BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the "regular" First Past The Post system we used today, found the "early predicted winner", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... "Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything." - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's "Hacking Democracy"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.
The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

The US should switch their voting system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote, or Instant Runoff Voting. This would help people to elect who they really want, not who they think has the best chance. Let me give you an example. Here's what happens under our current system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. But you know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have a chance at winning. So instead of throwing away your vote, you vote for the Republican candidate. Here's with the new system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. So you rank him #1 on your ballot. Now out of all the other candidates, your second favorite is the Constitutionalist candidate. So you rank him #2. After that, you'd rather have the Republican candidate than the Democrat, so you rank the Republican #3. Finally, you don't really like any of the others, so you turn in your ballot like such. This would open the door to third-party candidates that don't get their fair say. It IS within our reach. Countries that already use it either for their Congress or leader: Australia Canada Fiji India Ireland New Zealand Papua New Guinea Even some places in the USA already use it, like Berkeley, California Basalt, Colorado And many others. So here's how they count it: They take all of the #1 ranked candidates and get the results. Then, the candidate who has the least amount of votes is taken out, and then they count all of the #2 votes from the people who ranked him #1 and adjust accordingly. They do this until someone reaches over 50% or their are only 2 candidates left. We can change America for the better, we just have to have the willpower.
Abortion is wrong

So this is your argument: "embryos are not humans," right? You keep saying that as if it is a premise we agree on, but we don't, that is what this debate is about. You are begging the question here. I have refuted all of your criteria for a person (sentience, full development, living independently of someone else) you just clearly have not read them. If somebody is in a coma, they cannot respond to stimuli and they cannot think, and by your logic somebody who cannot feel or think is not a person, but that logic would not apply to a comatose person, right? After that you say, "but a comatose person has already been born and is fully-developed," but again, a kid is not fully-developed, but kids are still people. You have not described how passing the birth canal makes somebody a person. Not being able to live independently of someone else doesn't mean you are not a person (back to the conjoined twins example). What you are doing, is not even trying to understand my argument, and that means you are not honest about debating this. Because at least I try and understand where you're coming from, that's why I ask for clarification. You're purposely making your arguments as long and wordy as possible so I won't have time to refute them all. You need to be succinct if you actually want to have an honest debate. The statistics do not prove anything "wrong" because my claim that embryos are people has not been proven wrong by you. Again, that is what we are debating about. Do you understand everything that I am saying? Because I am happy to clear anything up if need be.
Abortion is wrong

The majority cases of abortion do not matter because we are just arguing whether or not an embryo is a person. The time when most people get abortions says nothing about whether a zygote deserves protection or not. You're saying "most people get abortions in the first trimester" and trying to relate that to "therefore a zygote is not a person." Those two claims are not related, if you want to prove an embryo is not a person then you can do that on its own without bringing in the stats. If most people got abortions in the second or third trimester would that all of a sudden make an embryo a person? No, so the stats are independent of that claim. A newborn baby also consists of "developing cells," like an embryo, as you said, are newborns not people? You may have outlined the criteria for personhood but I refuted those criteria. You said a person has to be sentient/conscious, be able to live on its own, and be born already. Well if someone is sleeping they are not conscious, but they're still people. If somebody needs kidney dialysis they cannot live on their own, they're still people. Where you are located spatially is not relevant to whether you're a person or not. If I walk out of this room, would I stop being a person? Like what exactly makes you not a person if you're inside somebody else? You say conjoined twins are alive but so is an embryo, it is a biotic entity and it is certainly not dead, so how can you say a baby is alive but not an embryo? You say the difference between you and an embryo is that you are a fully-developed human who can survive independently. Well babies are not fully-developed, they have a lot of developing to do, and if a baby is on life support, maybe born prematurely, they cannot live on their own. So a baby on life support cannot live independently and is not fully-developed, is it not a person? Just because CIP is rare, that doesn't mean people afflicted by it are not people. Bottom line: you claim that the difference between you and an embryo is that you are sentient, fully-developed, and can survive independently. By that logic, a newborn baby on life support is not a person because they are not capable of thought, as you admit, they are not fully-developed, and they cannot survive independently. You say babies will "gradually begin to develop thought" but you can say that about an embryo too; given enough time, an embryo will become a thinking being. You keep trying to bring the frequency of abortions in this argument. That's not what we're arguing. Let's say nobody gets an abortion ever again, you could still argue whether or not zygotes are people, and if every single person got an abortion, you can still have that personhood debate. So the frequency of something happening to an entity does not determine if that entity is a person or not, do you understand?
Abortion is wrong

Well the statistics are not really relevant here because we're just talking about right vs. wrong, it doesn't matter how often something occurs to determine if it is right or wrong. No, removing cells is not wrong, but an embryo is more than cells, just like you. So tell me, what is the difference between you and a zygote? You didn't quite say, you just assumed the premise that embryos are not persons, which is not true. Just because someone can't survive on its own, that doesn't mean he/she is not a person; conjoined twins cannot live on their own (sometimes), but they're still people are they not? Not being "protected by law" doesn't mean you're not a person; black people were not protected by law back in the nineteenth century, were they not people? The law is not a basis for morality. Newborn babies are not really capable of thought either, but they're still people. Some people don't have emotions, and some can't feel physical pain (called Congenital Insensitivity to Pain (CIP)), but they're still people. You say cells are not a life, just a "potential" but if they're not living are they dead? Or just abiotic? Nobody's continued existence is guaranteed; we could all ie tomorrow, doesn't mean we're not people. When people are sleeping, they are not conscious, but they are still people.
Abortion is wrong

Ah yes, one of the most famous bioethical issues out there. So I'm against it, here's why: I think it's wrong to kill people and I think fetuses are people too; they have their own DNA and are forming their own bodily systems. Sure you can say they're a bundle of cells but so are you and I, we have a right to life. You can say they can't live on their own so they are not people, but neither can people who need insulin, and they're still people. You can say you don't have a right to use someone else's body to live, but by that logic a conjoined twin can kill the other. Etc.
War With Iran

AggressivenessYes, I remember now. However, that institution has already been disposed of and is now irrelevant. Again, Iran does not have to attack Israel directly to hurt the nation. They can point a nuclear weapon at them and force them to live in fear as the USSR did to us in the Cold War or they can use this material to help terror groups hurt Israel. Nuclear Weapons1) Iran does not have the capability of managing nuclear power. We have waste yes but we have the necessary precautions in place to deal with any nuclear accidents that may come our way. Iran does not. Their level of technology is far lower than ours. 2) There have been many foiled attempts by Hezbollah to attack Israel that were stopped by Israeli intelligence. Just because the attacks haven't been successful doesn't mean they're not there. [1] Hezbollah has tried repeated attempts to attack Israel in the past few years but has been made unable to do so but that doesn't mean they are no longer a threat. Also, Iran supports far more than just Hezbollah and have fiscally supported many groups who have attacked both Israel and the United States. This threat of terrorism is not isolated to merely Hezbollah. Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear materials. [2] Long RangeIt has been proven Iran has the capability of attacking US and Israeli targets with missiles. Iran has nuclear materials and are trying to gather more but not enough for an energy source and can therefore be assumed they have the capability for creating a nuclear missile. - Israel was never proven to be involved with the attack on those scientists. Iran openly supports terrorism. I provided the financial numbers in source two. This attack was never confessed to be by Israeli design. Everything else is mere speculation.War Without InvasionWe can go to war without invading Iran by land. This point was ceded in my favor. Also, I invite my opponent to a debate about the accuracy of Wikipedia as a source. Conclusion- Iran supports anti-Israel and anti-US terror groups and could give nuclear materials to these groups to be used in an attack.- Iran has no need for nuclear energy at the present time.- Iran is openly hostile to Israel and the United States.- Iran has the capability to build a nuclear missile.- We can bomb Iran to prevent these things without starting a full scale land war.- Iran is a danger to the region, to the US and to Israel. [1] http://www.haaretz.com...[2] http://www.theisraelproject.org...
War With Iran

I will begin this debate with an overall assessment of the situation with Iran as well as my position and argument. Iran is currently under pressure from most of the Western world due to claims that it is developing nuclear weapons and intends to act aggressively toward other Middle Eastern countries. There is mixed sentiment on the subject of whether or not America should declare war on Iran and invade them. I personally am strongly against an invasion of Iran because I believe that it is an unprovoked show of violence which would only serve to further sour our relations with Iran. Also, there is no proof that they are building nuclear weapons and they do not have the capacity to attack us or our allies.
Queen is easily the most popular and influential band in the history of the post-Beatle era.

First of all, if your gonna argue topicality then thats great and all, but I think the underlying message of this topic is clear. I did not add an "s" to Beatle- but i don't believe that will make much of a difference. 1) Your polls: who the hell made them? There is no citation of the author listed on the page. Therefore, I can safely assume that this is a biased piece of evidence that should be disregarded. Also, that website was updated on 4-17-05, which is 2 YEARS ago! These polls are misleading- Queen was placed way below than they should have been. 2)Queen DOES qualify as post-Beatles era: a quote from Wikipedia states, "1970–present: Shortly before and after the official dissolution of the group, all four Beatles released solo albums, including Lennon's John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, McCartney's McCartney, Starr's Sentimental Journey, and Harrison's All Things Must Pass." George Harrison's "Let It Be" was recorded without John Lennon (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In addition, John Lennon announced his departure from the band in September of 1969, BEFORE Queen was formed. 3) Popularity: As of 2005, according to The Guinness Book of World Records, Queen albums have spent a total of 1,322 weeks or twenty-seven years on the United Kingdom album charts; more time than any other musical act including The Beatles and Elvis Presley. (http://news.scotsman.com...) I think this answers your argument on popularity- Queen was the only band in the WORLD to ever achieve this feat. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)has a list of artist who believed they were influenced the most by Queen, including Anthrax, Ben Folds Five,[45] Boston, Blind Guardian,[46] Def Leppard,[47] The Darkness, Extreme,[48] Foo Fighters, The Germs, The Go Go's, Davey Havok, The Killers,[49] Steve Vai,[50] Guns N' Roses,[51]Helloween,[52]Iron Maiden,[53]Judas Priest,[54]Kansas,[55] Metallica,[56] George Michael, Marilyn Manson, Kaiser Chiefs, Muse, Mika,[57]My Chemical Romance,[58] Nine Inch Nails, Panic! at the Disco, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins, Switches, Max Cavalera,[59][60] Styx,[61], Sweet,[62], and Dragonforce. Ironically, many of these bands on your poll were placed above Queen lol!
Queen is easily the most popular and influential band in the history of the post-Beatle era.

This argument is clearly assembled in such a way to attempt to prohibit pre-Beatles bands. However, the influence of a band is throughout history. The phrasing of the topic demands not that the band be beyond the Beatles era, but the influence. Further I argue that the band, The Beatles, is not "Beatle", and as such the area contended is perhaps a bit ambiguous. I argue that if accepted as a prohibition of all bands after the Beatles, that Queen does not qualify as post Beatles-era. The Beatles, Harrison's "I Me Mine", recorded January 3rd, 1970 and released on the Let It Be Album was the final song of the Beatles. Queen however formed in late 1969. The band Queen formed prior to the breakup of the Beatles. They are a band in the post-Beatles era. Many polls on exactly this question do not find that Queen is the most influential band: http://digitaldreamdoor.com... For example, asks this exact question: Elvis Presley 2. The Beatles 3. Chuck Berry 4. James Brown 5. Bob Dylan 6. Buddy Holly 7. Jimi Hendrix 8. Ray Charles 9. The Beach Boys 10. Little Richard 11. Aretha Franklin 12. Led Zeppelin 13. Sam Cooke 14. Stevie Wonder 15. Pink Floyd 16. Clyde McPhatter 17. Bill Haley & The Comets 18. Fats Domino 19. The Velvet Underground 20. Bo Diddley 21. The Rolling Stones 22. The Who 23. Johnny Otis 24. Black Sabbath 25. The Byrds 26. The Kinks 27. Prince 28. Neil Young 29. The Everly Brothers 30. Sonny Til & The Orioles 31. Eddie Cochran 32. Sly and The Family Stone 33. The Supremes 34. The Ramones 35. Cream 36. Big Joe Turner 37. David Bowie 38. Link Wray 39. The Clash 40. Janis Joplin 41. The Shirelles 42. Marvin Gaye 43. George Clinton & Parliament/Funkadelic 44. The "5" Royales 45. The Sex Pistols 46. Nirvana 47. Curtis Mayfield & The Impressions 48. Otis Redding 49. R.E.M. 50. Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers 51. Roy Orbison 52. Joni Mitchell 53. The Stooges 54. Carl Perkins 55. Van Halen 56. Patti Smith 57. Smokey Robinson & The Miracles 58. The Yardbirds All beat Queen coming in at 59th place. I further contend that though, Queen may in fact, be the most popular and influential band from the 1970s. This cannot be "easily" established. Popularity may be established via record sales. As such, a look at record sales finds that even ABBA and Celine Dion outsell Queen. http://en.wikipedia.org... My arguments are as follows: Influence such as that of the Beatles is felt in the post-Beatles era, by not only the Beatles, but from other bands. The phrasing of the above topic does not cite any known band. No band is called "Beatle". Queen formed during the Beatles Era, and is therefore exempt. Polls show that the Beatles, as well as 57 OTHER bands are more influential. Queen may be the most influential, but due to record sales cannot be most popular.
Queen is easily the most popular and influential band in the history of the post-Beatle era.

Queen has had a number of great international hits that have risen to dominate charts in more than 15 different concerts. Queen is also known for their audience participation involvement during concerts, making the crowd feel at unison with their music. "We are the Champions" was voted the most recognizable song in the world (internationally.) Bohemian Rhapsody was also another of their major hits that stayed at #1 in the charts for two weeks. Though bands such as Led Zeppelin or Kiss have been extremely popular, the fact remains that no other band has even come close to matching the legend of Queen. Have I also mentioned that Freddie Mercury was voted the #1 male singer of all-time?
Queen is easily the most popular and influential band in the history of the post-Beatle era.

Okay. I concede a number of those arguments. The S at the end of Beatle isn't required. You are quite right that they are most selling and I concede that they are extremely popular. And there may not be an overlap between Queen and the official split of the Beatles. However, the one argument you didn't address is perhaps the strongest and most obvious. Influence such as that of the Beatles is felt in the post-Beatles era. You cannot gauge the influence of a band based on whether or not they formed prior to some event, you can however show their influence within a given period of time. I will concede all the influence the Beatles had prior to 1970 (which, in itself, is significant) and yet strongly contend that the influence exerted by the Beatles in the post-Beatle period (1970-2007) is easily greater than Queen. And even if you argue that it is not easily greater than, you are still hard pressed to argue that the Beatles' influence in the post-Beatle period is "easily" less than Queen. In fact, I daresay the limit to Post-Beatle influence was strictly because you knew that the Beatles have been strongly influencing, however even the influence they exerted after their break-up is more than enough to give Queen a run for their money. Queen's influence in the post-Beatle period is less than the Beatles' influence in the same period, even if one discounts their influence while the band was together. This suffices to show that Queen is not "easily the most influential band".
Marijuana should be legal

'it should not be legal because it is misused more often than not. ' That is my opponents opinion that is certinally not universal , also who are you to impose your own morality onto others , If a person smokes marijuana he accepts that there is a risk , should we start banning extreme sports ? suicide attempts ? junk food? '. the world would go insane if it was legal and then there would be a death toll.' death toll? there is no recorded death from the use of marijuana . Also saying that its insane is also my opponents opinion and cannot be used as an argument , It is already legal in Urugway , Colorado and Washington and none of the scary scenarios conservatives have represented have happened also marijuana was legal for a long time it was only starting to get criminalized at the start of the 20th century because of propaganda campaigns and the wood industry campaigning for it because hemp (made from marijuana) was powerful in the paper producing business.
Matt Smith was a good Doctor Who!

Matt Smith was a good Doctor and played the role admirably. David Tennant may have been a better Doctor however he had the advantage of a better story lines as Russel T Davies was a much better writer for Doctor Who that Steven Moffat was. Because of this Matt Smith was seen as an underrated Doctor and is berated by people for it. It is unfair and unjust to view him as a bad Doctor as you always need to take into account the skill of the writer. He also gets grilled more than he should as David Tennant, who player the best Doctor due to his magnificent reprisal of the show, was the Doctor before him so Smith had to live up to the high standard that had been left behind in Tennant's wake.