BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The state governments should pay voters for voting

The state governments could choose any way to fund this, but I would prefer it be funded through a progressive income tax. Regardless, that's not going to be part of the debate.For this debate, we will make this one assumption:1) the government will be able to pay for paying everyone to vote. So, it won't affect the deficit of the government in any way. Everything else is fair game to debate on though. If you do object to that assumption, you can offer reasons why in the comments, and I may be persuaded to not go off of that assumption. Now, here are the rules for the debate:1) No personal attacks, insults, or ad hominem2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be equal to the total number of rounds you see here minus one because I am not using round 1 for argument. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument even between us. I don't care which round you choose to waive. Though, it would make more sense to waive either the first or last round. The middle rounds would be awkward if waived.3) The first round used for argument should just be main arguments, no rebuttals in this round. In other words, if you're second to post your main arguments, it should not be in rebuttal to the person who was first to post main arguments. 4) The last round used for argument in the debate should be just rebuttals to your opponents arguments and/or conclusions. No new arguments used in this round. New information and statistics are fine to present in this round, provided they are in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments. If any of the above rules are violated by either side, this is justification for voters to award the point in conduct to the one who did not violate them,If you have any questions or want to have one of the rules edited/removed, say so in the comments. If you want one of the rules edited/removed, provide reason why and I may be open to editing/removing that one. Be sure to do that BEFORE accepting the debate. If you accept the debate, you accept the rules that are written here. If I agree to removing/editing one of the rules, I'll physically edit this round and remove/edit it.Here's my full position:State governments should pay voters for voting in elections. The amount will depend on how many positions or laws you voted on. The more of these things you vote on, the more money you get. Additionally, a test of political knowledge will be given, that depending on what you get, will control how much money you get. I'd say if you fail it, you wouldn't be paid for voting. If you pass it, then depending on the percentage you got right, will control how much money you get. Say, for example, someone got 100% right on the test and voted on 20/20 measures/positions that needed to be voted on. Perhaps the 100% means they will get $100 per vote they cast, for a total of $2000. Maybe you get $1 per percent right, starting at 60% right(anything below that won't get any money).
Hand a rich person a shovel he can work all day hand a poor man a shovel he will not last a hour

Its a shame that so many people create debates to never look at them later on. Oh well, since my partner hasn't given me any points for me to rebut, I shall simply pour some of my frustration into this post. This would have been a very interesting debate, largely because the debated statement conflicts with what I personally believe. Rich people, again, usually sit behind desks and exploit poorer people. For example, the largest case of this are the insurance companies. If I ever get one wish to change the world, they will all go bankrupt. First, lets illustrate just how much money these companies earn. If, theoretically, a new company wants to establish itself in particular town, or state, this would be it's way of thinking. Lets say that there are 100 crashes in a month inside the town that we will service. And the total amount of damage by those crashes was 3,000,000 dollars. So, some simple division, and we find that each crash costed roughly 30,000 dollars. And if there are 500 cars in the town, then each car has to pay 30,000/500 dollars per month, which is 60 dollars per month. Not much, is it? But, what if there is a month in which there are more crashes than usual? Well, the companies double the original 60 dollars, just in case. They still have to pay their workers though. They add another 30 dollars per month, which totals to 150 now. And the company wants to expand, build more stuff, service more people. They raise it to 190. But what about the owner. Do you think he'd be satisfied with any less than 50 dollars a month from each car? Most owners take even more, but lets make it ONLY 240. Suddenly, the original 60 needed change to something 3, 4 times that amount. It's horrifying, but profitable like heck. So, why do people buy insurance? Because the government requires it. Why would they care? The companies pay them off. Consider it a form of taxation, except everything gets processed by a private insurance company. Look at Obamacare, it was implemented after Obama saw he couldn't handle the finances.
Hand a rich person a shovel he can work all day hand a poor man a shovel he will not last a hour

I agree with the comment psoted, that we are both really generalizing. However, a majority of rich people are lazy simply because they CAN be. 1. Buisnesses, especially larges ones, generally run themselves. The buisness owner doesn't have to work at the cash register, nor does he have to drive and transport porducts. Owners and CEO's usually only make executive decisions, which are few in number. Which advertisement is better, which company we should be supplied by, small things like that. Doing so, they use much less energy, and do much less work than the people under them.2.Poorer workers are usually exploited by the higher classes. Taxes for the rich have steadily declined since WWII, and the founder of a chocolate company "Hershey" once said that he has "more money than he needs". Well, why not give it to the workers? You can see that buisnesses owners generally hold more money for themselves, giving less to people under them. This, in turn, forces impoverished workers to work harder to get what they need. The federal minimum is around 7.25 currently. That is barely enough to hold one over the poverty level, but what if you have a family? A child to care for? Then, you would fit our definition of "poor", and the government would surely give you some financial aid. (2) http://www.dol.gov...;
Hand a rich person a shovel he can work all day hand a poor man a shovel he will not last a hour

I think that my partner has it the other way around. Everywhere in the world, especially in strict capitalistic nations, the poor were, are, and will be regularly exploited by the richer citzens. A great example, though maybe extreme, is China.It seems that the arguing statement is "poor people are lazy compared to rich people"Definitions:Poor - lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a societyRich - having a great deal of money or assets; wealthLazy - unwilling to work or use energy(All definitions retrieved from Google)Rules:( 1 ) No Trolling( 2 ) No forfeits( 3 ) Only constructive criticism is allowed, no making fun of debatorsBreakeage of any of these simple rules will mean forfeiture of the debate, unless a middleground is agreed upon by both debators.Since my partner hasn't provided any structure, I will presume that it is the following standard:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2 : Main PointsRound 3 : Rebuttals/DefenseAnyway, thanks for posting this debate, and good luck! I await your points.
The U.S. ought to impose term limits on Congress

My position is that The U.S. should limit the number of terms on Congress. My reasons for this are: a) Overtime, congressmen become adapted to the Washington culture, and are no longer able to represent those who live in their states or districts. After all, you only have to live in a state for one or two years (depending on the state) in order to become a resident and qualify to represent that state or district. b) Being a congressman has become a career for many politicians, and with that, those congressmen's entire purpose becomes being reelected rather than representing their constituents. c) Despite Congress having an approval rate of 17%, around 90% of congressmen are reelected each cycle. In this year's highly anti-incumbent climate, 87% of House Representatives seeking reelection won their election, a record low since 1964. Including those retiring Representatives, 78% of the faces in the House of Representatives this January are already there now. This is because Incumbents have many advantages, including name recognition, free media exposure, money from federal spending and various other things. D) The people these congressmen represent want term limits, if they will not self-impose term limits, they are not representing their constituents. As of last week, 78% of Americans polled believed that there should be term limits on Congress. Since this is well over a super-majority, the will of the people ought to be followed. To solve these problems I propose we amend the US Constitution to limit Congress to the equivalent of 12 years of service (6 terms for Representatives and 2 terms for Senators). This will allow new people to cycle in. I am willing to concede to include a clause allowing Congressmen to be re-eligible after two years out of office or also include a grandfather clause to allow those currently in congress to remain. I disagree with and will argue against these two things, but if they are required to enable passage of this proposed amendment, I will compromise. If term limits were right for president, then why are they not right for congress?
I dared you to this debate over twitter.

Sounds like a Legacy deck if you want to include Price and Chain. "But the goblin bun deck I'm making relies on going faster than my opponent, So things like goblin guide won't do for me." I don't think you realize how good Goblin Guide is. It's arguably the best 1-drop creature spell ever made for Modern and Legacy. Easily the best 1-drop red creature. Inspiring Vantage Meh, Sacred Foundry is better. As a burn player, you shouldn't care very much about your life total. Also, if you're doing Legacy, Plateau would be the way to go. Temple of Triumph Absolutely not. Mother of Runes Good card, but not in a red deck. It's totally out of place. Your job is getting your opponent to 0, Mom doesn't do that. If they have removal spells for your creatures, let 'em use them. Sould Warden Again, absolutely not. Stop caring about your own life total. You should be faster than your opponent, Soul Warden accomplishes nothing. Suture Priest No, definitely not in the mainboard. Goblin Warchief If you're trying to build Goblins, build Goblins. Get rid of white altogether. Also, you want to build a Goblins deck without the best Goblin ever printed? Whyyyyyyy. Outnumber Meh, a sideboard card at best. Goblin Grenade will virtually always get the job done better. Coat of Arms Way too expensive for a red deck. Sounds to me you need to drop white. No point in running it if your goal is Goblins and burn spells.
I dared you to this debate over twitter.

Lightning bolt and price of progress are some I'll definitely use, But the goblin bun deck I'm making relies on going faster than my opponent, So things like goblin guide won't do for me. May be chain lightning too. 10 mountains 4 plains 3 evolving wilds (I will replace them, don't worry.) 1 inspiring vantage (Want to add another.) 2 temple of triumph 4 mother of runes 2 soul warden 2 suture priest 2 goblin warchief 2 goblin chieftan 4 outnumber 4 krenko, mob boss 4 goblin grenade 1 goblin king 3 goblin piledriver (As I looked over my deck, I realized I lost one. F*CK!) 1 coat of arms 4 mogg warmarshal
I dared you to this debate over twitter.

Depends on the format. Check mtgtop8 for decklists. Modern Burn Staples: Goblin Guide Eidolon of the Great Revel Grim Lavamancer Monastery Swiftspear Lightning Bolt Lava Spike Rift Bolt Boros Charm Searing Blaze Skullcrack Lightning Helix Legacy Burn Staples: Take out a few things from Modern Burn and add: Chain Lightning Fireblast Price of Progress Sideboard varies from deck to deck. You want artifact hate (Destructive Revelry, Smash to Smithereens, etc.), lifegain hate (More Skullcracks, Atarka's Command, etc.), maybe some graveyard interaction since Dredge is really popular right now (Grafdigger's Cage, etc.), things like that.
I dared you to this debate over twitter.

Feminism hates men, it's absolute cancer. It has made it to where women get rights that are unfair against men and has made it to where if you even mention a problem that men face everyday you're suddenly a sexist. Why don't you people stop crying about manspreading and go to Pakistan and actually fight against oppression, or, better yet fight against the fact that in every field men are oppressed just as much if not more than women.
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

I have already debated these issues that have been brought up during the third round and therefore have no need to debate most of these issues since you have said the same thing over again. Although, I would add that you can't just walk up to a drug dealer and he'll greet you light-heartedly and not find out who you are first. It's hard to get it. At least not any harder than going to the store! And you can't buy anything if you're dead or in jail. Further, you keep adding non-truths, such as making it legal and increasing the quitting rate. That hasn't happened, remember? I believe that if the issue is looked over again through this debate and further searching, it will be obvious that it is not for the better of anyone to make marijuana legal, except for maybe the sellers. Thank you for the opportunity to have this debate!
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

Since my opponent forfeited the second round, I will refute his 3rd round in my crystallization: When deciding who to vote for in this case, 3 points must be considered: 1. It will be the end of the marijuana black market because if its legal no market is in demand to exist. Therefore crimes associated with the black market, for example murder, would decrease. 2. People will better understand the effects of marijuana. Even if teenagers want to rebel, they all might not if they are presented with the facts. Therefore, education would lead to the decrease of the usage of marijuana. Also it is a given it would have a legal age because it is similar to the substance debated about, alcohol and tobacco 3. When its legal, it is harder to get because the government is monitoring it. Even though drugdealers try to keep their identity of selling drugs a secret, there are a lot of drugdealers in America. When its government regulated the government can control how much and how many people get the substance. I am for the freedom of government not telling the people what they can spend their money on. I do believe however the government can regulate what age you can buy it, if it is for the benefit of the people. I leave you with this question: Should we continue to allow for the government to ban marijuana, the black market to prosper, and to continue the ignorance of the youth or should we repeal its ban and end some crime, educate the youth, and increase the quitting rate?
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

First off, I must ask of you to use the spell check function that is available through this website. It is quite time consuming to decode it myself and understand the point that you are trying to bring up; whether it be in this debate or just courtesy of Thank you ahead of time. Although I would like to debate on previous falses that were stated, I will stay with the debate rules that I follow and remark on your round three comments. 1. I think you're going a bit over the edge by going on about murder going away. That won't happen. As I said, marijuana makes you do things that you wouldn't normally, like maybe murder? If you get yourself into marijuana you obviously aren't that stable already. Add that with something that affects your brain and we've got a potential murderer. And does it really matter who's selling it? The black market may be gone, but the drugs are still there. 2. Well sir, there actually is much education on drugs, including marijuana. We all know the effects of it. And the kids that use marijuana are, as you said, looking to go against the system. They don't care or even want to hear what there is to say about marijuana. 3. I'd say it's a bit harder to get drugs from dealers trying to conceal their identity and not be able to be found. There's too many places that legal drugs are sold and you don't have to hide it. They're right there waiting for you. 4. How do you know how the law would be set, and weren't you for total freedom? That would mean no age limit. And if teenagers are the ones that use it the most as you try to say, it's still illegal to them. Nothing's changed! And now it's in their home, not just on the streets. PLUS, now they will have an even greater will to go against the law when people so much like them have the ability to have what they do not.
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

Since my opponent forfeited last round i guess i will just restate my points: Legalization will lead to- 1. end if black market and crimes associated with it including murder 2. The education of marijuana usage will be taught because currently the government thinks there is no point because its illegal, so there shouldn't be education on how to correctly use it because your not allowed to 3. Its harder to get when its monitored by the government 4. A correct age limit will be set so no effects happen on teenagers
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

Now for the medical purposes contention, i agree there are other legal drugs that may give near-similar pain-relieving effects. However, marijuana is the safest one to have injected into the body in numerous situations in a short period. Therefore, your point about other legalized pain drugs doesn't make safe if it can't be used optimally like marijuana. Though I believe there are better purposes for the average person to spend their money, it is up to the people to decide what is best for themselves. I believe in a system where the government can't tell a person what they can and not do with their money. I hope you don't believe in a system of government where the government takes control of our lives. For your point that people cannot be taught responsibility in an environment is where the substance is legal, that is not true. When it becomes legal, the government gives authorization the school to teach the correct responsibility to the children. After the government enforced schools to teach about responsibility with alcohol and cigarettes, the school systems' teaching was a main factor of the great reduction in the usage of these substances. For the crime reduction, that you said would not be shrinking, will be reduced. Legalizing marijuana will lead to the end of the black market. When something becomes illegal a blackmarket full of illegal activity forms around the substance. However if the substance is legalized the black market will fall because you can buy it legally. For teenage drug dealers, a majority of them do it because its illegal. THis is due to the fact that teenagers go through rebellious stage during adolescence as agreed upon by many phycologists. Now when you consider how hard it is to obtain something you must consider the factors. The question is: What is harder to get, something off the streets where a large amount of drugdealers are selling, or in government operated business area/an area that must be approved by the government to sell the substances?
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

First Contention You know, it's not that our country wants less people to be arrested, necessarily. It's more of having less people committing insubordinate acts. Actions that are not the highest standards. After all, we do want out country to be the best, right? Well having marijuana legalized is just an excuse to sink to a lower level. Those people will not be breaking the law, but are they really better people then they were before? And that opens up an easier gateway for younger children to get bad habits. It's not illegal to have premarital sex, but it sure doesn't do you any good. And thus there would be more teen drug sellers also, not less. As you can imagine, the price for marijuana would be tremendous. With the high price, there would still be such violent acts to receive their drugs. They wouldn't want to pay all that money, so why would they not lead to violence to steal it, increasing that bad statistic also. Just because something is more widely used doesn't mean it's easier to get. If you have a will and a need, you will fight whatever forces are against you: this statement terminating your alcohol prohibition problem. And how would it be harder to obtain? No smuggling required, just go to your nearest H-E-B or Sam's Club! Second Contention Although marijuana may give you a high so that you do not feel pain during certain situations, there are already plenty of legal drugs in our midst that give the same effect. Third Contention Wouldn't it be better if the people of our country used their money for important things such as paying home bills or even buying some food for their children rather than on something that could chemically sway their brain to be abusive to their child or others? Secondly, responsibility cannot be taught if a child was brought up into the environment. And if they did find someway to break free of their habit, What's to stop them? A law? Not anymore! And I do believe that the smoking rate has dropped tremendously because of the knowledge of the sometimes lethal health problems it causes. In short I must say that there are too many cons to the legalization of marijuana in comparison to the few pros to be considered a good decision for our great country and all of its inhabitants.
Resolved: Should the federal government legalize marijuana.

In this debate, I would like only facts presented if they help prove a point, not to just use a politician's or scientist's name. First Contention: Reduction of crime -If marijuana was legalized, there would be less people arrested for being involved in drugs -It would terminate the blackmarket, reducing kingpins, teen drug sellers, and reduce violent actions taken to receive marijuana -when its illegal it easier to get, for example during prohibition, alcohol became more widely used than before in the United States. However when its legal, it becomes harder to obtain Second Contention: Medical Purposes -marijuana would help deal with sickness -reduce pain felt by many patients that is considered unbearable -many doctors recommend it as a way to cure or treat diseases Third Contention: United States Benefit -taxes from marijuana would be great and aid U.S. -teach responsibility to people prior to youth and others -reduce usage of marijuana, when cigarettes became legal to now, the smoking rate as dropped by 40% -easier for government to monitor
This is not a debate.

Why hello, how are you? And thank you for this debate challenge. Of course my opponent claims in the resolution that this is not a debate, but in round 1 he wishes me good luck and refers to me as "my opponent". That could only be if this was a debate, which would makes sense being that this is debate.org. Also in order to instigate this challenge my opponent had to click the button at the top of the screen that says "Start a debate", so this is clearly a debate. BTW Pro, how's the family?