside factors will always come into play that is independent of this supposed test and thwart such a test from a genuine assessment. So waiting until marriage for compatibility is inaccurate expression of love. However, Con seems to hint at testing, Con stated "People learn by living. Wouldn't it be better to know you are with the right soul mate from experience or is it better to roll the dice based on an illogical assumption?" It seems the way your going about it, is a test, not to use a straw man argument, but need a honest understanding of your stance, I agree we do not just marry on a whim and hope it works, getting married does take some living by experience situations, But sex doesn't have to be one of them, we can perform a genuine assessment of a persons character in other ways. I'm confused, Con mentioned that sex isn't necessary to pursue long term relationship and Con agreed that if one is compassionate with another they would not drop the relationship because of sex, If Con agrees with this, then why does one NEED to have sex before marriage? Will address scarce model next round. I did run out of space last rd, I couldn't type. (maybe a glitch idk) also I'm a Man not a woman