BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Electoral College is Misrepresentative

My opponent's final statement was this: "The electoral college is not representative of America that was the point of this debate" Yes, I agree. This was my opponent's point of the debate. However, he has failed to uphold that resolution. He has provided no evidence showing that it did not represent America. The electoral college is THE method by which we elect a president in this nation, this seems to me to be a key indication that it is representative. However, let us examine the resolution: "The Electoral College is Misrepresentative" This does not mention what the Electoral college misrepresents or represents. I just assumed that my opponent meant that it represented incorrectly, dubiously, or poorly. It does none of the above. I have provided ample sources showing how the electoral college adequately represents the votes of each one of the panelists. Their names are provided in the source I gave, it is clear as day that there is no misrepresentation. The fact that my opponent keeps saying that there is, does not make it so. I can keep calling my opponent a liberal, but that does not make him a liberal. Since my opponent has failed to uphold his resolution and failed to counter my arguments, I urge a CON vote. Thank you to the audience and to my opponent.
The Electoral College is Misrepresentative

My opponent is attempting to argue something completely absurd. The resolution clearly states that we are discussing the following issue: "The Electoral College is Misrepresentative" I am arguing on the CON side, the electoral college is *not* misrepresentative of the current system of electing a president to office. The current system of electing a president to office is via electoral college. Therefore, to say that the electoral college misrepresents itself is to suggest that it is in some way muddy, ambiguous, or erroneous in its calculations. I have shown that this simply is not the case. . http://www.howstuffworks.com... While I agree that there was a slight technical difficulty in the 2000 election, it was only because the election was so tight. In addition, a conclusion was reached and the results were clear: The electoral votes were spelled out clear as day. The votes were tallied according to state and voila, you have a very clear-cut picture of how the electoral college is represented. And here is the list of electoral votes for the 2000 election, crystal clear and in black and white. . http://www.archives.gov... As you can see, there is no misrepresentation. Each electoral vote was tallied and accounted for, no electoral vote went missing, and no electoral vote was counted twice. There are no errors, no misrepresentations. My opponent only has one counterargument, which is more a question than a counterargument: "How can the electoral college be representative of the American people when it fails to elect the President more Americans voted for? " The answer to this question is painfully obvious. Our method of choosing a president is based on the electoral college, not on the popular vote. This is common knowledge. So as an obvious conclusion, the Electoral college is representative of the American election of a president because it is THE METHOD by which we elect a president. My opponent has not offered any other counterargument and I have upheld my burden. I await my opponent's final response and will conclude. Thank you.
The Electoral College is Misrepresentative

Although I do not proclaim to be a political expert, I trust that it is plain to see where my opponent is incorrect. There is no misrepresentation in the electoral college system at all. In fact, I recall from watching several presidential elections in my time that a large map appears on television, detailing exactly how and where the electoral votes are allocated. The representation is quite clear and not misleading in the slightest. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) New York, for example, has 31 electoral votes, and California has 55. There is no misrepresentation. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Teachers should be armed

Thanks for the debate, Con.It's been a blast.Adequately supplying teachers is a sure fire way to succeed.Let's shoot to end this debate.*Final Responses to Con*Con whines:"Your not talking about the guns I'm talking about."My response:Oh, you meant these guns?*flexes*Con attempts to explain:"I was talking about full auto semi auto bolt action pump action lever action."My response:Sounds like an interesting porn.Con seems to be suggesting that teachers should be supplied with "pump action."Teachers should *not* be showing porn to students.Come on, Con.*Conclusion*Teachers should be supplied with equipment, tools, and other items (armed) to make concepts clearer for students, and yes EXECUTE in the lesson.
Teachers should be armed

Thanks Con.Con seems to be very confused.That's ok, I'll clear things up a bit.Luckily, I was properly armed for this debate.*Confusion*Con appeals to normalcy:"I am still very confused. When defending teachers to be armed normally the argument is to prevent/ stop school shootings."My response:That's funny, I never thought having enough teaching equipment, tools, and other school supplies could help prevent school shootings, but some teachers really think they can make a difference with their lessons I suppose, so who knows?As for guns, I mean, I could see a barcode gun being useful for cataloging the students' devices or maybe a hot glue gun for tech ed or perhaps a radar gun for physics.armed teachers = better instruction
Teachers should be armed

Thanks for that response, Con.Con had a question about executing in lessons.Con also found the definitions unnecessary.Con had no actual disagreement with the definitions themselves.*Responding to Con*Con asks:"Teachers need to execute in lessons? What does that mean?"My response:It means that it's one thing to create and plan a lesson and it's another to actually go through with it, find the kids who deserve it, and execute!Executing in lessons is sort of where the bullet meets the barrel or where a teacher's plans are realized.Con opines:"Also those definitions at the bottom are sort of unnecessary."My response:Oh, definitions are necessary to guide the debate.Given no factual contentions with the definitions, they stand.
Teachers should be armed

I accept Con.I'm a teacher, so I feel compelled to participate.This issue also has tax implications, so it's very salient.Let's prepare our teachers properly. *Executing in the Lessons*Teachers spend their planning time modifying and carefully sequencing lessons to more effectively explain crucial concepts to all of their students, but without being armed, teachers have much less reach and remain unable to execute in the lesson.Unprepared teachers are ineffective teachers.Definitionsteachers - people who teach in a school.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...armed - supplied with equipment, tools, or other items in preparation or readiness for something.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

-> First off, my opponent position is a clear fallacy. He is attempting to prove that nothing can be proven to 100% certainty by attempting to prove something to 100% certainty which is nonsense. "C1: 100% Proof P1) There is no strong evidence suggesting God does not exist. P2) One needs proof to come to a reasonable, certain conclusion. C) It is unreasonable to come to a certain conclusion about whether or not God exists." -> This is false, he is basing his ideas on empiricism which by its very nature is uncertain. One can not prove anything for 100% using proof based on experimentation since it is dependant on the physical word which is dependant on the senses. -> However, one can proof certainty with the rationalism model with relies on reason and logical fallacies. -> If a proposition contradicts itself it cannot exist by any mean. God is by all definition an omnipotent being (or else he would merely be a more advance race making him an alien). He therefore contradict himself since God cannot be all powerful since he is limited by himself God is also by all definition infinite which once again is a logical fallacy since their has to be a process by which he can exist. -> I also refer back to my previous arguments about lack of knowledge and that one cannot believe in concept that one does not understand. "One can not come to a reasonable, complete conclusion without viable evidence and proof, which does not exist in the case of God. The complete conclusion that is presented by strong atheism is unreasonable." -> This is a repeat of the empiricist arguments which have been previously proven false by rationalist arguments. This only support the concept that rationalism can refute proposition to 100% certainty. Summary My opponent has merely ignored my arguments and argued the position that empiricism cannot disprove God, which is a self-evident claim since God is metaphysical. It is also completely irrelevant since I have made no arguments supporting empiricism so he is arguing with no one and disproving no one. He merely repeats his arguments redundantly and siting unrelated source. Relating to the argument of conducted (this is a distracting argument so I will address it only at the end) : It is a popular misconception to believe that any stipulation placed on a contract is valid. If I sign a sheet of paper giving all my possession to an unknown person that does not give him the right to seize my property. In order for a stipulation to be valid it must serve a purpose. In this debate this stipulation does not serve a purpose since the Con offered to shoulder the burden of Proof making the Pros first arguments completely pointless and merely self-detrimental. Actually, the Con was attempting to save the Pro by preventing him from making unnecessary and could of created logical fallacies (which the Pro did anyways). In addition, by starting the debate the Con was allowing the Pro more time to scrutinize and find the false in the arguments presented which ultimately would of improved the Pro chances of winning, unfortunately the Pro did not do this and merely made unrelated arguments.
That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

Only one of the PRO arguments need to work for the PRO to win. Lack of Knowledge: A human being who has never heard of the concept of God can be a Strong Atheist. God is logically inconsistent: 1) !Determinism: Because of determinism God is cannot be omnipotent as he is limited by himself questioning the very concept of a God. Determinism also means that humans be ultimately judge for their actions therefore an earthly test is pointless. In addition, the presences of an after-life make all human actions on earth meaningless as it is as if one was in a video game. One cannot believe in a concept that one does not understand: The continuous changing nature of a human beings mean that at no point during his life is he his true self. Therefore a human is the combination both past and present. A human mind cannot even hope to understand such a concept yet alone believe in it. God is also to complicated to understand therefore those who claim they believe are merely saying they believe in him without actually believing in him. -> Belief is a vague concept. An infinite amount of illogically claim can be made is it unreasonable to deny those to?: If I claim that a fat guy with 5 fairy wings who rides a goat-horse-mutant grants wishes to midgets who get average grade in the American schools is it unreasonable to say for certain that he does not exist?
That Strong Atheism is Unreasonable

In this debate, I will be arguing that strong atheism is unreasonable, and con will be arguing that strong atheism is reasonable. The burden of proof will be shared in this debate. I will attempt to affirm that strong atheism is unreasonable, whereas con will negate my resolution, and try to show that strong atheism is reasonable.================================================================ Strong Atheism: The concept "strong atheism" will be pulled from Dawkin's scale of theistic probability [1]. "Strong atheism" means you are 100% certain there is no God.Unreasonable: Not according to reasonThis debate will not be about whether atheism/theism is right or not. However, evidence stemming from whether atheism/theism is right may be used.================================================================Debate structure:First round: Acceptance only.Second round: Arguments.Third round: Rebuttals.Fourth round: Closing and further rebuttals.-No semantics-No trolling-No heavy swearing-No forfeiture-No personal insults.By accepting, you accept all of the guidelines and rules above. Best of luck to whomever chooses to accept.[1] http://www.patheos.com...
Write a song

The River Still Flows The tower crane preening its wings Stoops to the stones Machines picking history clean Sift through the bones Of desolate stories With derelict meanings In the bowels of the city Where the past still lies dreaming Of cruciform churches And Gothic cathedrals Of borders and boundaries Protected by ritual The night falls down over us all From the mirror glass towers To the long ancient halls And all this time The river still flows No purpose and no reason why But to mirror the stars Clean picture perfect facades Hide the wealth of old scars The city glaze blocks out the light And swallows the stars Slow urban creep reaches out to the edges Of greenbelts that long held the secrets of ages Under the asphalt lie the needs of the city Where modern desires are designed by committee But the night falls down over us all From the Mirror glass towers To the long ancient halls All this time The river still flows No purpose and no reason why But to mirror the stars
Space Exploration is a good use of human resources

I won't disagree with you that at present there are major conflicts between nations in our world and it is unfortunate but also related to space exploration as many conflicts are based on humanities need to conquer there environment and do better. As such i propose that space exploration could help unite more countries in the intrest of human exploration and survival. I am by no means saying that we should divert all our funds away from helping developing nations but in part taking the same stance as the Barack Obama who is trying to fund more money in science. I am suggesting that the way to help African nations is not through brute force, but by developing technologies to help improve developing nations infrastructure is key. I would also like to highlight that it is not global warming in which i was truly reffering but also an energy crisis, which is global and will only produce more conflict over oil in the middle east and civil unrest. Oil reserves are not infinite and renewable energy is in its infancy. I would also add that in terms of resources presented to space agencies they are miniscule compared to the billions of dollars that are sent to Africa and agencies, such as NASA account for less the 1% of government spending in the USA. And, at the moment a true waste of money and resources are the banking systems, which have caused more poverty themselves and cost countries 100s of billions of dollars. In comparison the space agencies are modest use of resources and help advance science and technology, which i would deem as worthwhile pursuits.
Space Exploration is a good use of human resources

Ok not dying ill people who could be saved. Right now you say it makes countries unify well I don't see them unifying with serrie leona, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Bhutan to name but a very few countries who aren't being unified or included. You say "if we have the power to sort out the Earth and help others at our disposal at the moment why should we put limit on scientific goals" well there should be a limit as we are in economic turmoil and people in Africa our dying so isn't it better to save them then to mine the moon which would help global warming please don't use that theory as I completely do not believe in it what so ever but that's a different debate. We don't have the power to save the Earth that's why we need to cut out unnecessary funding. Saving people from poverty would unify the Earth more so don't waste human resources.
Space Exploration is a good use of human resources

Firstly your point "Aren't you depriving people of money who are in hospital and are dying " truly if they are in hospital and dying then there is nothing more that can be done for them, except to invest money into sectors such as the space agency in research which could possibly save future lives. Secondly, I would day that space is too often seen as a frivolous waste of money, yet it is also reaching out to study the possibilities of operations, such as, mining the moon and asteroids for resources. One such example of this is Helium-3 a material which can be extracted from lunar regolith and in turn then used as a means in fusion reactors, which could solve the energy crisis the world is facing and global warming. As such space could be a means to and end, helping better the world and solving world problems. It could also result in colonisation, which could also help solve the problems associated with an increasing population and food shortages. Space programs have also shown a substantial way of inspiring countries to unify and work together for example the international space station. If we could use this co-operationg we could then help developing nations advance their standards of living. The whole premise of space exploration and the problems it faces can be applied to circumstances of Earth, and travel to planets, such as, Mars, The moon, LEO (low earth orbit), space travel requires the smart allocation of resources and innovative ways of packaging solutions, such as producing water and food in compact environments and reclaiming products from waste. Finally, if we have the power to sort out the Earth and help others at our disposal at the moment why should we also limit our scientific goals, when they may be benefical. In effect why should we put all our eggs in one basket.
Space Exploration is a good use of human resources

Aren't you depriving people of money who are in hospital and are dying so couldn't the money be used to save there lives instead of going to Mars I mean first we need to sort out this planet. I mean Africa wouldn't the money be spent better building houses, schools, fresh water supply and sending food to them so that they don't die. Before going back to the moon or to Mars first we have to sort out this planet.
Space Exploration is a good use of human resources

My argument is that the space exploration efforts of organisations, such as, ESA, NASA, JAXA, FKA, and other space organisations in pursuit of space exploration and travel into space is a good use of funding from governments. Yet also generalising as a good focus for humanity. I propose that the pursuit of space operations and exploration is a good use of resources. Projects such as the International Space Station, and EXO Mars, and civilian based systems such as GPS and Global Communication, which have and continue to develop due to space exploration. Space Exploration and scientific interest in space has helped prove theories and given us a better understanding of our world, and promoted international co-operation. A prime example of this is of the co-operation between Einstein and Eddington who together through astronomy were able to confirm his theory of Relativity. Space exploration has helped improve, global communication, co-operation, and scientific understanding through endeavours, such as, the moon landing's and International Space Station, which were " One small step for man, One giant leap for mankind"
Sexiest Female Rapist Debate

Each round My opponent and I will post up to 3 sexy female rapists. No rounds wasted. Real life female rapists and cannonical characters may be used. No fan art or fanfics allowed. Winner goes to whoever has the sexiest female rapists.http://www.youtube.com... Sexy actress Ellen Page rapes an ugly, old, and obese man! That's what I call super rape! http://www.youtube.com...Sexy diva the ancient 100+year old female vampire rapes a little boy. At least he didn't die a virgin!http://www.youtube.com... Sexy zombie ghost psionic psychic chick rapes the player!! That’s an end I’d play a gam
Sexiest Female Rapist Debate

I think its pretty funny that I've taken the Con side, because that is exactly what I am. Con. I am against this debate in its entirety. It's disgusting, unnerving, and a good example of how far trolls are willing to go just to get a rise out of people. Rape is rape, and rapists are rapists, no matter their gender. A woman is just as vile, just as evil as any man if she rapes somebody. She doesn't get a pass because she's sexy. So, the sexiest rapist is a person that doesn't rape at all. Now, please go back under your bridge as the rest of us humans try to pretend that you don't exist.
I'm a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord

Response to Refutation 1: My opponent has still not said which word the spelling error was made on. It could be any word in the thesis. It could be 'Lawd' instead of 'Lord', or, hell, 'Datroit' instead of 'Detroit'. It has not been made clear on what word my opponent misspelled, and I am therefore forced to conclude that the original thesis still remains. I, as are the voters, are forced to still treat your spelling of "Cleaveland' as intentional, and still a part of the thesis of this debate. Response to Refutation 2: I never said that my opponent CAN'T be a drug lord in Detroit. Only, that it is highly unlikely for him to be one. With my 100% BOP, I have to prove that my opponent has a 90% chance of not being a drug lord in Cleaveland and Detroit, and I have proved that it is less than 10% likely for him to even be just a drug lord in Detroit. CONCLUSION: I have proved, beyond a doubt, that my opponent can't be a Detroit-Cleaveland drug lord, as Cleaveland simply doesn't exist. I have also proved that it is unlikely, less than 10% likely, that my opponent is even a drug lord in Detroit.
I'm a Detroit-Cleaveland Drug Lord

My opponent, again didn't specifically clarify, in the last round, that indeed, he wasn't referring to Cleaveland, never stating that he meant 'Cleveland'. Therefore, I must assume that the thesis of this debate is that my opponent is a Detroit-Cleaveland drug dealer. Yes, I did explain. It was a spelling error. And according to the rules, S&G wont count.Argument 2: RaceMy opponent, on his profile, states he is 16, male, and white. Keep that data in mind. In this chart(1) from Human Rights Watch, we see the rate of people, per 100,000, are sent to State Prison on drug-related charges. In Michigan, the state in which Detroit is located, for white males, it is shown that per 100,000, there are 16.3 men sent to state prison for drug-related charges. That means, that in the state of Michigan alone, there is a .0163% chance that my opponent would go to jail for a drug-related charge, and for being a drug lord, going to state prison is a very likely offense for the crimes they have done. However, let's compare this to the rate of black males sent to state prison on drug-related charges in Michigan per 100,000 people, which is 218.8. This means that it's far more likely, in fact, 1242% more likely, if I'm doing these numbers correctly, for if he were to be a drug lord, to be black, than if he were white. But since he claims to be white, the likelyhood is decreased greatly of him being a drug dealer. Since we have established that Cleaveland doesn't exist, there is no need to gather statistics on it. This argument makes no sense, and does still not prove the the BOP required to win. This is a fallacy error. - 99% of Nazis are white, so you can't be an asian naziConverted: There's still the same BOP, and now you have to prove I'm not in the 1% with a 90% BOP.Conclusin: My opponent has still not proven I'm a drug lord with a 10% room for the BOP.