BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Popular Vote Should Replace Electoral Vote

I am against popular vote replacing electoral vote. Contention 1:Electoral vote enhances the status of minority groups. This is so because the voters of even small minorities in a state may make the difference between winning all of that states electoral votes or none of that states electoral votes. Contention 2:The founders intent was to filter the vote so in case of regional antagonism their is a reasonable solution. Contention 3: Electoral vote does a better job representing the country as a whole. Since we have different leaders for each state, some of the larger states could over power others votes. Electoral vote provides balance to this. Smaller States Equal Say. Contention 4:Recounts are confined to a few states. It avoids recount of the entire nation. If we had to recount through the entire nation, the chances of fraud would go up tremendously. An across the nation recount might be REQUIRED if we had direct popular vote if the president. Contention 5:In direct election of the president people might stuff the ballots. .. . We are not all angles in this world. There is bad people out there. Contention 6:it allows small states and small towns to have a say in the election. It allows smaller states with a smaller population, have an equal pull to a larger state. The candidates go to every corner of the battle ground states, so people get to meet and question them, "I'm originally from a small state and I think this is one of the major benefits of the electoral collage. " Says David Leip. Contention 7: It lowers campaign costs. If politicians did have to campaign equally in every state just so they could get every vote, it would substantially raise the coasts of campaigns. Campaigning like that would cost over 2 BILLION dollars. :)
The U.S. Death Penalty should remain active.

Con is saying completely irrelevant things at this point. Who says you have to be Republican? Are you just assuming everyone is a Republican? Also, Pro Life has nothing to do with the death penalty. As I explained in my third point, the death penalty is needed to maintain justice in our society. Also, there are many benefits to it that end up saving more people than are killed (nevermind the fact that the people killed are the worst of criminals). My arguments still stand, they were unrefuted.
The U.S. Death Penalty should remain active.

Con continues to use personal attacks to try and win debates. .. Oh boy. MY DEMOCRATIC BELIEFSAll Con does in his second speech is try to say that I am not a Democrat, although he doesn't refute any of what I have said or even respond to my refutations. Not only is this claim that I am not a Democrat have nothing to do with the debate at hand, but it is also simply untrue. In his speech he basically lists a lot of the issues that he thinks all Democrats are on one side of (a huge generalization, by the way), and says that I am not for/against these issues, however he even says it himself, I put Undecided or No Opinion on these issues, meaning I am not for one specific side. Even so, the only reason I put these two things on these issues is because I have not done enough research to make an education opinion. "How can you not have an opinion? "Maybe because I don't immediatly follow the bandwagon on these issues and actually try to find the side that I would fit best with, which is in this case neither. Just because my profile says I am against the Death Penalty doesn't mean that I can debate the other side, in fact this debate was actually to see what side I am truly on because I have done a lot of research and want to make a truly education opinion (as you can see on my profile, even after doing this research I am still against the DP). CONCLUSIONAs you can see, this debate isn't much of a debate right now. All Con is doing is personally attacking me, yet he doesn't even mention my whole second speech. All of what I said stands untouched, which is why I don't really have much to say in this speech.
The U.S. Death Penalty should remain active.

You are NOT a Democrat on LOTS of issues. Democrats are FOR Affirmative Action YOU apparently are NOT. True Progressive Liberal Democrats are AGAINST most aspects of Capitalism but YOU are NOT. TRUE Democrats are AGAINST a Flat Tax YOU are NOT. TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are AGAINST the NRA Gun Rights Movement YOU are NOT. TRUE Democrats are AGAINST the Iraq/Afghan Wars YOU are NOT. TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are FOR Labor Unions YOU are NOT, TRUE Progressive Liberal Democrats are for RAISING the Minimum Wage YOU are NOT, In Fact of the FIFTY 50 "Big Issues" your profile addresses you are on the WRONG side of over HALF of the issues, so HOW do you list yourself as a DEMOCRAT? Welfare, Minimum Wage, Labor Unions, and MANY issues where you put "Und" or "N/O", HOW can you NOT have an opinion? What I want to know is your own PROFILE says you are AGAINST the Death Penalty!!!
The U.S. Death Penalty should remain active.

Hey everyone!Some rules: -First round is acceptance only. -No semantics or ad hominem attacks. -Use actual evidence and cite sources please. -Have fun! A couple other things about my speeches: -If anyone doesn't know, a contention is another word for point or assertion, I will be using this word in my speeches. Also, c means contention as well (like if I say C1 it means Contention 1). -Also, a criterion (also called standard) is something which the judge chooses who wins the debate by, it is part of framework. For example, if the criterion is health (and both sides accept this criterion), then all arguments that don't involve health are invalid, because the judge, or in this case the voters, are only focusing on health. -Lastly, if, at any time, I say "we", "our", or similar words in my speech, it means my team, which in this case is just myself (sorry, used to typing out cases for a team of multiple people).
The U.S. Death Penalty should remain active.

Again, my opponent is questioning whether or not I am a Democrat, which has nothing to do with the topic. Look, if you really wanted to argue about whether or not I am a Democrat, message me personally. I'd rather not you ruin this debate with something irrelevant. Con has also not even spoken of anything I have said in my speeches. I have given reasons for the DP standing and he has not talked about them. I am clearly winning this debate so far.
First seek the answer, then ask the question.

This debate relies on a very simple principle; to have but not need is better than to need but not have. If we apply this principle to the context of this debate, we come to the realization that while one can gather lots and lots of knowledge (seemingly useless in the present tense) it is far better to seek answers before even asking the questions relating to them rather than the opposite, which Con is most certainly supporting. Throughout the history of mankind, our innate curiosity and irrational seeking of answers to questions that we have never yet formed is the entire reason we invented mathematics, science, the languages and many other superpowers in the animal kingdom that are pretty much the only reason that our frail-bodied species even hit the one-to-a-trillion jackpot of becoming the dominant species of this planet. It is because we have this relentless 'seeking' instinct in us that we even began to hunt and explore foods other than the soil and dust on the bottom of the caves and similar crevices that we sheltered ourselves in. In actual fact, we were finding the answer to 'how to count', 'how to speak', 'how to build weapons' before we even had discovered the concept of a question at all. Imagine sitting in an exam and only seeking the answer to the question there and then. that would be a sure way to get a maximum grade of D at best. Unless you'd really sat and thought about the answer to it beforehand, you'd be bound to never reach enough right ones in time. Life is short and precious, so it is better to relentlessly use spare time to think and analyze things to find new answers rather than wait until the question pops into our head and only then beginning the journey that we could have naturally, accidentally gone along several times before spotting the erroneous paths of thought and the best one to take when approaching such a question for the sake of reaching the answer. Truthfully, you only need an answer when you are in a situation where the question is being asked but you will be better off having already randomly sought useless knowledge and gathered random facts beforehand to much faster utilize your brain to find the answer you already knew rather than beginning form scratch on the search. It is really as simple as that.
We should ban homework

Since my opponent failed to rebut the previous argument I presented, let me just proceed with my next argument. Homework is time consuming . It's not just simply time consuming. It takes up the time of the students which should have been allotted for recreational activities which will help develop his/her personality. Another thing, it becomes a reason on why students feel sleepy during class discussions . Why? Because it takes time and with the urge to finish this thing, students tend to sleep late at night. Consequently, the student comes to school late and worst, learns nothing at all because his attention is not focused on the lesson because he's feeling so sleepy
We should ban homework

My opponent here is telling that its a great help that students do some schoolwork at home for it helps the parents spend time with their kids, am I right ? But my dear opponent let me tell you that homework is a class issue. In school everyone is equal, but at home some students have advantages because of their family backgrounds. Middle-class families with books and computers will be able to help their children much more than poorer ones can. This can mean poorer children end up with worse grades and more punishments for undone or badly done homework. David Baker, a researcher, believes too much homework causes parents and children to get angry with each other and argue, destroying the child"s confidence . On the other hand pushy parents may even end up doing their kids" homework for them " cheating and not helping the student to learn learn at all. Let me proceed with my second argument as to why I am standing in affirmative side. Homework is just an additional burden to students. These things are tiring,boring and stressful. Because of this homework, students are forced to obviously cut-off their times for recreational activities just to comply with what the teacher is asking for. Teachers usually underestimate the time to be consumed in doing these assignments and sometimes teachers in different subjects even give their students assignments at the same time without realizing what burden does it bring the students. Imagine doing assignments in different subjects in one night ? It's no doubt that students tend to hate education.
We should ban homework

my opponent argues that homework should not be given because of the fact that after school hours, the time should be spent for family to converse and do other activities together. however, it is in my opinion that and belief that homework is not only a way for families to come together, but also for a one-on-one interaction between the parent and the child. the parents can help the child with said homework, thus spending time with the kid, and also the kid is learning at the same time. next i think homework is beneficial because it helps students practice what they learned in school, thus helping them learn and understand the materials covered. it helps them make sure they can do it by themselves, but also gives them responsibility skills of actually doing it when told. if you are at a job after you graduate, and your boss says do something at home, and you have a family, it is the same principle of doing homework. the only difference is one is by a boss, the other by a teacher
We should ban homework

Homework is a task (often called an assignment) set by teachers for students to do outside normal lessons " usually at home in the evening. Schools have been setting homework in developed countries for over a century, but until the past few decades usually only older students had to do it. More recently younger students have also been given homework by their primary or elementary schools. Why ban it ? First and foremost, we all know the fact that it is done at home. That's why it's called homework. Now, that's exactly the reason . Homework takes up the time of the students which should have been allotted for their families . Students had already spent most of their hours in a day in school and it is very not necessary if they will still do school works in their homes because home time is family time .
Miley Cyrus is a very bad influence

A seventeen year old wearing short shorts and dressing slutty is not surprising she is SEVENTEEN NOT eleven. I think she is a best role model of all the Disney stars becasue she shows the world that she isn't perfect and that she is a human being with flaws like everyone else. She was never meant for 6 year olds to being with, Hannah Montana's target audience was 10 . Look outside your window she is doing what other children are doing Personally I think Miley Cyrus is the LEAST of our worries! . Videos now are all about sex and drugs this is not Mileys fault. It is more societys fault then everything else you cant blame Miley for this.If anything, Miley Cyrus is a good influence on teenagers. While her songs and videos may have inappropriate material for young children, they have valuable life lessons for teenagers. Her whole new image is teaching teenagers to choose their own path in life, rather than other people choosing it for them. Miley Cyrus isn"t a bad influence; she"s just making her own choices in life. She's not because she is just a teenager. A lot of teenagers do this kind of stuff, and worse. They are just saying she's worse just because she is famous... The bad influences should be the parents of the kids for finding those pictures on the internet. They just should not care what she does like really its her life, she apologized now get over it.
The US ought to put boots on the ground to combat ISIS

Resolution: The United States of America ought to put boots on the ground to combat ISIS. Definitions: boots on the ground deploy high levels of combat troops; a ground war with ISIS ISIS You know who ISIS is I will be proposing an alternate solution. BoP will be shared. If you have a question about the debate, please ask before accepting. If you accept and we run into a problem that could've easily been avoided with the asking of a simple question, voters ought to consider the debate forfeited by my opponent.
Gay Marriage

PrefaceThis arose while GCL and I were discussing the issue of Gay Marriage in the U.S. I initiated this debate in order to better understand her thoughts, as well as to express my own on this issue. I thank her to agreeing to engage with me. I look forward to a great exchange.TopicGay Marriage is immoralRules1. Religion is permitted, but it should not be the sole argument presented by either side2. BOP is shared: Pro must show that it is moral; Con must show that it isn't3. Sources must be cited in the text of the debate4. No forfeits5. Violation of any of the R1 set-up merits a 7-point lossStructureR1: Acceptance onlyR2: ArgumentsR3: ArgumentsR4: Concluding Summary (no new arguments or responses)Thanks...to GCL for making this round possible, and to the judges for taking time to read and score this round.
The Genesis account of creation stands literally for 24 hour time periods

Since 00r3d has forfeited, the debate is over. I have nothing more to post. I thank 00r3d for the opportunity to discuss this topic and pray that God blesses both of us in our searches for truth. As the creationist in this debate, I realize that it is virtually inevitable that I will lose in the voting, regardless of whether my arguments were sufficient to refute Con's points. Regardless of the outcome, I hope the readers of this debate have enjoyed the discussion as much as I have.
The Genesis account of creation stands literally for 24 hour time periods

I would never forget, just having a few other things pop up. So lets start with the most biblical based idea. The world yom, used in Hebrew and translated into day, does not (or does not need to) refer to the day in the temporal sense. We define a day by the rotation of the earth on its axis. This day is for the most part 24 hours. There is probably a scientific way to define time, but that goes much further that i intend on going. Since the Sun did not exist until the 4th day, how is it possible for the keeping time as we know it and to have evenings and mornings. Before I dive into science, lets just clarify this God is good God can not commit sin God created creation Therefor, when God created creation, He would have made it to tell the truth and not contradict itself. (this is merely to set the ground work. I will assume you agree with this in some way.) So the most visible problem is light. Light travels at 299 792 458 m / s (1). We see light coming from stars in the night. Some of these stars are as close as 4.2421 light years away (it takes light 4.2 years from its creation till arrival) while other stars are up to 13 billion light years away. (The light would appear to have been made 13 billion years ago (2) ) If God didn't create the universe to appear old, how then can we observe the light that portrays the events that occurred 13 billion years ago. Some of these stars have planets that orbit them, while others die off in large explosions. The light arriving at earth tell us of events that occurred millions of years ago. Carbon dating is another scientific measurement that determines the age of the compound by its composition of Carbon 14 (C14). Since radioactive decay occurs at a known rate, the quantity of C14 found within the biological material should tell the age of the material. For many of the fossils that we are finding, the C14 levels have reduced to levels that indicates that it should be millions of years old. Or at a minimum more than 6-10,000 years. One last scientific piece that i will draw on is the fossil records and sedimentary deposits. As time continues, sediments are deposited in certain areas. These will then condense and form distinct layers. These layers are capable to telling time in a sense. Their composition can be use to determine events that likely occurred. If a volcano were to erupt, a large quantity of volcanic dust would be present while a dry or wet spell would alter the compounds found. These layers can be counted to many thousands or millions of years ago 3). Please don't just deny science or I will be sad. If this is too much to deal with in one response, we may be able to work something out. If it is not, I am willing to counter some old earth (apparent) problems. 1. https://www.google.com... of light 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... PS. I probably should have opened with this, I may use your opinion in a paper I am writing for school (with your permission).
The Genesis account of creation stands literally for 24 hour time periods

As I understand it, I will be attempting to affirm that the Creation occurred in six 24-hour periods, as recorded in Genesis 1. This view is the one I truly accept as how the universe came into being. I hope this will be a fascinating and insightful discussion for both of us! I assume that the first round is for acceptance. 00r3d did not make this clear, so I apologize if I was incorrect in this assumption. As always, I ask the Lord's blessing on both of us and those who follow the debate so that His truth may be revealed.
The Genesis account of creation stands literally for 24 hour time periods

My second time trying this. I will say, it may be possible to convince me of your side, but currently "In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages" I will be arguing from the day age approach. Where the days are not 24 hour days, but rather long period of time, potentially millions of years. I will draw from both science and scripture, where applicable. To define terms: "Genesis" The first book of the Christian Bible, and Torah "Genesis 1 (the creation story)" You must accept this as the outline for how God created the universe. This will imply that you are religious, particularly Christian. "days" referring to the Hebrew word y"m that has been translated into day. (apparently they don't enjoy funny letters, the " is supposed to be an o with a circumflex on it) "24 hour time period" the day that we observe on the earth due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. "ages" long periods of time, potentially accounting for the scientific estimation of the age of the universe (estimated at 13.7 billion years old) Your job will be to defend the young earth view that Creation occurred in 24 hour periods. If you want to change any definitions, feel free, but this I think is a rough outline. Please, if you are to accept this challenge, do hold to this point of view, I don't want to entertain a different argument, but I may.
Obama would be dangerous as president of the United States.

I would like to start by saying, I support Barrack now, only because he is my only option. In the beginning I did not support him, I liked Kucinich, but anyways. One Accomplishment, I'll get this out of the way: He is the Author of the SAVE Act (Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act) which expanded federal homeless veterans programs that serve over 100,000 veterans who fought for this country. Now moving on, I would like to address the "having relations" with dangerous people. This is a concerning statement you bring up, about Ayers and Obama. I would like your source, not that I don't trust you. But our current President has had finacial ties with the bin Laden family, his daddy sold weapons to Saddam, and the Taliban met with Bush privatly in Texas to have a mini-vacation. Hmm, if thats ok, than I guess Obama "meeting friendly" with Ayers is either just as bad or slightly worse than hanging with Osamas brother... Keeping the troops in Iraq means more targets for Al Queda. They are dieing every day, and what is the mission? What are they fighting for right now? Stability? There is an Islamic Civil War raging there, a religously motivated war, which means no matter how many troops we put there, as long as there is food and water they islamic extremists will keep firing. What is it that we started that we have to finish? We were told Saddam had a tie with 9-11, that was false, then WMDs, that again was false, then we said we are there to over throw Saddam! Well what are we doing there now? You mention Tony Rezko, which is odd because he also raised millions for Bush during his 2003 campaign...like you said Obama denounced the support of Farrakan... Then we go to Michelle Obama. Listen, I don't care what she has to say because she is only a first lady hopeful. They don't have any sort of political power. We can look at what republicans wives have said, but to me that doesn't matter. Anyway, have you read her Princeton paper? She gave examples in there about her encounters with racists students. Thats all. And about her being proud of her country because hope is making a comeback. She obviously loves her country, but to be fair she has a lot of things to be disappointed with. The handling of the war, the divide (racial, gender, and ecconomic). I know this is a debate about Obama, but out of curosity who do you support?