BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Representative democracy will turn into an oligarchy

I feel deeply that the resolution is an important insight for everyone who desires true democracy and should be universally known to catalyse a important overhaul of democracy. Here is my case: Those democracies which use the election process instead of demarchic pronciples will always develop into oligarchies, and be run by a political class, who thinks themselves an elite once given power. This perverts democracy and proves a need to develop a better, much more inclusive way to make policy decisions. I argue that this is an unavoidable consequence of the transfer of power to elected representatives for a long perod of time. The fallacy is that these "servants of the people" end to corrupt their delegated powers to be dominant leaders of their citizens. How does this come about so automatically? The leaders not only gain the power to decide policy, but also secondary powers: they can favour loyal followers, they are privileged to receive and direct the flow of information or suppress it as 'secret', and they can set the decision processes which suit their interest best. Their personal interest is political survival and it is a strong " often the strongest " guide of their behaviour. They will use these delegated powers to ensure that they are personally re-elected or otherwise stay in power, and if not them, then their clan. Representatives gain more and more power in lockstep with the masses becoming more and more apathic ("it"s the leaders" job"), indifferent (reducing accountability for the leaders), and finally the 99% stop to participate ("we cannot decide anything, anyway"). The Bushes, Clintons, and the Kennedy"s are proof to my point, even in the USA which started off as a free country and is becoming less and less so. We need to get our power back from them. We need a new, demarchic democracy of the 99%.
Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral

I would just like to clarify one point. I do believe that abortions in the case of the mother's life being in immediate danger, and both mother and child cannot be saved (e. g. during ectopic pregnancy), are justified. In this case, it is a matter of triage, not abortion. Two patients are in mortal danger and only one can be saved, the one with the greater chance of survival (the mother) is saved. So I will be arguing that killing humans in the embryonic period of development is immoral in all other cases. As Pro is making the claim that killing human embryos is not necessarily immoral, I will await his opening argument as he bears the burden of proof.
Abortion in the embryonic period is not necessarily immoral

!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!!DefinitionsAbortion is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. [1]The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). [2]If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!Sources [1] http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

Excellent. A guy with over 3,000 elo to help me reach my goal of 2,150 elo and of course 30 net wins.Rap, without explanations of reading speeds:YYW so darn cool, even after three years, still blows you away with his top-notch debatin' skillsBsh1 looks at him and drools, he ain't your normal guy, no no, not run-of-the-millBsh even lost to him in a debate [1], this shows his power and mandate On the other hand Bsh's name sounds like a failed political candidate Super man, American Ghengis Khan, bombs ka-blam, wizard wa-zham, Gun's shootin' everywhere, blam-blam-blamThat's what he seems to Bsh, his brains got all the great plansHe's a brighter rising sun than even Japan [2]In fan-fics, YYW's completely immortal and invincibleHe's the one who guards bsh1, whom is indeed harmable and death-capableIf Bsh1 was a fable YYW'd be an epic legend While bsh1 crumbles instantly, YYW survives on eons longer than you can imagine It's over love, *YYW wins this battle hands down Within this couple only he deserves the crown Bow now, he's the dominator, intimidatorWhile Bsh is only the worker, the poor blue-collar [3]Rap with explanations of reading speeds:[read a bit faster than usual reading speed]YYW so darn cool, even after three years, still blows you away with his top-notch debatin' skillsBsh1 looks at him and drools, he ain't your normal guy, no no, not run-of-the-mill[read even faster]Bsh even lost to him in a debate [1], this shows his power and mandate On the other hand Bsh's name sounds like a failed political candidate [read super-fast!]Super man, American Ghengis Khan, bombs ka-blam, wizard wa-zham, Gun's shootin' everywhere, blam-blam-blam[normal speed]That's what he seems to Bsh, his brains got all the great plansHe's a brighter rising sun than even Japan [2]In fan-fics, YYW's completely immortal and invincibleHe's the one who guards bsh1, whom is indeed harmable and death-capableIf Bsh1 was a fable YYW'd be an epic legend [Read a little bit faster]While bsh1 crumbles instantly, YYW survives on eons longer than you can imagine [After the first "love", read very quickly]It's over love, *YYW wins this battle hands down [Normal speed]Within this couple only he deserves the crown [A little slower, fading away]Bow now, he's the dominator, intimidatorWhile Bsh is only the worker, the poor blue-collar [3] REFERENCES[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] Japan's Japanese translation is literally "rising sun".* This asterik, remember, is so that you know "YYW" is read "Double-why-double-you [3] Just in case you didn't know, blue-collar is a worker who does physical labor.
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

Round one acceptance Standard battling rules (raps are judged by rhymes, rhythm, word play, etc.)Freestyle I'm on YYW's side, my opponent is on BSH1's sideNote: In order for the syllables to fit, "YYW" is normally read as "Why-why-double-you". I may have an asterid --> * next to "YYW", which means you read it as "double-why-double-you" (Because the more rhymes gives the illusion of a powerful rap)It would be so ironic if YYW or Bsh1 accepted XD
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

SUMMARY: I don't even have to try very hard It's clear who won, didn't even use my trump card. My opponent's got no originality His rap's so bad he has to steal from me Look at that horse reference it's clearly a copy Of my calling bsh's pet a steed previously. 9space's rap is such a sorry sight He resorts to footnotes to make aright Those references which, he's clearly implyin', The reader's too dumb to see what he's supplyin' Insult you? You think you've won. [Insert laughter] fool, that aint even a maybe I point out your faults and you whine like a baby 9SPACEKING, GENTLEMEN AND LADIES: He's rampantly spewed his duplicity And he's slung a load of dishonesty Look at that transparent thievery This guy is a serious mockery Can't even rap with authenticity Yo, this fool's got no credibility To even praise his side, honestly. And he think he's won [insert scoffing sound] Not even close baby! Bsh won the moment you started typin' You ruined the guy whose arse you tried wipin' YYW's name is sunk with your calumny Thanks for your help, I'll take this win free. <3
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

[2] This is an (inappropriate) word-play. .. .you know, YYW and Bsh1 "get it on" in a certain style, but YYW commands and dominates as previously mentioned, so I dominate Beginner in a similar way, and the word pun is that "getting it on" style can be like a horse, but I can also ride on the horse like the horse trainer. .. .Okay if you don't get this, in a paraphrased fasion, "YYW domantes Bsh1 like I domanate him--[something that rhymes with remorse]"
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

Bsh is only a cat indeed. Look at that the spaceking can't read. In fact, this guy should just concede. It's plainly clear he's dumb as a reed. Pro is on a huge garbage chucking spree. There's so much **** he should call himself Plain Brown T. Yo this guy's got the sheer audacity To brag about using less lines than me But count his lines, he uses more comparably. Yo this guy's got the sheer audacity To brag for YYW's inferiority If counts of losses equals quality The best is dairygirl4u2c Bsh just won, I mean look at his steed: Its fan is so dumb, it couldn't even comprehend a simple apostrophe Bsh is only a cat indeed. Look at that the spaceking can't even read. Yo this guy's got the sheer audacity To attack my syllabic poetry To brag for YYW's inferiority To claim to use less lines than me In fact, this guy should just concede. It's really quite clear: he's dumb as a reed. Yo this guy's got the sheer audacity To spit a whole lot of lying bull****. Based on his follower, what good could YYW be? Obviously the dumb of a Dumb and Dumber movie. <3
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

In my raps "bsh" is read as "Bush" to fill up the syllables. If I put an asterik --> * next to "bsh" then it's "bee-ess-ay-ch"Rap without reading speeds:My opponent even admits Bsh is only a catCompared to YYW he's just a little gnat Oh snap, his pants just filled with crapAnd all he did was look at YYW like thatYou call that rap? Bsh1 would be disappointedThe syllables all discombobulatedSounds like somethin' he's write from his literary life, bein' under-educatedYYW's powerful poisonous attacks in his debates can't be medicatedWhile Bsh's arg's[1] can't get better from any amount of times reiteratedI don't even need half as much as lines as youI can speak more about the awesomeness *YYW in just a few7 losses? That only shows he challenges more quality debatersEven when he does not win his impact still creates such a massive craterRap with reading speeds:[Normal]My opponent even admits Bsh is only a catCompared to YYW he's just a little gnat [faster]Oh snap, his pants just filled with crapAnd all he did was look at YYW like thatYou call that rap? Bsh1 would be disappointedThe syllables all discombobulated[read so fast that these lines are spoken in the time it took to speak the previous two lines]Sounds like somethin' he's write from his literary life, bein' under-educatedYYW's powerful poisonous attacks in his debates can't be medicatedWhile Bsh's arg's[1] can't get better from any amount of times reiterated[Slower than before, but still relatively quickly]I don't even need half as much as lines as you[Literally SPIT out the following lines]I can speak more about the awesomeness of YYW in just a few7 losses? That only shows he challenges more quality debaters[Ritardando, fade away...]Even when he does not win his impact still creates such a massive crater[1] Arg's=arguments
Rap Battle: YYW VS BSH1

I was hoping we'd roleplay YYW and bsh1 respectively. Oh well. (bsh is pronounced bee ess ay-ch; bsh1 = bee ess ay-ch one) Bsh wins, it's such a simple matter YYW's a tiger, bsh's lil cat. Got nothing on his master: Got subdued with just one pat. He purrs when he is stroked; mews softly when he's stoked. (Meow!) Bsh1, he wins by miles. Unlike his lil' pet, he's got better style. No fanfic needed, here's the real story: 9space brags a fictional glory. *YYW, he's so inferior, he needs some fantasy to make him seem superior. With Bsh1, the numbers don't lie, he's number one, I'll show you why: 100 debates and 89 wins; only 5 losses: even a chicken (bockbock!!) can see that, with 60 debates and already 7 losses: YYW's the loser, his skills are nothing to his Boss's Bsh1, he's clearly much stronger Don't need Michael Bay gibberish, To see that my side is better YYW's wins hands down? Pssh, you wish. YYW's been crowned, ohmygosh that's cute. He's bsh's dressed up cat: a kitty in boots!
Is NASCAR a sport

The Lizard disagrees. 1. They sit down for 4-5 hours. That's their sport. 2. The most activity they do is turning the steering wheel left. 3. You only lose 74 calories per hour when driving [1]. Since NASCAR drivers are stressed out about the next time they have to turn left, let's say 100c/h. That's 4-5 hundred total. You burn more than that sitting in a sauna for 30 minutes [2]. Is sitting in a sauna a sport now too? 4. I have no idea what your point 3 is supposed to mean. Therefore, not a sport. 1. http://www.chacha.com... 2. http://answers.yahoo.com...
Is NASCAR a sport

Is NASCAR a sport, why yes it is, I have a few things or you, 1: Why does Sports Center show it and why do thy have. NASCAR analyst, Ricky Craven, on there. 2. Have you we What thy do in their cars, the car WANTS to move right, not left, so they fight the car to go left. 3. Harder to do, why, they are in high physical shape, Mark Martian, and do more hits that any Football, Baseball, or Hokey player would do in any old game. They have the right to make more money that teachers ever make in a year, they probably have more guts than a 250lbs football player will ever have in their 1 hour game. Drivers have 4 to 5 hours of sweaty, hot, and tiring of a Sunday after noon.
Businesses should be allowed to deny services on religious grounds

I accept, but am concerned my opponent can only rebut my case effectively by kritiqueing it. A kritik is something that challenges an underlying assumption in the debate. An obvious assumption is that we are only discussing whether it should be legal for businesses to discriminate based on religious beliefs, and that if I find a single exception to this I win. If he brings up amending other laws to accomodate that, being done in a Legal way than he is offering a kritiq. For example if a privately owned prison decided not to take in Christians for the religious reasons that judgements that the christians have been forgiven by the death of Jesus and his resurrection, pro would ve providing a Kritik if he argued private prisons should not exist or an exception should not be made for them. Now I am not going to argue that point, because doing so would violate the rules. My point is to show that examples can be found which are an exception to the rule. I want to take round one to offer my opponent a chance to concede and call the debate tied. If he does so, he may learn something when I explain my argument in round 2. He can take that learning experience and craft the resolution better, then try again with no new loss on his record. However if my opponent thinks that "for profit" prisons are the only exception to the rule and I have disqualified myself from using them than he can argue round two and we can continue the debate. However after quickly pointing out that example, I am sure he realizes more exceptions will be easily found. I urge him to concede in round 2, let me explain my argument, and then we can call this a tie.
Businesses should be allowed to deny services on religious grounds

I believe that the resolution is self-explainatory. Framework: For a bit more context to this debate, the resolution only applies to the United States. This debate will mostly focus on Christian businesses and the LGBT community, however other cases can be taken into consideration. We will be debating the legal and moral basis of the resolution.Debate Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Both sides present their distinctive, respective casesRound 3: Pro rebuts Con's case and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original case in Round 2Definitions:Business - an establishment that sells goods or servicesDeny - refuse to give or grantReligious Grounds - the religious beliefs of the individual or businessRules:1. No forfeits2. No Kritiks 3. No violation of debate structure4. No insults or anything of that nature5. Good luck and let's have fun with this :)6. Any violation of the above rules will result in an automatic loss for the rule breaker 7. Any of these rules can be mended if there is mutual agreement from both Pro and Con
God most likely exists

Something either exists or it doesn't. If something exists, it can be scientifically quantified (measured and evaluated relative to its mass, energy, location, capabilities, and other qualities). For example, scientists have quantified millions of items ranging from from dark holes in outer space to tiny atomic particles (such as the recently discovered Higgs Boson). If something cannot be scientifically quantified, it does not exist (in the real universe). Therefor, god does NOT exist. How is that for a valid argument? Religion, throughout history, has been used to control the masses, rather than enlighten them. An example of this includes the Christian crusades, and the present day suicide bombings of Muslims. Are (insert any faith here) really that different? No. Religion is something that was made up thousands of years ago. The Bible, often entire verses, stories, and anecdotes were falsified for the sake of making a point. Even the concept of the "holy trinity" is a fabrication created not by any god, but for political reasons by a zealot named Theophilus of of Antioch in 412 AD. You denied that evolution was possible through genetic mutations, but the article I shared with you shows that it is and has been observed. So yeah, I have Ok, you keep bringing up what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, when the argument is that "God Most Likely Exists", not "What I Believe is Correct". So your Jehovah's Witness arguments are invalid. Again, also, I never said that I blame the world's problems on god, I said that I blamed them on real people and we should stop blaming supernatural powers, like the giant evil man in the sky that Jehovah's Witnesses apparently believe in. Actually, I do believe the sun is that hot, because it has actual proof. Wow. You said that "a writer is not necessarily the same thing as an author", when the Oxford dictionary definition of the word "author" is "a writer of a book, article, or report". So yes, a writer of a written work is indeed the author of it. So this is still nonsense. And as you have read previously in this argument, I gave solid evidence. Disregarding god, it has never in human history been possible to live to 400 years old. Anthropologists have studied humans from Noah's time, and bak then the age expectancy was even lower than it is today. No, homosexuality being normal is not an opinion, it is fact. Saying that homosexuality is not normal is like saying that being black is not normal. Ok, you're trying to talk to me about being professional? You cut off my quotes to twist my words around, and you, in previous debates, used winky faces. Now that's what I call unprofessional. Carbon dating shows that evolution is true by showing that different versions of creatures who had the same origin existed at the same time, and at separate times. There. I've "enlightened" you.
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Should Drop Out for America's Sake.

What you're saying is untrue: Mitt Romney is in fact far more liberal than John McCain. According to the National Taxpayers Union, McCain would increase government spending by $6.9 billion annually. Romney, on the other hand, would expand government spending by $19.5 billion a year -- almost three times as much! Source: http://www.ntu.org... Furthermore, Romney was recently pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and disingenuously switched his positions. McCain has always been pro-life. And one area where Ron Paul libertarians actually AGREE with McCain is on the issue of torture, whereas they agree with Romney 0% of the time. But this is irrelevant. Most Ron Paul supporters would not vote for either McCain or Romney under any circumstances. Many would prefer a Democrat, even, and others see no real difference between Romney, McCain, Obama, and Clinton. Huckabee's supporters may prefer McCain to Romney. McCain has been consistently pro-life and he's not a Mormon. Your argument is lame. If people want to stop John McCain at all costs, then they can vote for Romney whether or not Paul and/or Huckabee drop out.
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Should Drop Out for America's Sake.

I like Ron Paul the most actually, but he can't win. He is a strict constructionist, and I like that. Mike Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS, and I like that. A lot Libertarians and Independents that registered as Republicans to vote for Ron Paul would NOT vote for John McCain (He is a liberal, and wants bigger government. Mitt Romney wants smaller government), so they have two options: They don't vote. They vote for Romney. Actually, Mitt Romney actually has quite a large evangelical following. So, what's not to lose?
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Should Drop Out for America's Sake.

Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses by a large margin. He is the only representative of the "Religious Right" in this race. The Religious Right does not like McCain because he's a liberal, they don't like Romney because he's a flip-flopper (and a Mormon), and they're not sold on Paul because he doesn't want to legislate morality or launch a new round of Holy Crusades. The Religious Right is a valuable constituency to the Republican Party and Huckabee represents them. Ron Paul is the only libertarian-minded candidate in the race. His supporters are hardcore conservatives; 100% against government interference in the economy or in the domestic affairs of foreign nations. Mitt Romney has said of Ron Paul that "he deserves to be laughed at" -- why the heck would a Ron Paul supporter turn and vote for Mitt Romney? If anything, they would go for McCain, who, like Paul, sticks to his guns (as opposed to Romney's flip flopping). McCain is also against torture, which is the one issue where he and Ron Paul agree. Paul and Romney agree on NOTHING. Huckabee is having fundraising problems. Huckabee is staying in the race to fight for what he believes in, and even though I don't agree with it, I admire him. I admire his perseverance and commitment to his principles. And I admire the decorum with which he presents himself (unlike the chuckle-head frontrunners). His supporters want him in the race. Who is to say that a massive Religious Right turnout won't win Huckabee some delegates on February 5? Ron Paul is NOT having fundraising problems. His people WANT him to run. They could care less if Romney or McCain is the nominee -- they are both liberal statists in the eyes of Paul supporters, no different from Hillary or Obama. Ron Paul's campaign is about spreading the message of TRUE, CONSISTENT CONSERVATISM for a next generation. It would be a betrayal to drop out of the race after his supporters have given him $30 million plus to spread the message.
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul Should Drop Out for America's Sake.

Unfortunately, I am going to sound pretty ignorant in the following statement, but am not. Unfortunately, clsmooth, Mike Huckabee is a Front-Runner that can't win (Same thing with Ron Paul, although not a Front-Runner), and if people vote for him, them DUM-DEE-DUM-DUM-DUUUUUUUUM!!! gets into office (You all know what THAT means! JOHN MCCAIN!!!)!!! If John McCain wins the primaries, then DUM-DEE DUM-DUM-ERRRRRRRRRR!!! gets into office (Mrs. I'll-Do-Anything-To-Get-Elected, HILARY CLINTON (EVEN WORSE!!!)!!!