BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

1. Unlimited rule My opponent clearly misunderstands me. Firstly, I never said the US would become a monarchy, just that the idea of an unlimited term is a characteristic of such and was thus an ideal contrary to American political thought. While the Senate does provide a "checks and balances" system, there are many reasons why this would not counter the idea of a President being able to serve more than two terms. The Senate can be and usually is split between two parties, making it weak as a body capable of immediate action -- this is why the President is under the "Executive" branch because the idea is that one man can form and execute a decision faster than a body of many people. Again, my opponent is actually correct that the Senate balances the President but she is incorrect in that it would be sufficient balance against a ruler with unlimited duration. I would again like to point out that term limits are not the sole measure preventing the US from becoming a monarchy. It is one of the many measures set in place. Removing term limits won’t lead directly to a monarchy. My opponent's rebuttal is based around a "straw man" misrepresentation of my argument -- I was not arguing that term limit removal would lead America to a monarchy, but rather that unlimited terms are an identifiable aspect of monarchies and are thus contrary to American thought. While my opponent's last argument is largely irrelevant, I would like to point out that names of heads of state are not an issue, a figure with the ability to rule forever, not bound by a foreseeable limit, is still a practice associated with monarchies. Democratic vote Good, we both agree the US is not a pure democracy. The US is a democratic republic, which is a form of a republic that contains aspects of a democracy as well. Again, however, the point behind a republic is to fix the issues behind a democracy, and that is to protect the voter minority. While the US is a democratic republic, more importantly, the US is a constitutional republic, which by definition is a republic bound by a Constitution. This is of course a symbol of limited government, and I think my opponent and I can both agree that unlimited terms are contrary to the idea of limited government. My opponent then goes on to state that "someone can vote to do so needs to also be noted that they can vote not to." This is irrelevant. My point was that if the US was a pure democracy, there would be no limit as to what a voter majority could accomplish. We need not dwell on what they would or would not accomplish, just that a pure democracy could easily turn into something far worse. To reiterate, the US is a democratic republic but is more importantly a constitutional republic in that our government is restricted by the Constitution; unlimited terms are a characteristic of the unlimited government of a monarchy and thus contrary to the idea of limited government.Lastly, wikianswers is not a reliable source and the link is a dead end.
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

First my apologizes for round 2. Monarchy:1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a form of government in which supreme authority is vested in a single and usually hereditary figure, such as a king, and whose powers can vary from those of an absolute despot to those of a figurehead. 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a country reigned over by a king, prince, or other monarch Even with the definition of a monarchy, I still find it difficult to believe that by allowing the Presidents of the United States the right to serve more than two terms it will lead us into a monarchy. The first characteristics of the definition implies that a monarchy is a form of government in which SUPREME AUTHORITY is vested in a SINGLE figure. "We do not have to rely on rigid constitutional standards to hold our Presidents accountable," said Hoyer. "Sufficient power resides in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny." Though the President is our authoritative figure, as argued above, with Congress in place it would not be by supreme authoritative rule,since Congress ratifies his bills by a two-third vote. "The President of the United States has the power to negotiate treaties and agreements with other nations, but the Senate must ratify them by a two-thirds vote in order to take effect. This isn't the only way the Senate balances the power of the president." So, by definition it would not be a monarchy rule, since the President is not ruling with supreme authority. 2. Second definition being reigned over by a king, prince, or monarch is also not befitting of what will occur when the President is allowed to serve more than two terms. Mostly because the leader of our nation is neither called a king nor a prince. My opponent's second argument seems to be that U.S.A is not a democracy but rather a republic. However, The United States of America is a democratic republic. Democracy:1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies. Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. thus making my argument NOT negated. Allowing a President to serve more than two terms will not be creating a monarchy, it would allowing a President to serve more than two terms. Finally, as quoted by my opponent "...voter majority could also vote to abolish the current form of government and establish a monarchy", to say that someone can vote to do so needs to also be noted that they can vote not to. http://wiki.answers.com...'s_cabinet#ixzz1rgKvJz6d http://www.wnd.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...=
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

U. S. Presidents should not be able to serve more than two terms because: 1. Unlimited rule Unlimited rule is a characteristic of monarchies, not democracies. When the United States first started, George Washington refused to accept the title of king because he had just finished fighting a monarchy, and later in life also refused a third term for this same reason. [1] When drafting the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists (those opposed to a strong Federal government with central power) were already cautious of allowing a President to have unlimited time in office, and even compared it to a monarchy. [2] Even if my opponent was correct in that we have the right to vote for whoever we want no matter their number of terms, we must still take into account that unlimited terms are a distinct and inherent indication of monarchical rule. 2. Democratic vote While the 22nd Amendment does restrict the ability to vote for whoever the voter pleases, this is not necessarily a bad thing. America is not a democracy, but a republic. James Madison even showed when writing the Federalist papers that their goal was to create a republic that would protect the rights of all rather than a true democracy where the majority overpowers the minority. [3] In a true democracy, perhaps the voter majority could elect whoever he wishes; in this democracy, however, a voter majority could also vote to abolish the current form of government and establish a monarchy. The point of a republic, however, is to limit the government and its power,[4] and term limits do just that. Thus, my opponent's argument from democracy is negated. References 1. . http://www.vision.org... 2. . http://books.google.com... pg. 37-38 3. . http://books.google.com... pg. 99 4. . http://lexrex.com...
U.S presidents should be able to serve more than two terms

Presidents should be able to serve more than two term in office, and have the right to run again after serving two terms to become President again. The twenty-second Amendment, states " No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." Why? It is understandable that America does not want to open the doors of the possibility of becoming a monarchy. However, being a democracy and continuing to utilize our rights to vote we can still remain as such by voting who we want to be in office or to stay in office. Keep in mind that we as a country have already allowed Woodrow Wilson to be elected FOUR terms, though he was only able to serve THREE. Why allow a President that is doing well for our country, and that would win a reelection (implying he was the support of the majority of the country), not run again and hault his/her contribution soley because a 1947 Congress was afraid of the idea of monarchy. Governors are allowed to run for office as many tines as they please, and are allowed to serve office as many times as they are elected. Thus, the only reason to not allow a President to serve more than two terms, would be to avoid a monarchy. By voting, and with sufficient power residing in the Congress and the Judiciary to protect our country from tyranny, there is no substantial reason to continue this.
There is no factual evidence to support a Christian God

Again my opponent has offered up no evidence to support his claims. He claims the bible can prove the existence of God. The bible can not prove the existence of God, even if it his historically accurate. That would merely show us that some of the bible lines up with history, which still offers no proof of an all powerful creator. He then states that scientist believe in the different galaxies, and questions if God is in one of those galaxies. Where as this is a theory, again there is no factual evidence to support his claim. He is operating off of assumption.He then states that God would give us purpose in life. Which if there was a God this could be a viable argument, assuming there is one. That is why this debate is about proving the existence of a God, not arguing that a deity would give us a purpose.In conclusion I believe Con has offered no argument or sources to show evidence of a divine creator. He has merely argued from person opinion. I have stated how evolution explains how we can be where we are, that the string theory is a viable and accepted theory within the scientific community, and also combated each of my opponents statements. I believe I have presented more sound argument and sources and my opponent has failed to prove proof of a God
There is no factual evidence to support a Christian God

This debate has already go off topic. Cons opening remark states " the bible lines up with history". The topic is not whether or not the bible is historically accurate( I do however have a debate for that exact topic lol), it is whether or not there is evidence to support a God. He then states Science and evolution can go hand in hand. Some Christians believe this to be true, but again my opponent has not offered any evidence to support the topic at hand. I guess I bear the burden of truth, and will start by saying that the existence of the universe can be proven without a God.We know this by a the string theory and theory of a multiverse. This states that there are alternative universes. It also states that when there is no physical matter at all, particles can actually be created by having an adverse effect. http://www.nucleares.unam.mx...Also we know how we can to exist, and this is through the theory of evolution. Where as my opponent stated, some Christians believe that religion and science can go hand in hand, that is still not evidence to support a God. That is filling the gap and making a hypothesis. Because science can not explain everything yet, God can. This is an assumption and not showing anything to support the theory he claims to advocate
School Uniforms Should not be Required

Virginia Draa, assistant professor at Youngstown State University, reviewed attendance, graduation and proficiency pass rates at 64 public high schools in Ohio. Her final analysis surprised her: "I really went into this thinking uniforms don't make a difference, but I came away seeing that they do. At least at these schools, they do. I was absolutely floored." Draa's study concluded that those schools with uniform policies improved in attendance, graduation and suspension rates. She was unable to connect uniforms with academic improvement because of such complicating factors as changing instructional methods and curriculum. University of Missouri assistant professor, David Brunsma reached a different conclusion. In his 2004 book, The School Uniform Movement and What It Tells Us About American Education: A Symbolic Crusade, Brunsma reviewed past studies on the effect of uniforms on academic performance. He also conducted his own analysis of two enormous databases, the 1988 National Educational Longitudinal Study and the 1998 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Brunsma concluded that there is no positive correlation between uniforms and school safety or academic achievement. In closing school uniforms also Help prevent gangs from forming on campus Encourage discipline by teaching students to adhere to rules Help students resist peer pressure to buy trendy clothes Diminish economic and social barriers between students Increase a sense of belonging and school pride How students can be creative at school -by being effective learners, the greatest form of creativity is expressed with knowledge -students can be creative in debate, science projects, chess, acting, sports Anecdotal evidence shows the effectiveness of uniforms Here is how school uniforms prevent bullying School uniforms make act as a leveler between rich and poor students because it means all students wear the same thing no matter what their socio-economic back ground. If students wore their everyday clothes their would be a big gap between what rich students wore and what poor students wore. Clothing would become an indicator of how well off a child's parents were. Children would inevitably begin to be bullied if they were not able to keep up with the latest and often expensive fashion trends. At school all students should be seen as equal amongst their peers and ensuring they all wear the same uniform is one way to ensure that is the case. Students will find enough reasons to bully each other on their own, we do no need to give them another one on the plate.
School Uniforms Should not be Required

You have yet to cite any sources at all, and you have lots of spelling and grammar errors.And what are the "other avenues that students can productively express themselves creatively during school time"?"Equalize students....", "we can all learn & we can all be something in life regardless of our finances"... Didn't you already state that in the first round? Oh well."fashion shows that students do..."WHAT? I've never seen any "fashion shows that students do"!!Albert and Stephen are bad examples. Arguably they're not very creative. They're just insanely intelligent." prepares them for an adult world..." Well most jobs don't require uniforms. "Dress code...." Although uniforms can deduce the stress on dress codes, and completely removes the need for it, there's still my argument about emblems.That argument still stands. Schools cannot force people to wear a message, whether it's controversial or not.
School Uniforms Should not be Required

sorry for the miss, but here goes 1. the expression of students via clothing style & colors is something students can do after school. the argument is that during scholling hours lets not create layers of priorities that compete with the learning of the child, there are other avenues that students can productively express themselves creatively during school time 2. to the contrary school uniform even the playing field enabling socioeconomic status not to be an issue as regards to a students learning potential. moreso school uniforms equalize students and clearly reinforce the american constitution by saying we are all equal nomatter how financial positions, we can all learn & we can all be something in life irregardof our finances 3. fashion shows that students do in non-uniform schools trying to compete with each ther are an unecessary distraction to learning 4. by saying robots u are implying that uniforms stifle creativity but Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, both extremely intelligent men, grew up wearing uniforms to school. Proof enough that wearing uniforms dont stifle creativity or make people roots but actually help students to learn and not to indulge in distracting fashion shows. 5. in non-uniform schools student wear their own clothes now this means the cloths wear & tear faster as they are used more often meaning you have to replace your childrens clothing more. so having 2 pairs of uniform to wear for the whole year is cheaper, simple economics. additionally 1. school uniforms teaches students about being professional and prepares them for an adult world. People in the business world wear a uniform of sorts every day; can you imagine a court of law where the judge was wearing a sloppy t-shirt or jeans with their underwear showing. Uniforms set a tone to the atmosphere and a behavioral expectation. Students should be encouraged to dress for school just like they would if they were working at a job. 2. institutions in the world have dress codes, even schools that dont wear uniforms have dress codes. it becomes a nightmare to enforce such a dress code in non-uniform schools taking valuable time better spent on teaching.
School Uniforms Should not be Required

aw come on! I bet I will win again by forfeit Why do I always win by a bad way? All my six debates I won, the opponent forfeited... :( Just...just base the argument on the rest of the rounds. I want a fair fight!! However I do not concede. I still hold my points in the fact that within a federal law case, the parents lost, and the nation contradicts its belief in freedom of expression (And do NOT forfeit again my opponent, for I will not forgive you!) "Forfeit once, shame on me. Forfeit twice, shame on you. Forfeit three times, you lose for sure."--9spaceking's random quote
School Uniforms Should not be Required

School uniforms are necessary because 1. Enable children to focus on their school work as opposed to what type of clothes they wear 2. They put all children at the same level as socioeconomic status is not apparent from the uniforms they where since they are all the same. 3. Removes the status symbol associated with flashy clothes removing peer pressures of that kind 4. Bring a sense of uniformity & unity among pupils 5. Good for security as you can identify kids who should be at a particular school 6. Save parents money especially those coming fr poor families 7. Uniforms also enable students to get ready for school faster as they don't have much of a fashion statement to make, just put on your uniform and you are ready to go 8. Uniforms enable students to self express in a way that is relevant to their learning i.e through extra curriculum activities, their talents 9. Enable children to make friends based on personality and character instead of what you wear 10. In a way wearing school uniforms reduces bullying since some of the bullying comes from what other children wear, so if clothing is standardized there is no bullying based on that
Islam VS. Baha'i Faith

In the name of Allah the most merciful and the most compassionate. I start this debate wanting to know the truth behind Baha'i faith with out any hate, and I'd like to know what are the things that many people don't know about this religion and reasons to convert to the Baha'i religion as well. So we will start this round by defining our own religion breifly yet clearly. In Islam we mainly believe that there is only one God and many different prophets and messengers of God and we believe that Mohammed (PBUH) is the last prophet sent by God, as muslims we believe in the day of judgement and also believe in heaven and hell.
Islam VS. Baha'i Faith

"Do you think it's appropriate for a god to manifest as human being?" Yes. And God can send messengers whenever he sees fit, or appear as himself. Koran was altered by Muhammad's followers after his death. And Quran is not the only religious book revealed to us by God. Since you are a muslim, enjoy: It was narrated from Suhayb ar-Roomi (may Allah be pleased with him), from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he said: "When the people of Paradise enter Paradise, Allah " may He be blessed and exalted " will say: "Do you want anything more?" They will say: Have You not made our faces bright? Have You not admitted us to Paradise and saved us from Hell?" Then the veil will be removed and they will not be given anything more beloved to them than looking at their Lord, may He be glorified and exalted." Narrated by Muslim. According to this hadeeth, will the believers" seeing Allah after entering Paradise happen only once, or will the people of Paradise see Allah all the time and at any time, or will it be once every Friday, as I have heard before? The Messenger (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, "When the inhabitants of Paradise enter Paradise, Allah will say to them, "Do you want Me to give you anything more?" They will reply, "Have You not made our faces bright? Have You not brought us into Paradise and moved us from Hell?" Allah will then remove the Veil and they will feel that they have not been awarded anything dearer to them than looking at their Lord." [Sahih Muslim] The Messenger (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said, "When the inhabitants of Paradise enter Paradise, Allah will say to them, "Do you want Me to give you anything more?" They will reply, "Have You not made our faces bright? Have You not brought us into Paradise and moved us from Hell?" Allah will then remove the Veil and they will feel that they have not been awarded anything dearer to them than looking at their Lord." [Sahih Muslim]
The Obama Administration

I will be arguing the point that the Obama Administration is good, while my opponent, Crescendo, will be arguing against the Obama Administration. Because my opponent has neglected to lay out some rules, I feel obligated to do so: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all time. My opponent seems to already comply with this rule, so I do not believe it will be a problem. 2. All arguments must be intelligent and rational. My opponent also seems to do this, so it will not be a problem either. 3. All sources, if any, must be properly cited. As those are the only rules I feel I need to lay out, I will let this debate commence. I look forward to debating such an interesting, salient topic.
The Obama Administration

Hello, my (username) is Crescendo, and I am new to this Site. I am what is commonly referred to as a "Noob." I am hoping that this will change with time, but for the time being, I accept the status of noob, as every other new member must. I am new to this Site, so in the unlikely event that an experienced user takes up this Debate, I ask him or her to take it easy on me. This is, after all, the first debate of the user "Crescendo." Burden of Proof will be shared by Pro and Con in this Debate. First round is for acceptance. Please, no trolls. Though I am new, I would like to have a legitimate debate on this subject.
Laws protect freedom.

Your only argument being the idea of personal freedom, you've already dug your grave. While laws such as the ones feeding into the war on drugs are harmful and hold greater dis-value than prosperity and freedom, not all laws fall into this category. For instance, with lawlessness, all men would hold the right to murder, commit rapacity, and rape. These crimes are not victimless and in fact take away personal freedom such as the right to life. By invoking a state of lawlessness, you allow for a state of anarchy where no man is free, but constantly under the rule of fear of very real threat to life and well-being.