BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electoral College

I will argue that the Electoral College is a fair system that is necessary to American politics to keep a fair representation. The opponent will argue that it must be reformed or abolished. Debate Structure Round One- Agree upon definitions if any, and accept debate rules Round Two- Present arguments without rebuking what the opposing debater argued. So if I presented my argument first, you cannot rebuke the points that I made in your. Round Three- NOW you can finally rebuke opposing arguments made by your opponents in Round Two. Round Four- Defend your round 2 arguments WITHOUT introducing any new arguments. MUST include sources for arguments. Definitions Electoral College- body of people representing the states of the US, who formally cast votes for the election of the president and vice president. Source https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
false exist, and god is false

You are using false as a noun. It is a thing. Blueberries exist. Trees exist. Statements exist. Chairs exist. Your claim is that "false exist." For something to exist, it must be true. Therefore false cannot exist. "How could my statement about false existing be incorrect if there is no false?" The statement exists. The statement doesn't prove False exists. Your claim is that false exists. "true=personal physical experience of now." This is your own defintion. I disagree with your definition. Because it isn't directly related to your subject I won't argue over your definition. I've source the actual definition of true. "facts are in the past..." your off your own point here. No need for me to address this claim "existence=false true and truth, future now and past, all that can possibly be experienced." Once again we seem to have you just asserting your own definitions. You need to argue that false does exist instead of just asserting it. "the existencee of flying pigs are false as I have to imagine them, any false answer is imaginary, there is no false in reality." Think you just lost the debate here. "...there is no false in reality." Reality 1. The state or quality of being real 2. Resemblence to what is real 3. A real thing or fact 4. Real things, facts or events http://dictionary.reference.com... You've lost the debate here Pro. P1. Reality=real things (dictionary definition) P2. "there is no false in reality" (your claim) P3. All real things exist in reality C1. False doesn't exist Back to you Pro.
false exist, and god is false

imagination exist, and superman is imaginary, where as seeing superman on a screen is seeing creation of the human mind as constructed with the human body if false cant exist, true cant exist how could my statement about false existing be incorrect if there is no false? false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now true=personal physical experience of now(and the absolutes) facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, only now is matter, I know my experience of now, kNow IS now existence=false true and truth, future now and past, all that can possibly be experienced, A the existence of flying pigs are false as I have to imagine them, any false answer is imaginary, there is no false in reality
false exist, and god is false

False does not exist, otherwise that would make it true. The statement, "false exist" is a logicially unsound statement, and therefore incorrect. DefinitionsFalse1. Not according with truth or fact, incorrect2. Appearing to be the thing denoted, deliberately made or meant to decieve. https://www.google.com...True1. Agreeing with the facts, not false2. Real or genuine3. Having all expected or neccessary qualities of a specific type of person or thing. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Exist1. An objective reality of being. https://www.google.com...Examples1. True. The Sun exists at the center of our solar system.2. False. The Earth exists at the center of our solar system. In order for the falsereality to exist, thereality would need to be true. "False exist" is logically unsound, incorrect. 1. True. The existence of flying pigs is false.2. False. The existence of flying pigs is true. In order for the falsereality to exist, the falsereality would need to be true. "False exist" is logically unsound, incorrect. 1. True. The Sears Tower in Chicago does exist.2. False. The Sears Tower in Chicago doesn't exist. In order for the falsereality to exist, the falsereality would need to be true. "False exist" islogically unsound, incorrect. We see in these three examples, that in order for the false reality to exist (objective reality of being), the false reality would need to be true (by definition, objective reality of being is true), false realities aren't true, therefore they cannot exist. The reality, "false exist," is logically unsound because existence requires truth of existence. Pro, the floor is yours
Should Drugs Be Legalized

Personally, I am totally against taking drugs, but if drugs were legalized, the US wouldn't have as many problems with drug lords, gangs, and border crossing (in order to deliver drugs) because there would be no need for them. This would lower the amount of crimes in the US. Indirectly, this would cause the amount of taxes going to prisons to lower, which would mean that more money would go to more important things such as education, military, or humanitarian services. Besides, tobacco and alcohol aren't much better than other substances, so if the US wants to make drugs illegal, then they might as well ban tobacco and alcohol as well.
parks and rec is better than all shows

Unfortunately, we did not get to have the debate. I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity, though. Pro failed to provide a standard that would reasonable demonstrate Parks and Recreation was “better than all shows.” However, just for fun, Con tried to find some reasonable standard Pro could have used to support his position. For example, Pro could have used Total audience: Parks and Recreations[1] isn’t the highest and it receives only about half the audience of a television show like The Walking Dead.[2] [Failure for Parks and Recreation to meet “best” standard] Nelson rating: Its highest performing season, season one ranked #96 [failure for Parks and Recreation] Awards/Reception: Parks and Recreation has won some awards and nominations in the comedy but they have not won the most awards in comedy or television, so that would not lead any reasonable person to assume that therefore they are the best television show or better than all other television shows [Failure]. As all ready noted, even if you exclude every television and only leave comedy shows that run for 30 minutes, Parks and Recreation isn’t the best based on aggregation sites like Metacritic. Louie is just one example. That said, Parks and Recreation is an above-average comedy show on network television but there is no way conceivable method from getting there to the position supported by Pro. I would like to thank my opponent, television debates are always fun. Vote Con. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(TV_series)
parks and rec is better than all shows

Thus far, Pro hasn’t been able to demonstrate within reason Parks and Recreations is better than all shows. Primarily, this failure stems from the absence of developing a sufficient method for determining it is better than all other shows. Thus, I will try to fill in this void by adopting Metacritic (the internet aggregation site) as some form of objective standard. Plenty of television shows rank higher on the list than Parks and Recreation. For example, Game of Thrones[1] has consistently outperformed Parks and Recreations[2], along with Mad Men. [3] Also, if you look at the top 100 seasons of every television show, Parks and Recreations isn’t on there. [4] So, based on this methodology I don’t think there is any reason to for voters to accept that Parks and Recreations is better than other television shows on today. [1] . http://www.metacritic.com... [2] . http://www.metacritic.com... [3] . http://www.metacritic.com... [4] . http://www.metacritic.com...
Separation of church and state - School Prayer

You say Christians should rule in terms of religious decisions for the nation, which in terms leads to bias regarding the outcome. By separation of church and state, religion plays no part in the nation's decisions, and as a result, there is a lack of bias towards all parties, regardless of majority faith. Regardless of the majority faith of the states, it is unethical and unfair towards those of minority faiths, who are to "follow the leader", if you will. By removing a moment of prayer, replacing it with it's predecessor, we leave the students to worship their god, entity, or reflect on their philosophy in accordance to their beliefs. Replacing a moment of prayer with a moment of silence in public schools will remove any sort of bias towards those without faith in a god, and reduce religious turmoil among students by a small amount. To ban a faith, we become our enemy, which is hatred and loathe. To force a faith is to show vanity. Should we continue to pray over loudspeakers during morning announcements, we not only develop problems between persons of faiths, but also discriminate against those of opposing beliefs. To limit prayer to individual persons, we let a person retain privacy of faith, and reduce turmoil among students. We limit the chance of rivalry of atheist and christian student, and give an atheist the opportunity, should they see fit, to dwell on other belief systems as they so wish, rather than to make them take part in something they do not support. Aye?
Separation of church and state - School Prayer

So I am assuming that you are for separation of church and statae and against prayers in school, so I will argue for prayer in school.To keep this round short and sweet,1. You said that prayer in school is most definitely illegal in terms of the constitution and bill of rights. Simply put, the 1st amendment, part of the bill of rights, gives everyone the freedom to practice their own religion and prohibits the government from establishing any relgious intstitutions under their wing. This being said, prayer in school is by no means illegal in terms of the bill of rights or constitution. 2. You proved that America was not based on Christian faith.This is true, but 77% of Americans identify themselves as Christian (http://www.gallup.com...) with the 2nd highest religious identity ironically being No religious identity. You seem to favor the constitution and America's laws and democracy, no? Well, America is built with democracy, where majority rules, meaning that Christians should rule in the religious decisions. However, there is the freedom of religion that is instilled in the 1st amendment.Prayer in school is not mandatory, unless perhaps the school is a private, Christian school. There is a moment of silence where mandatory prayer once was, a moment to let those of religion pray to whatever they believe in. Should we ban Muslim prayers in school because they are a minority and "Prayer in school is most definitely illegal," though the bill of rights says nothing against it?
Separation of church and state - School Prayer

I do attend a school such as that, yes. A lot of schools in the "Bible Belt" are notorious for saying prayer over the announcements every day. Here, if you do not bow your head and partake in prayer, you get in trouble with the teachers, and are made a target for peer pressure, people attempting to convert you, and sometimes they will try to get you to move away. It's happened quite a few times here in this region, and nothing can be done about it other than...well, leaving. Marriage in a sense isn't religiously-based, as we have seen from atheistic marriages. I noticed where you reference me saying prayer is illegal. Looking over it, it was a minor typing error, and was made to read that it is legal.
Separation of church and state - School Prayer

I am confused. Do you attend a public school where prayers are said over the announcements daily? Schools removed prayer and replaced it with the moment of silence in order to accommodate people with non-religious identifications or religious identifications other than Christians. However, I noticed that you didn't back up that prayer was illegal when I stated why it isn't. I said that Christians would rule religiously, but I am aware that they cannot because of the prohibition of laws and whatnot made toward/for a specific religion.You propose that limiting prayer will limit some religious rivalry, which in essence is true. However, how can we justify limiting religious practices because some people don't agree with it? If we limit something so small as prayer in public, why would we not limit reglious marriages as well?
Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

I know you not saying your idea is what it should etc , however we are arguing something like , what if it did ?? if this was the case , lets think . The " more informed " voters and the government will start to take advantage of this system . They will start to introduce bills and laws that are in favour of those who know more about it . The whole idea of democracy is to stop this happening . Why do you think communism never worked ? it was a great ideology and so on . but it never worked because of people , human greed and wanting to take advantage of the people. but I stick to one main point , there simply is not enough votes for people to partake in , I would agree if there was one every several months , but there's not . to be honest the only vote I have heard of in the last couple of years or can remember is the general elections for politicians.
Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

Perhaps the infrequent nature of public votes is an indication of the level of confidence in the quality of the system. I agree that this does discriminate people who are less from those that are more knowledgeable. Another way of saying this is that it discriminates those that can contribute meaningfully towards the decision from those that cannot. In the majority of cases, the less knowledgeable could become more knowledgeable by reading the relevant materials. Everyone's votes still do still count, however. At the moment, each individual vote taken in isolation is usually almost insignificant in the calculation of the result. This proposal will just alter the level of significance of the vote up or down slightly. In engineering, there is the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. If a telephone line has noise that is too strong, and a signal that is too weak, the signal is lost amongst the noise and the communication is useless. Uninformed voters are the noise of the system, and there are many more of them than informed voters. Thus the signal is too weak compared to the noise. This means that decisions reached through popular voting are largely irrational. Your last sentence is a little defeatist. To paraphrase, you say that the current system is poor and it won't change. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed system will realistically be adopted, just that the act of making decisions through voting would be improved if it did.
Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

in a way i agree with your idea but of course i disagree with it or i wouldnt be debating this with you. your idea is before people vote they must be well informed , you see , how often to we have to vote on anything ? in a general election if somebodys vote counted for more then those people who are " less knowledgeable " would complain and feel discriminated against. quite often the most popular decsion is not the right decsion but with democracy , its pretty much the people decide and always will be .
Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

Thank you for accepting the argument. Indeed, it would not be democracy as defined by Aristotle, as there would no longer be "equality according to number, not worth". Then again, it is unclear whether any system actually can be said to be truly democratic according to this definition. Corporations often have more power than individuals. Democracy allows the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority", as Tocqueville had it. The popular opinion is not always the correct one, which is why only the most brave or foolhardy of governments implement direct democracy. The bandwagon effect means that people often vote with what they perceive to be the majority, even if it isn't. People like to end up supporting the wining side. This is why momentum is so important for candidates in elections. I am not suggesting that one's ability to vote should be based upon formal qualifications, or abilities at maths or English. Just in an understanding of the issues. Perhaps a questionnaire at the polling station drawn up by some disinterested party could test your knowledge of key issues. If you wanted to vote about adopting the Euro, your vote would count more if you could show a basic grasp of economics. In a government election, your vote would be weightier you have read the manifestos. Let's be clear, I am not suggesting denying anyone the right to vote - just that the weight of the votes will be non-uniform. People can of course increase their weight by reading more. Regarding your point about representative democracy, the person chosen to make decisions will make those decisions based not only upon what they think is right, but also upon what they think the majority would support. Thus it suffers from the same problems. Also, because they are elected by the masses, they may not be the most well informed because of the points above.
Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

then this woudl not be democracy anymore would it ?? democracy - everybody is equal and has a fair say i myself am a terrible speller and terrible at maths and english etc but i like to think of myself as inteeligent in a way because i'm not an idiot i understand most things im told , just the goerment wouldnt belive me because i dont have the qualifications to prove it. i would also like to point out something else , the people never decide , they pick a person to represent what they want . so in theroy the person making these decesions is always well informed and knows what he or she must do.
Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

I propose that the weight of a citizen or subject's vote in an election or referendum should be proportional to their interest in and understanding of the issues. I believe it is clear that the greater an individual's knowledge of a topic, the more valuable their opinion is. I believe it is also clear that the greater an individual's knowledge of a topic, the less likely it is that they can be swayed by biased media or advertising. I await my opponent's arguments.
If God exists..

Ok so a lot of things off the bat I can eliminate for you. The issue is free will is explained with physics, you'll get a better understanding with this vidoe: http://www.youtube.com... The idea is that basically there's an uncertainty principle by heisenberg and it explains that we can never determine the location of an electron because all the possible locations it can go to exists. Therefore it's impossible that someone can determine the future events because the "electron" can never be accurately located. The answer for number 2 is that nobody knows if any religious book is true, if any are at all. All religious books are man made so they could all be wrong about hell, but one could be right about heaven. We won't be able to find out until we're dead. Here's a picture everyone should be following: http://i.imgur.com... If a god exists and is what everyone makes of him, he wouldn't inter-vein in your lives and would be happy with you living life to the fullest. So to restate, you will never know the real book of god, again assuming there is one, and honestly it's bull crap to think that a god would send us to hell for a "crime" we committed that we were unaware of. If he made us, he would know that we cannot know the unknown. So there's no need to worry on going to hell because we aren't given an accurate list of "laws". And lastly, I will tell you why this could not be more false. Explain to me why there are people born with deficiencies, regardless how healthy the mom's pregnancy was. Explain why the rich always win and the poor always suffer. Explain why some people have genes that make them an overall better person then someone else. You can't answer these questions because there is no explanation. God obviously did not make everyone equal, that we can count on 100%. Your last point is extremely flawed because now it implies that a man made thing determines where you end up in a super natural state. That point is dismissed. Live a good life and help others live a good life and I promise if there is a hell, you will not go to it. If there isn't, then at least you have lived a good life
If God exists..

According to many religious books, God is making it clear that he knows the destiny of all his creations. God is almighty. 1. If God already created humans for specific reason on earth, to make give them free-will and letting them choose their own destiny to save their soul after death on earth. My question is: How can you have Free-will when everything is already destined? 2. With so many religions that have existed on earth, how can individual humans possibly know the ACTUAL true book from the ACTUAL God? - If you are born in a traditional Christian family, then you most probably are raised believing in Jesus Christ. Therefore according to Islam you are going to hell. On the other hand, if you are born in a muslim family somewhere in Saudi Arabia, then you probably are a muslim. According to Islam, all non-muslims will go to hell. Now, my big question is: 99 % of all religions are traditionally binded to family roots, while 1 % is mostly people who converted to the specific belief, due to preaches or some friend recommendations. So, having so many opportunities, how can I possibly know the actual book of God? What if I'm wrong? Will I go to hell for eternity, even though I lived my life helping others, and was better than the actual person who didnt do good things, but he will still have a chance going to Heaven, only because "their" God promised them if they believe, they will eventually get to Heaven at some point in afterlife. Also, God said that all of his creations are equally treated and no one is better than the other. Ok here I will clearly have some thoughts. Not saying anything against the idea, but how on earth, can we all be even, when people who lived before the Prophet arrivals in places where they didnt see civilization, like Indian-americans? Or people who lived thousands miles away from the middle-east? Will the people who never heard about religion go to hell?
Same as before

You don't want to vote on DDO, because of the fact people will sort out biases, then they'll come after you like what happened to me when I voted on a debate and the person that told me to vote on it freaked, because he didn't want it though he PMed me. My opponent also states that he will only post actually debates, but this can't be a true debate. This debate is only 1 round and the respond time is 5 minutes and there is no real resolution.
Picture debate: I'm better than you

https://sp.yimg.com...; https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com... https://sp.yimg.com...