BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If we can't enact lobbying reform let's at least let consumer groups hold public office

Well yes I am rather modest about the scope of this proposal. In fact I wonder where you are going with objections that it is more complicated or expensive than the present system, such as that the proposal would require election reform. That is the least it would require. If anything like this has ever been tried before I am not aware of it. It will require massive changes in the way we think about politics. Even more amusing is your objection that it would involve more people in government and make it more complicated. That is the whole point. We have people with nothing to do anyway, who would welcome the opportunity to participate in government as a public service, and many more who would be eager to even have their views heard. The problem is crooks, not efficiency. Any scheme to get the public to take an interest in government would replace a thousand boring civics classes, the ones I attended anyway. But this was when there were just sole proprieterships, parnerships and corporations. What if those boring classes were replaced with actual participation in government? And if that's not enough you are wondering how this can be done under existing law. Well if it can't then get new laws or do away with laws and lawyers I don't care. The problem is too many lawyers anyway. In an ideal society there would be no lawyers. Need for an attorney restricts access to the law to those who can afford it. It's Congree which is mostly lawyers which is causing the problem. Attorneys cannot even be trained to speak normal English. I was using the word "corporation" in a purely informal sense to mean any group of people. I believe I stated as much. Perhaps HUD Secretary Coalition of the Homeless, or Defense Secretary Veterans' Alliance could better explain some of the ways of thinking we have to shed such as this "Board of Directors" mindset. I hope it's revolutionary and as for expensive we'll just end up giving it all away on top of trillions of dollars already given to the rich which will be used to make our money worthless so what's a few more or less and why not spend it on something constructive instead of digging ourselves in deeper. It's only money. See my "Money is worthless" debate. Better yet don't, it's only has half the hits this one has. 8000 characters is too long. I think shorter times and more rounds would improve the debate. I'm tired of reading this. I'm just going to submit it.
If we can't enact lobbying reform let's at least let consumer groups hold public office

After spending some time studying corporate law, I am still unable to find any way to protect a corporation from outside influences. The PAC's you listed were not all corporations. Seven are run by unions, the AMPAC is a PAC set up by a corporation, and after fifteen minutes of looking, I don't know if Emily's list is a corporation or not. The NRA is. This makes me kind of confused about where you were going. It IS possible to set up corporations without selling stock in them publicly, but it would still result in an extension of government by committee, which would slow down the workings of our government. I agree with you that these companies do a pretty good job sticking to their missions, however, if the corporation was holding public office, it would have to deal with issues that are outside of its missions. The Senator from Alaska still has to deal with regulations on the production of oranges, even though that's not a big campaign issue up north. Those issues would be unpredictable. Where now it is possible to compromise and work together, that requires one individual making decisions. A consumer group would have to send nearly every issue to its board of directors, just to make sure that it knew what to do. Further questions arise from the pay structure. Would all of the income come from donations, or would the government fund the groups? What about travel expenses when the board of directors have to meet? Would individuals who were elected receive different funding? My question about corporations controlling the rules under which they operate is only emphasized by the corporation being a PAC. Especially since that raises issues about PAC funding. If the PAC itself is a candidate, is it still subject to financing restrictions? Is the donor limit the same? Can it spend more than $5,000 dollars a year on its campaign? These issues would create havoc in our country, destroying our election system, rewriting campaign law, increasing taxes, and ultimately result in a government that would be even less efficient (if that's even possible).
If we can't enact lobbying reform let's at least let consumer groups hold public office

I was going to work on this a little more but there is quite enough here to keep you busy for the few minutes it takes you to reply. I will let you imagine the rest. Clearly you are not a chess player. OK let's suppose we have two choices: reconstruct Congress as it is, an enormously expensive bureaucracy, or maybe improve on it. I am sure you would argue that the present situation is just fine. Welll if you want Shell Oil as your Senator, cool, but let's say we want to establish a corporation, as I believe I mentioned, expressly for the purpose of holding political office, say in the neighborhood of 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(12), rather than to make a profit, which appears to be your concept of a "corporation". Just as we choose and vote for, in theory anyway, honest candidates, Shell Oil would not be a particularly good vote getter, as opposed to, say Consumer Reports, which of course is also a corporation but with a primary purpose other than making money. Note that these consumer organizations are able to and are in fact presently performing their functions in spite of enormous commercial pressures to subvert them, proving that it is possible. All the money we use to maintain the physical buildings and offices of Capitol Hill for crooks to do business can be saved since corporations are simply groups of people. Voting in Congress could just as easily be done electronically anyway. The real weakness of our system is that most people would rather not have anything to do with it except to vote. The public is not informed on the issues because the real issues are not discussed during an election. Of course Americans ignore election politics. It is irrelevant. Of course any such outfit would automatically become a Political Action Committee (PAC) and subject to pretty strict Federal regulation. Certainly there will be enormous pressure from special interests. In the 2004 elections, the top 10 PACs by money spent by themselves, their affiliates and subsidiaries were as follows: EMILY's List $22,767,521 Service Employees International Union $12,899,352 American Federation of Teachers $12,789,296 American Medical Association $11,901,542 National Rifle Association $11,173,358 Teamsters Union $11,128,729 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,819,724 National Education Association $10,521,538 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees $9,882,022 Laborers' International Union of North America $9,523,837 Now regardless of your opinion of these outfits, they do what they are intended to do. They are not subverted by anyone despite enormous pressure, which is I believe pretty much addresses the point of your arguments. Shell Oil also does exactly what it is intended to do. Very of their members are complaining that they were betrayed or subverted by their organization. Congress, on the other hand,
If we can't enact lobbying reform let's at least let consumer groups hold public office

Hopefully you won't have to try too hard. Consumer groups should not be permitted to hold public office because they are undemocratic, their formation and operation is regulated by law, and the amount of corruption would increase. Due to the fact that you also referred to them as corporations, I am operating under the assumption that by consumer groups you mean legally established corporations. First of all, all corporations are undemocratic. Unless one gave a single share of non-transferable stock to everyone in the country, it would be impossible for a corporation to consistently follow the will of the people. Even if every shareholder had equal voting rights (meaning the number of shares was irrelevant), the corporation would still be out of control of the public in its day to day operations. We do this all the time with our politicians of course, but a politician at least has a personality, even though the existence of their morals is debatable. A corporation, whose opinions exist only by the ballot of the stockholders or board of directors, would be an unknown. Its positions on even the largest issues could change daily. This is when corporations are functioning normally. Hostile takeovers would become more common, as political parties fought for control of elected corporations. Foreign countries would invest heavily in corporate stock, giving them a voice in our government. Foreign countries would be unable to predict how we would act. Both foreign and domestic policy would be impossible to predict, wrecking havoc on both the economy and foreign relations. Second, the operations of corporations are regulated by law. By allowing Corporations to be elected, you allow them to choose their own rules. Even ignoring the issues raised in my first point, corporations would be focused more on maintaining power than what was good for the people. Since what they are allowed to do is regulated by a separate set of laws (Corporate Law), corporations would find it much easier to simply change rules that they don't like. For instance, the founding of new corporations could be outlawed, eliminating competition. Finally, corruption would actually increase if corporations were holding public office. A corporation would be much more capable of hiding bribes, since there would be so many more people. Also, bribes could be given to just one person who was capable of changing the course of the entire corporation. It would become impossible to determine who actually took the bribe, or even if it was really a bribe. And what would constitute bribery? Would buying stock be considered a bribe? You're giving someone money in order to have a voice in their decisions, aren't you? No matter how tough your anti-lobbying measures are, corporations would always be able to find a way around them. In conclusion, allowing consumer groups to hold public office would result in erratic decisions, a desperate fight to maintain power, and widespread corruption. ... Even worse than things are today.
If we can't enact lobbying reform let's at least let consumer groups hold public office

This one is so easy I would have to try hard to lose it. Someday people will study the Age of Corruption when individuals could be elected to public office and accept bribes at will, and this being common knowledge and nothing being done about it. Corporations act as people, and have all the rights people have, except holding public office, which in fact it may be possible under current law if a corporation can meet age and residency requirements in order to to register to vote. Those junk phone calls you are receiving even though you are on the don't call list is because corporations have freedom of speech just like we do. A consumer group structured to hold public office could do a much better job than one person possibly could. Lobbying and the taking of bribes, the biggest problems with our government at all levels, would virtually disappear. Tough anti-lobbying measures are needed in any case: anyone caught giving or taking bribes loses their job and goes to the Big House and is personally liable for damages. It will make government accountable.
People who abuse drugs and alcohol should be denied access to intensive care units.

More than just arguing for the substance abusers, I'll argue that all men unconditionally deserve the right to immediate medical attention. Although I will not put forth any argument until the next round, I will use a moment to attempt to lay down a mutually agreeable groundwork for our debate: What is drug abuse? First, it's prudent to establish what constitutes an "abuse" of drugs and alcohol. I propose the definition as put forth by the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR). Drug abuse is defined by 42 CFR 2.11 as “the use of a psychoactive substance for other than medicinal purposes which impairs the physical, mental, emotional, or social well-being of the user. ”Drug abusers then are ones who willfully abuses drugs on a routine basis. What is intensive care unit (ICU)? Wikipedia defines ICU as: Intensive care units cater to patients with severe and life-threatening illnesses and injuries, which require constant, close monitoring and support from specialist equipment and medications in order to ensure normal bodily functions. They are staffed by highly trained doctor sand nurses who specialise in caring for critically ill which I think agrees with our commonsense understanding of the term. Hopefully my opponent will find these definitions reasonable and unskewed. I look foward to my opponent's arguments.
should illegal immagrents all be deported

Rebuttal It is not true that most illegal immigrants do not have jobs, in fact, the reason most illegal immigrants come is because they are looking for a job. This is usually for unskilled manual jobs that weren't being done by the 'indigenous' populations anyway. You have not provided any evidence at all, never-mind enough evidence to warrant genocide. But this debate does not concern genocide, the resolution is about deporting immigrants. Conclusion Pro has made bare assertions and I have called him out. Resolution negated.
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

The most important point in my opponent's last response was the idea that the Bible says that you must follow its rules in order to enjoy the blessings of Heaven. I will comprehensively debunk it--I may not have time for the others. The Bible was not written to us. It is not meant to be understood through our modern perspective. Our modern perspective, driven by morals-based religions and the general social environment (a market economy, earn-your-own-keep society), cannot understand the Bible. In fact, the free gift is such an anti-human concept that most humans cannot even understand it. Let me begin my counterargument with the most vivid demonstration of how false this idea is. Luke's gospel gives an account of how a "bandit", "terrorist", "insurrectionist", or whatever the translation says, dies on a crucifix next to Jesus. While Jesus is hanging on the cross, he tells this sinner, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). Basically, he told a bad man that he was going to Heaven when he died. The reason was this: The man said, "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong" (v. 41). He realised that he had sinned, but that Jesus had never done anything wrong. He realised that Jesus was the king of Heaven (v. 42). In simply believing that Jesus could save him, he became immediately saved from Hell. There was no good deed required to achieve this. Even Abraham, who is buried all the way back in Genesis, did not achieve salvation by obeying God's rules. God accepted him before he was circumcised (that is, before he was even "Jewish") because Abraham BELIEVED God. Genesis 15:6 says that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." So without doing a single good deed, Abraham was credited as righteous. Have you read the story in which Abraham gets his son to carry the wood of his sacrifice up a hill near Jerusalem? Similarly, Jesus carried a wooden cross up a hill near Jerusalem to sacrifice himself for all of humanity. Abraham believed in Jesus through his son, Isaac, even though Jesus had not been born yet. As a result, Abraham is in the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 8:11; Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6; Heb. 11:19 especially). So you see that even without showing the many verses that clearly say that salvation is a free gift (Eph. 2:8, Rom. 9:14-16, etc.; Acts 16:30-31), I have demonstrated that following rules does not get you into the kingdom of Heaven--the sacrifice of Jesus does, and his resurrection from the dead. For example, Paul said that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all" (1Tim 1:15). So Paul was the worst sinner, but Jesus saved him. One must simply "believe in him for eternal life" (v. 16). The Bible even says that if you try to follow God's rules to be saved, you will be eternally condemned (Gal. 5:4). If salvation is through God's rules, then Christ died for no reason (Gal. 2:21).
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

Starting it off with your "types" concept, I am very confused as to how this changes anything. This seems to be what I addressed in my 3rd section of the "Prophecies" section. i.e. " "Most of the Old Testament prophesies claimed by New Testament writers to be prophesies that Jesus fulfilled were not even meant as messianic prophecies""I am glad that you "concede the possibility" that "not all Old Testament types or prophecies are fabricated in the New Testament", however, I do agree, not all are, but as I said in my 4th "prophecies" argument, "Some of the prophesies claimed to be fulfilled in the New Testament were not in either Testaments. Examples"". Like I said in my 1st argument, "referring me to corroborating credible primary sources" could discredit such problems. You did mention Bart Ehrman, but I would never take anyone"s word for such a claim, without evidence."The Bible, in this view, would seem to become the greatest novel ever written", no offence to you, like the whole debate, but I like my novels to be consistent and non-threatening. I am glad that you do acknowledge the chance of the bibles prophecies to be "grounded in falsehood", but I gave you evidence as to why this is a fair conclusion, to prove that the prophecies are not "grounded in falsehood" you can simply refer "me to corroborating credible primary sources".Just to set this straight, my 3rd argument argues "Most of the Old Testament prophesies claimed by New Testament writers to be prophesies that Jesus fulfilled were not even meant as messianic prophecies in the first place.", and I used Psalm 22 in conjunction with Matthew 27 as an example. I also referred you to a list of even more examples. Back to Psalm 22, I do not see how singing to god for help is prophesizing, but I guess that is up for debate, like I said, if you need more examples there are plenty there.I do see what you mean by the translation, but you must remember, the 1st line of the debate is "My opponent must be a Christian that believes in every word of the bible." Now this is not a bible that you theorize, but the copy"s available to all of us.I don"t know how but I did make a mistake with Matthew16:28, but that is fine, there are another 15 examples I gave you. GOOD PICKUP!You didn"t address the psychic and quantum mechanics, however, I do understand that we were both short for characters, you can include that in this round to come!Free gift time! I am fairly sure there is no free salvation gift. Like all religions, you must follow the rules given in each of the holy books. From the bible itself, there is a lot of talk about suffering (hell, Satan, revelations), not nice stuff, and the way you avoid this suffering, follow the bibles rules! No believing in another god, no murder etc. Not really free, or any more free than some/most/other religions.Thanks for debating, lucky for you, you have the final word and can address "the psychic and quantum mechanics" refutes without defence.
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe - read rules!

I really appreciate the well-researched response. My opponent has definitely given me a lot to think about. It's also important that whoever is reading this, whether Christian or not, realises that his argument is sophisticated and capable. However, unearthing the mysteries of the Bible sometimes means excavating really deep, rather than expanding the size of your dig. With regard to the prophecies which my opponent has spoken of, I neglected to mention the theological concept of "types". Types in the Old and New Testaments are really interesting. They are textual elements which represent other textual elements or acclaimed realities. For example, a type for Jesus dying on the cross would be the Bronze Serpent that Moses placed on a pole to save his people from their sins. Jesus refers to this event in John 3 to describe himself. Now it appears to me that even the most vehement historical critics of the Christian narrative concede that Jesus died on a crucifix and seemed to many people to be alive afterwards. For example, Bart Ehrman is a radical New Testament scholar who disregards most but not all of the sightings of Jesus after his alleged death. So not all Old Testament types or prophecies are fabricated in the New Testament, although I humbly concede the possibility. Even if the types and prophecies are found to be grounded in falsehood rather than history, it's important that we realise that there are extraordinary textual links between the Old and the New Testaments that, at the very least, are highly poetic and very complex. The Bible, in this view, would seem to become the greatest novel ever written. Speaking for myself, I find the links otherworldly as I am constantly finding more types in places where previously I never would have expected to find a type. The claims that Jesus made about himself being the temple, the Rock, the sacrifice, and every other Old Testament symbol, open up an amazing world to be explored. My opponent's third point argues that Psalm 22 is not a messianic prophecy. However, the Jewish community prior to Jesus viewed this as messianic, if not a prophecy. It refers to royalty and the concept of God's kingdom rule. For example, the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 BCE) links the Psalm to Esther. Now, messiah does not mean "saviour" or "Lord". It means "Christ" or "king". The royal nature of this psalm does allow for a messianic religious interpretation--as indeed occurred! I do not have any information about types and prophecies that are not found in either Testament. All I can say is that the Scriptures have a complicated linguistic and theological background. For example, the Greek translations of antiquity share considerable variance with the Hebrew and Aramaic. With the prophecies that go unfulfilled, my opponent needs to be very careful. For example, Matt. 16:28 is fulfilled in the very next passage! The context yields that the Transfiguration is the fulfilment. He also needs to address the "free gift" idea.