BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The electoral college should be abolished

Right off the bat, you should know that nobody likes to see wikipedia in a list of sources. Get rid of the habit now. Do it for your own good. I said that the electoral college is dumb and then didn't back it up because I was tired and I planned on backing up that statement in the rest of my argument, so here we go! I would now like to concede that I did mess up my facts a little bit. I apologize. I faintly remember learning about how the electoral college had something to do with the Civil War, and I didn't fact check myself. My bad. Anyway, the Electoral College was invented back when it was much more useful and helpful to preserve democracy and be fair. But now it doesn't have any positive aspects, and on five separate occasions a candidate has won without the popular vote. As for the Clinton thing, I didn't mean to suggest that ALL of America wants to elect Clinton. I said "America as a whole." What I meant was that the majority wanted Clinton for president so she should win. That is only fair You still haven't answered why it's fair for the majority of Americans to support Clinton and yet Clinton is not in office. Also, please note that you could have substituted "Hillary Clinton" for "Andrew Jackson" or "Samuel J. Tilden" or "Grover Cleveland" or "Al Gore" because all of them won the popular vote but lost the presidency during their elections. I agree that it would be difficult to reform the electoral college system into a pure democratic system, but it is much simpler, easier to understand, easier to carry out, and just straight up fair.
The electoral college should be abolished

I have taken the argument against my opponent, who believes that the Electoral College should be abolished. It is noted that their personal political affiliation is not subject to ridicule, and I encourage the voters to vote based on merit, not political standing. P.s. I don't have school tomorrow either! To open, my opponent starts by blatantly stating that the electoral college is "dumb" with no further explanation or evidence to back that statement up. Secondly, my opponent states that "It was only useful when it was invented during the Civil War when the population was more spread out." However, it should be noted that during the period between 1861 and 1864, the population of the United States was more centralized, with most of the population living on the Eastern Seaboard, from Maine to Florida. The Northwestern frontier was still relatively unexplored, and as a result, uninhabited. (By citizens of the United States) As for the creation of the Electoral College, the information that my opponent provides is false. The Electoral College began was ratified as a part of the Constitution of the United States of America in 1787. Thirdly, my opponent suggests that the entire population of the United States voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. By using the phrase "America as a whole wants [her] for [our] leader." my opponent openly misinforms the general public, by collectivizing the voting population, rather than allowing individualistic ideals in voting for president, my opponent instead bars the possibility that anyone wanted Donald Trump to win the presidency. My opponent proceeds to ask "How is this fair or logical at all?" The way that the Electoral College works is that each state is allotted a certain number of representatives, based on total population per state. for example, New Hampshire is allowed four (4) representatives for its total population of 1.3 Million (as of 2017). California as allowed fifty-five (55) representatives for its total population of 39.5 Million. (2017) The number of allotted Electoral College members per state is dictated by the population itself. Let it be noted that the United States of America is a Democratic Republic, the system that my opponent purposes, that the majority vote of the general population should determine the seat of the presidency, is purely a Democratic system, which would require an entire overhaul of the United States political system to accomplish. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://constitutionus.com...
The electoral college should be abolished

The electoral college is dumb. It was only useful when it was invented during the Civil War, when the population was more spread out. With the electoral college in place, there are candidates who America as a whole wants for her leader, and someone else wins! How is this fair or logical at all? Now before you say that I'm a damn snowflake liberal who just wants to whine about losing, let me clear about something. First of all, I like snowflakes. When billions are on the ground outside my house, I don't have to have to go to school. Secondly, I am a liberal. I am solidly liberal Third, I understand that Mitt Romney won the popular vote against Obama, but Obama took the presidency anyway. Well, if America wanted Mitt Romney as a president, then so be it. He should have won. Let me be clear that I did not support Romney in any way, shape or form. If someone comes back with a logical argument, I can do some research and cite some sources. I just don't feel like it right this moment.
Ban islam

im not saying they are the same "religion", but made for one end goal, islam taking over the world.. guess i should clear that up christians support religion, christians think islam is religion.. when christians talk about christ returning or the apocalypse, they believe in a prophecy which is based on an underlying possible truth, islamic taker over.. the devils "religion".. if this is true that also means it was made for thousands of years ago, and therfore impossible to actually predict when both religions are big enough to make the apocalypse happen.. and lol
The United States Government Welfare Program is a Disaster

First off, the statistic that you argued against about 43% of Americans not paying income tax IS because many get so many tax breaks as a result of welfare that they end up either paying no income tax or even getting REFUNDED in income tax. . http://www.businessinsider.com.... And while many people still get taxed through payroll taxes and others those are a result of them working, just like Social Security. Overall, the people not having to pay income tax leaves taxes for the rest of the country to pay, and thus less is going into the government's budget. Second, the stat 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck is a bizarre number, because even if true and unbiased (CNN is heavily leftist), it's the fault of those people for living too lavishly. If you make an average income or above average income (greater than 50,000 according to . https://www.statista.com..., which would be included in that 76% of Americans range,) then there is no reason why you should be living paycheck to paycheck unless you didn't manage your money well. Also you disregarded my other two statistics that welfare costs 700 billion or even over a trillion dollars for the country, and instead only attacked my 150 billion dollar statistic. The point is that welfare, costs a very large amount, so to say that it only costs like 42 billion or that 150 billion is not that much is wrong. Also the last paragraph about food stamps seems to act as if people on food stamps (who by the way, many of which don't need to be on) ONLY use food stamps as a form of welfare, and thus would make less in welfare benefits than those who work. But there are so many others programs that people use, such as TANF benefits, Unemployment checks, Disability benefits, etc. And together these benefits can actually add up to pay BETTER than for working families, as studied by the Cato Institute . http://www.politifact.com... .
The United States Government Welfare Program is a Disaster

150 billion dollars a year still isn't that much - even if you cut it entirely(which is impossible), you'll end up with 1.2 trillion less national debt in 8 years, which is nothing compared to the 10 trillion increase in total in the last 8 years. It's far more beneficial to help the bottom people who have been screwed over by the society. Where's your source saying that people are taking advantage of the welfare program? Sure, 43% of the people pay no income taxes, but that's because the people are already broke before income tax. Also, that doesn't mean that they aren't paying other taxes ; the 43% of the people probably won't even provide much in the income tax as they aren't making much. As I said before, the bottom 20% of the people owe more than they have, meaning that they are in serious financial trouble. Also, according to http://money.cnn.com... , 76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, meaning that they are one or two paychecks away from going broke. This is also indicative that most people don't have enough money, and need some additional help from the government. Welfare doesn't get people trapped in poverty; they help them get out of poverty by easing their financial burden. People on welfare typically cost less to the government than workers, anyways, which means that they're getting less in terms of money, and should still want to work. According to the same source, http://www.fns.usda.gov... , people are only getting 127 dollars per month from food stamps, while someone working on minimum wage, 7.25 dollars per hour, is making 1160 dollars per month, almost 10 times the amount.
The United States Government Welfare Program is a Disaster

Allow me to clear up any questions. First, when I say disaster and catastrophe I am referring to the fact that the welfare program is hurting our national debt, is easily gamed, and that because of it many people are trapped in a cycle of poverty. Second my assertion that only 55% of the country pays income tax comes from both CNN and Forbes you can look them up http://www.forbes.com... http://money.cnn.com... also I have found sources that say that the government is paying at least 700 billion in welfare programs not including Social Security, such as Fox and the Heritage organization, as well as others saying at least 150 billion. http://www.cheatsheet.com... Finally, the welfare system fosters entitlement and hand outs for people. Instead of having deadlines on getting jobs like it should and used to under the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, the government is giving hand outs to people. Welfare shouldn't be a lifestyle, it is meant for people who just got laid off or dealt with a serious injury so that they can recuperate, for example; not to be lived on.
The United States Government Welfare Program is a Disaster

The poor are desperately in need of help and most of them are already working extremely hard. In fact, politifact, http://www.politifact.com... confirms the assertion that the top 0.1 percent is making as much money as the bottom 90 percent combined. The US has one of the biggest wealth inequality in the world. In fact, according to http://www.levyinstitute.org..., the bottom 20% has more debt than their assets, meaning that their net value is negative. This means that they really need some help off their financial situation. The welfare program is not the primary reason our nation is in huge debt, in fact, according to the statistics http://www.fns.usda.gov... , we have only been paying 74 billion dollars per year for the welfare program. On the other hand, the national debt has increased about 10 trillion from 10 to 20 trillion under Obama's presidency, shown by http://www.treasurydirect.gov... , an average of 1.25 trillion dollars a year. This means that the welfare program contributes only about 6% of the total national debt, and means that it's not the main reason for the rising national debt.
The United States Government Welfare Program is a Disaster

If we look at the politifact rating, the source rated the claim as mostly false. That's because very few people get that much in welfare, while most of the people get very little and actually are in need of welfare. If we further tax the bottom 20% and don't give them anything, then they will be in serious financial crisis, because they are already in negative net worth even before the welfare. If you think of the people who are making $7.25 per hour, you can see that it's not always that they are spending money too lavishly that gets them living paycheck to paycheck; America has one of the highest costs of living in the world. Also, 50000 isn't the average income; it's the average household income right now, which is a very different thing.
single issue voting on abortion, for president, for prolifers

**So you are telling me that you believe in abortion? Your argument is obviously based on the fact that many people don't give others a chance to sway them in a topic before voting. I KIND of believe in voting for the best argument. I believe in giving both sides a chance to sway me on a topic, then I vote. You can give me 200 facts and figures. I'll read them all, but if you don't sway me, you lose.** i'm not sure where you get that i favor abortion. in fact, i would outlaw it if i could. i'm only saying that voting for that issue alone is not wise, because it's an issue that most probably is not going to change. i'm not even sure what you're arguing about people tryign to sway other people. democrats prevent justices who are bent on undoing past court opinions... this is the closest i can find for what your points are. or, as for me swaying you, i've stated my case, and you need to respond to my substnative arguments, that abortion is not going to change anytime soon for the reasons i've said. simply saying i didn't convince you, if that's your intent in saying wht you did, is not an argument. i need you to explain this "sway" stuff.
single issue voting on abortion, for president, for prolifers

So you are telling me that you believe in abortion? Your argument is obviously based on the fact that many people don't give others a chance to sway them in a topic before voting. I KIND of believe in voting for the best argument. I believe in giving both sides a chance to sway me on a topic, then I vote. You can give me 200 facts and figures. I'll read them all, but if you don't sway me, you lose.
single issue voting on abortion, for president, for prolifers

Abortion should not be the sole issue, even by prolifer arguments. fifty percent of the pulic favors the early allowance for abortion early in the pregnancy. those in favor of it are only going to vote for a democrat, are often democrats, in democrat states. they will veto any justice who wants to overturn roe v wade. even if republicans are repeatedly voted in then, they're probably not going to be able to vote for anyone practically speaking who'd overturn. bc of those democrats. you'd be banking on the justices being wishy washy and maybe getting elected, by saying they'd be in favor of following precedent but it depends on the situation, whatever that means, mystique. practically speaking, historically, regan appointed very many demorats on this issue. others did too, or republicans who follow precedent. that is a conservative principle, afterall. i'm not sure democrats are what's preventing an overturn, but the democrats can't be overlooked. plus, republicans aren't that consistent in appointing prochoice, as regan was not etc. also, as to the argument that we can take little bits out of the abortion laws... no one can tell me when i ask them what the game plan is. what's going to be attacked? when roe was decided, they also in a separte case decided the health of the mother can include her mental health too. the partial birth ban was merely symbolic and didn't reduce abortions becasue they can occur in the womb then removed. the bottom line seems to be that the country is divided, and that will be reflected in our system, and until that changes, abortion will not change. racism etc was not changed because we forced good guys in there, but because the country changed itself, it was a natural consequence. it seems far fetched and myopic to think you're going to force your way to change by the long and tediuous process of justices and such. so if you're a prolifer, you can vote for them if they make sense in the big picture, and you can't disregard the issue completely i suppose, but you can't look at it alone.
Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

This will be my first debate concerning religion, so I am very excited. I accept Pro's terms and conditions. Once again, my opponent will be affirming the resolution that if God were to "convert" an individual such that they are admitted into heaven rather than hell, he has committed an act worse than rape. I stand in firm negation of this resolution. A brief note to readers. Pro is an avid theist and yet here will argue that there is an instance in which God could act heinously. I, a non-theist, will be in defense of God and his actions. We've both left our comfort zones and invite you to do the same. Please use this as an opportunity to judge a unique discussion on its merits rather than pre-existing preferences. As Pro indicated, votebombs are pointless as they will lead to a deleted debate. With that, I await Pro's opening volley.
Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

This debate will be about whether direct intervention from God is worse then rape. This debate was inspired by a debate Maikuru and I had in the comment section of popculturepooka's debate here: http://www.debate.org...Within context of this debate, "Direct Intervention" will be specifically defined as a situation in which God overrides a person's free will and causes that person to choose Him. According to Christian Theology, by choosing Him [Jesus], said person will experience an afterlife of eternal bliss. The act of choosing Jesus involves believing and therefore accepting him as your Lord and Savior. In context, "Direct Intervention" will not mean situations in which God facilitates a free-willed choice, because in this case a person will still have the opportunity to choose for themself. Once again, in context of this debate, "Direct Intervention" will refer specifically to a situation in which God overrides a person's free will and causes them to choose Him.As requested by Con, we will be presupposing the correctness of the Bible and Christianity.The definition of rape, as requested by Con, will be defined as:1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. [1]To provide further clarification, I will provide a similar definition: 2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. [1] The burden of proof will be shared. Therefore whoever gives a better argument for their position will win this debate. It should be understood that it is unreasonable to expect either myself or my opponent to fully fullfill their burden of proof.Finally, I urge voters to consider the debate for its merits, to vote unbiasedly, and to give detailed RFD's explaining their decision. As a theist, I specifically extend this request to theist voters. Please weigh both arguments honestly and fairly. If I win because of a votebomb, this debate will be deleted.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion

I will be arguing that abortion should be illegal. I would like to point out 4 major points why abortion is not right. 1) IT IS ENDING A LIFE Some consider abortion to be murder since the being inside the mother is living. The definition of something living includes the ability to grow, which is exactly what is going on inside a woman who is pregnant. An abortion ceases the growing process, therefore ending the future life of a human being. This little being may not start off with a heartbeat or brain activity, but cells are still dividing and allowing it to grow... 2) ADOPTION IS ANOTHER OPTION Adoption is always brought up when people talk about aborting an unwanted child. The idea of aborting a child who would make a welcome addition to another family"s household is expressed by many pro-life individuals, including myself. There are tons of people who get rejected when they apply to adopt a child, which makes the idea of adoption seem far-fetched to these individuals. However, most people feel putting a child up for adoption is much better than going through an abortion. 3) DOCTORS ARE SUPPOSED TO SAVE LIVES The modern version of the Hippocratic Oath doctors take doesn"t specify that doctors are only to save people and make them better, but it is expected of them. The classic version of this oath actually has the phrase, ""I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." and the original Hippocratic Oath states, ""I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion." Any mention of not performing an abortion has been taken out of the Hippocratic Oath, but not from the minds of people who expect doctors to save lives. 4) THERE WOULD BE LESS MENTAL ANGUISH CAUSED Women who go through an abortion have to forever carry that thought with them. They often wonder what their child would have looked like, acted like, and what type of person he/she would have been. No matter how strong a woman is, an abortion causes mental anguish that never truly goes away. At least with adoption a mother or father has the chance to see what their child has become. Next round I will use as a rebuttal and closing argument, I await Pro's case.
All religious prophets who would arise from 2014 would be diagnosed with mental disorders/illnesses.

Prophet, in the context of this debate, relates specifically to someone who not only claims to be speaking of the one true philosophy but that a supernatural entity is speaking through them. So, yes, Buddha would not be a prophet according to this debate.The prophet must not only believe they are speaking the words of this supernatural entity that that the entity physically created everything except for itself, is the source of all morality and that questioning anything about the religion is a sin within that religion.If any further clarification is required, please post in comments.Minimum of 15 debates already completed to qualify as my contestant. Thank you.R1: Acceptance.R2: Opening arguments, no rebuttals unless connected to argument.R3: Rebuttals, offensive style.R4: Rebuttals, defensive style.R5: Closing statement, no new rebuttals or arguments.
God Doesn't Exist

Here's my rough draft. I am pretty sure an agreeable quality of God would be that he/she/it is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent at the same time, which is contradictory, but "benepotent", meaning he/she/it can and will do all that is good, such as creating and maintaining an evil-free existence or perfectly good existence. Our existence is both pragmatically and technically distinct from an evil-free or perfectly good one since it DOES contain evil, so I can conclude that God doesn't exist by definition. Why would you define God differently if what you call God can't maintain an evil-free or perfectly good existence? Let me know what you think in both the debate and comments.
God Doesn't Exist

Okay, the literal definition doesn"t say anything about evil. I have no idea how. It would have been very helpful if you provided an example or an even better explanation then just stating "An omnipotent being can be evil" Second, having unlimited power does not mean you can cause evil. Being Omnipotent and omnibenevolent is plausible. A being that has infinite power but only uses it for good. I think you misunderstand me. IN ORDER for there to BE GOOD there has to be something BAD You have not addressed any of my examples, and blantanly went ahead with bad=evil. If a human is more highly moral than God, then we"re in deep trouble. God wants living creatures to live peacefully and in happiness, but He first has to answer a challenge brought against His name. God will not instantly make th world full of Good yet, because that would destroy His omnibenevolent quality.