BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Constitutional Monarchy is better Presidential Democracy!

I would like to thank the right honourable gentleman for his explaination but as for the debate< i would like to say that Constitutional monarchy is better than presidency because if the head of the government fail to submitt it's promise of certainty then the head of state has the right to call again for another parliament. another one is this, if the head of state is a bullying tyrant then the people,the parliament and the nation as a whole (with the help of UN) have the right to deposed the monarch.
Constitutional Monarchy is better Presidential Democracy!

I will now take this time to present some definitions, refute my opponents arguments, and provide some of my own. All I have to do as Con is to show how presidential democracies are on par with or better than constitutional monarchies. DEFINITIONS:Constitutional Monarchy - a constitutional monarchy is no different from a presidential democracy, but in a constitutional monarchy the monarch (we will assume it is Britain's monarch, Queen Elizabeth II) is the head of state. As the head of state, she has no real role in governmentPresidential Democracy - the system of government we currently have in the United StatesOPPONENT'S CASE:My opponent's entire case rests on the assumption that the "leaders ideas are inconsistent" in a presidential democracy, but fails to realize that the leaders ideas would remain inconsistent even in a constitutional monarchy as the monarch has no power in government. Thus, my opponents entire case is invalid. CON ARGMENTS:1. Constitutional Monarchies are less efficient As my opponent has failed to realize this, the system of government between presidential democracies and constitutional monarchies govern the same way. However, constitutional monarchies are more inefficient as the monarch is the head of state. Thus, royal assent must be granted by the governor-general before a law is passed, making the law-making process longer and more inefficient. Only one contention seems necessary for this debate. I have refuted my opponent's arguments and provided some of my own.
Progress Cannot Be Defined as Belonging Solely to a Specific Political Spectrum

Okay, so to oversimplify your argument, the basic idea is that progress can be defined as what is beneficial, better than what was used in the past. But then again, what is beneficial? Is progress by your definition of the word is always a good thing, what is progress? A radical Islamist may believe a world dominated by Shariah Law is a good thing. A Ku Klux Klan guy, though nothing he does would be progress by your standard, would consider almost everything he did beneficial. You may consider Conservative policies not to be progress, but a Conservative would, and a Conservative would consider liberal policies not to be progress, while a Liberal would. It has been debated time and time again whether Conservative or Liberal policies will benefit America. As for instance, who is to say that Social Equality is morally superior to Social Inequality? Who is to say that freedom is morally superior to slavery? You may believe a woman's right to abort is progress, but others on the other political spectrum may disagree. Is there's no absolute moral standard (and no, I'm not trying to change the nature of the debate; this is my argument), there is no way of telling who's right when it comes to ethics. You stated in your argument that the Right Wing opposes progress, but is that really true, or do they simply oppose the Left Wing's definition of progress? You may view tolerance of homosexual marriage as progress, and it may seem like common sense to you that this is progress. However, I may view tolerance of homosexual progress as the opposite of progress, and it may seem like common sense to me. If progress is defined as a new idea, well, if you don't mind me fulfilling Godwin's supposed Law, Nazi ideas were new when they were first introduced. Granted, Hitler's ideas came from 19th century German philosophers and scientists, but the ideas were untried up until 1933, making them new ideas. So in 1933, would concentration camps have been progress? If progress is defined as what has been shown to work, extreme Right-Wing and extreme Left-Wing have both been shown to be unbeneficial to the society that embraces either. And then again, who is to say that an idea worked?
Progress Cannot Be Defined as Belonging Solely to a Specific Political Spectrum

Take this challenge only if you understand what this debate is about. The American Left typically uses the term "Progress" in defining steps in the direction of GLBT rights, the "right" to abort, gun control, etcetera. However, the completely opposite direction can also be progress according to the word's definition. Progress means "Movement, as toward a goal; advance" according to a one online dictionary. So by this logic, segregation of schools, prohibiting black people from voting, having a member of the KKK elected President of the United States, and outlawing interracial marriage would be progress in a White Supremacist direction. Forcing women to wear burqas, making non-Muslims pay a special tax, banning alcohol, and putting a radical Islamic regime in power would be progress in a radical Islamic direction. Is what I'm saying clear? I await a response.
Humpty Dumpty was a criminal and tried to rob a bank. That is why he fell off the wall.

BoP will be on the side of Pro, for proving that humpty dumpty is a robber. My opponent says that ". .. all the kings horses, and all the kings men trying to get to him. .. because he was a robber. almost anyone could have helped him. the king was definitely trying to arrest Hmpty Dumpty. "First of all, the story certainly doesn't say that the king's men were "trying to get him" because of robbery. secondly you said "almost anyone could have helped him. the king was definitely trying to arrest Hmpty Dumpty. ", in fact somebody did hlep him, it was the king's men ang the king's horses contrary to what you're saying. Observe: Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;All the king's horses and all the king's menCouldn't put Humpty together again. And if humpty dumpty was in the midst of robbing a bank the why did "humpty dumpty sat on the wall" ? I want to ask my opponent for further clarification to what he is believing.
Humpty Dumpty was a criminal and tried to rob a bank. That is why he fell off the wall.

We think that yes, Humpty Dumpty fell off of a wall. What we are trying to prove is that Humpty Dumpty was a wanted criminal who was in the midst of robbing a bank when he fell. Our first argument is.... Why were all the kings horses, and all the kings men trying to get to him.we say it is because he was a robber. almost anyone could have helped him. the king was definitely trying to arrest Hmpty Dumpty.
Purchasing vaccines endorses animal cruelty

I pro, will make the argument that purchasing vaccines endorses animal cruelty. Endorse "to approve, support, or sustain: "dictionary.reference.com Animal cruelty "the crime of inflicting physical pain, suffering or death on an animal, usually a tame one, beyond necessity for normal discipline. It can include neglect that is so monstrous (withholding food and water) that the animal has suffered, died or been put in imminent danger of death." thefreedictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com... http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Purchasing vaccines endorses animal cruelty

"The egg-based production process begins with CDC or another Influenza Collaborating Center providing private sector manufacturers with vaccine viruses grown in eggs per current FDA regulatory requirements. These vaccine viruses are then injected into fertilized hen"s eggs and incubated for several days to allow the viruses to replicate." CDC "The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices for people and animals is a long and complex process with a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and international regulations currently require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use. Around 5 million animals including mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs and primates are used across the EU for this purpose each year." rspca.org.uk "What animals experience The degree of suffering, which may include both physical pain and psychological distress, depends on the nature of the experiment. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition then experiments are done to investigate: " rspca.org.uk "Animals are sometimes used in the testing of drugs, vaccines and other biologics, and medical devices, mainly to determine the safety of the medical product." fda.gov "How many animals are killed in animal testing in the US? Around 10 million a year." numberof.net "Hens used for egg production come from hatcheries, where male chicks (none of which can lay eggs) are killed immediately after hatching. Each year, hundreds of millions of these vulnerable beings are suffocated or ground up alive to produce fertilizer or feed." Humanemyth.org It is clear to me that animals suffer and die from both animal testing and in egg production. Ultimately for a fertilized egg to exist there must be a hen and rooster. Its a well know fact that male chickens don't live long. The egg production is cruel. Purchasing vaccines endorses animal cruelty. http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.rspca.org.uk... http://www.numberof.net... http://humanemyth.org...
Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) was the true successor of prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) after his death.

Thanks to Pro for challenging me to this debate. Here are my arguments: Very few hadith exist that directly imply who was to succeed after the Prophet. In many cases the Prophet implied to have recommended a Shura (or "consultation") in resolving affairs and issues. The Quran also speaks of Shura in a highly positive regard. This can be seen in Surah Ashura (42nd chapter of Quran) in verse 38. The context of the previous and succeeding verses talk about the traits of a righteous Muslims, so this verse has not been taken out of context: ". . .Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation among themselves; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance" [are praised] [3] Therefore with the above mentioned verse, it would not be too much then to claim that the issue of the Prophet"s (pbuh) succession would be an issue in need of a Shura to resolve. There was a consultation however, a Shura was made to resolve this issue, one in which Abu Bakr was almost unanimously elected. The first Medinan Muslims, the Ansar, held a meeting to discuss about the choosing of another leader among them, to govern the Ansar, At that point when the news of the meeting spread, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubaidah ibn al Jarrah hurried to the meeting. Abu Bakr contended that if the Ansar picked a lead, to lead the Ansar only, the Ummah (or Muslim community) would begin to split . The new leader as Abu Bakr said, must originate from the Quraysh, Muhammad's (pbuh) tribe; some other decision would divde the group. Sa'd ibn Ubadah consented to this. Abu Bakr recommended to the social affair that the individuals ought to pick either Umar or Abu Ubayda, as both were skilled men of the Quraysh. Umar promptly got Abu Bakr's hand and gave him bay'ah (proclaimed his loyalty; an Arab custom) bringing about whatever is left of the men at the event to additionally give their bay'ah. Umar later thought of the decision as a falta, or a rushed and hastily made decision. However, this choice would not have been tying upon whatever remains of the Muslims unless they themselves decided to give their bay'ah, which all spare the supporters of Ali did. As ind Ali later conceded the election, giving his bay"ah to Abu Bakr. Not only that, but after Abu Bakr"s death, when a second election was being held, Ali endorsed and voted for Umar. Therefore, since Ali had conceded the election once, and endorse another candidate the second time, this therefore shows that Abu Bakr"s election as Caliph was lawfully legitimate. Sources: 1. 2.http://quran.com... 3.http://www.discoveringislam.org... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org... 5.https://en.wikipedia.org...
Ali ibn Abi Talib (AS) was the true successor of prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) after his death.

In the name of God Salam, This debate is because of my Sunni brothers and I will try to use sources of their books and not from our Shia books unless I can't find any Sunni references. I ask God to help both sides find the truth. The Succession to our prophet, Muhammad (pbuh), was an important issue which made Muslims to be departed into different groups (basically Shia and Sunni). Shia (or Shiite ) Muslims believe that Muhammad (pbuh) specified Ali ibn Abi Talib as his successor before he died and Abubakr (the first Caliph) betrayed Muhammad (pbuh) and his successor to make himself the first Caliph (Let's say leader or king) of the Muslims. However, Sunni Muslims believe that Muhammad (pbuh) didn't specify any successors for his Ummah (The group of Muslims) and Abubakr was elected by majority of Muslims and his election was lawfully justified. No one is going to insult other people however, facts can be opened and discussed.
RationalMadman should be banned from Debate.org

I should not be banned because if I should be banned Juggle and Airmax (the current president of DDO) would have banned me. This entire debate is a direct insult and misjudgement of the true capabilities of Juggle's security system.Juggle is the equivalent of what the Gods were to the Greeks and are to the Hindus, InVinoVeritas is using very foul insults to their intelligence and thus should himself be banned from DDO for making this debate and most certainly should this entire debate be banned as well. That is all.http://www.youtube.com...
RationalMadman should be banned from Debate.org

I. RationalMadman is obscene and offensive. For example, see: "your definition is no more valid than mine you bloody smartarse idiot." [1] II. RationalMadman sometimes copies and pastes rather than coming up with original cases. See arguments here: [2] III. RationalMadman starts a debate or accepts a challenge and then intentionally stops putting in effort, thereby wasting the effort of his opponent, when the opponent takes the time to type out a full argument. [3] [4] [5] (There are myriad other examples of this. This clearly is a misuse of the services provided by this website and is a sign of utter disrespect for other members. He chooses to approach serious, lengthy arguments that members work hard on with brief, facetious responses. --- In conclusion, RationalMadman should be banned from Debate.org. This motion is upheld by the following issues: I. his being obscene and offensive to other users, II. prior instances of refusing to produce original arguments (and choosing to copy and paste sources instead), III. and a facetiousness and immaturity approach that ultimately leads to a misuse of the website's service and the damaging of the quality of the DDO community, affecting all of the active members therein. --- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://www.debate.org... (See last round) [5] http://www.debate.org...
RationalMadman should be banned from Debate.org

Every person who was banned from Debate.org was, for some time after committing his/her punishable actions, not banned. In the same way, every serial killer was, for some time after his/her murders, not detained by police/convicted of the crimes attributed to him/her. "How can you arrest me?" says a bank robber. "I had not been arrested within two minutes after I robbed the bank; therefore, by arresting me now, you are implying that the legal system had failed for those two minutes." This is not a good defense for a bank robber. Why? Because REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS JUSTIFIABLE TO BLAME THE LEGAL SYSTEM FOR THOSE TWO MINUTES OF NON-INTERVENTION, the bank robber is still guilty of the crime committed and should be tried by the word of the law. --- Con's response is clearly fallacious. Furthermore, the arguments that I made have yet to be challenged. If the opponent chooses to defend against them in the final round only, then this is unfair, since I would not have had a chance to rebut. --- RationalMadman ought to be banned from Debate.org, because of: I. his being obscene and offensive to other users, II. prior instances of refusing to produce original arguments (and choosing to copy and paste sources instead), III. and a facetiousness and immaturity approach that ultimately leads to a misuse of the website's service and the damaging of the quality of the DDO community, affecting all of the active members therein. (RationalMadman prefers to approach debates in the aforementioned manner " or tends to be incapable of doing otherwise, and this is evidenced by his prior video responses, using songs that are meant to depict offensive personal attacks.)
Im on a boat

According to www.uncyclopedia.org, the boat was invented by Dr. Alfred Sears Boat in Knoxville, Commonwealth of Kentuckistan in 1982. It was originally designed as a transportation device for carrying fish, but it is now commonly used to transport logs from major cities in Canada to the United States and Mexico. Initial experiments with the development of the boat assumed some divine influence was holding the boat on the watery surface, this led to the belief that some form of hand kept the boat afloat. Subsequent experiments assumed numerous other body parts, this line of investigation ceased when they reached the pancreas. Dr. Boat spent six years perfecting the design of the boat, but accidentally converted to Judaism in 1988 during a vacation with his wife to Japan. He spent two years working on other projects and never worked on the boat again. An early attempt at a boat, the use of stuffed toys was common as they were considered to be the most human-like things available. Greeks use boats to transports their drugs to Native Americans. Winners of supreme contests of skill (such as Bullseye and Vegetable Photographer of the Year) are given a boat as a prize. The tradition of kneecapping the winner has subsided over the years. A horrific series of boating accidents have led to the invention of maritime aids, the most famous of which is the Cristo Redentor in Rio de Janeiro, which is due to be torn down next week.
Im on a boat

My opponent is not on a boat. I know for a fact that he gets violently ill every time he boards a boat. His ailment causes violent seizures and vomiting. Therefore if my opponent was on a boat, he would not be able to write this argument. This leads me to believe that he is not on a boat as he suggests, but he is on land, in his house. And because, there is no cure for his physical disorder, I can confidently say that my opponent will never willingly board a boat. Thank you.
State police should replace local police departments

Local police departments are inefficient. Except in large municipalities, they tend to drain local tax revenues (say when politicians splurge on public safety investment during their campaigns as a means to be "tough on crime" like in the wasteful and not-so-effective war on drugs). State troopers have the financial backing of state tax revenues and don't just ride off the backs of possibly more financially pressed county and city tax payers. Their security priorities are higher than prosecuting citizens for minor infractions and they don't exactly have to worry about hitting the limits of their jurisdiction within a twenty mile radius... Another problem with local police departments is that while an affluent community may overindulge in funding quasi-paramilitary SWAT teams to be dispatched to a case of domestic violence, say, an economically depressed town nearby may only have one officer on patrol to respond to such a call -- and not quickly -- due to a police department that is undercut by a lack of sufficient investment locally (and perhaps from the state). Ultimately, if individual communities reported on their crime statistics to the state and were reciprocally granted an appropriate amount of centrally taxed (state) funds for their local police branch, neighboring cities' police branches would all be fellow employees of the state. They would all be obliged to exchange information and confer with other branches, and they could freely move throughout the state with equal jurisdiction. More importantly, an equalized division of resources would make it more likely that the law itself would be enforced more equally.
There is no such thing as false hope

Hello stevster, and with the way you are looking at it, there is no such thing as false hope. Let me bring up the definition of false: not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality; "gave false testimony under oath"; "false tales of bravery" arising from error; "a false assumption"; "a mistaken view of the situation" erroneous and usually accidental; "a false start"; "a false alarm" deliberately deceptive; "hollow (or false) promises"; "false pretenses" delusive: inappropriate to reality or facts; "delusive faith in a wonder drug"; "delusive expectations"; "false hopes" designated to decieve "a suitcase with a false bottom" These definitions show something other than what you are using as a definition of false. I am looking at the words just as logically as you are, and I see false as misleading, not fake. I agree that hope is always, much as you hope when you order a big mac that it is going to be less that a few grams of fat. That is false hope because it is misleading and erroneous, showing you the wrong hopes to have.
There is no such thing as false hope

I beleive that there is such a thing as false hope, its all in how you look at the situation. Drectly from wikipedia and a dictionary, false hope is described as a hope based entirely around a fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome. Let me give you a few examples. first of all, lets say you are the right age but not of american descent. You were born in, say, Austria. The U.S. Laws say to be President a person must be at least 35 years of age, a natural-born citizen of the United States and a resident of this country for at least 14 years. This has not been changed since its inception. If you hope to be President and you are from Austria, then your hopes are dashed and you now have had false hope. This is where you re wrong. False hope does exist.
There is no such thing as false hope

Ok, this is the first time that I have had an opponent forfeit a debate for a round. I will bring up some more proof that there is false hope The term false hope refers to a hope based entirely around a fantasy or an extremely unlikely outcome. http://en.wikipedia.org... By this definition, false hop happens all the time. When you fall asleep at your desk fantasizing about the girl next to you, or are down 10,500 dollars in poker and your going all in on a seven-two off suit, or you get caught in the rain with only your twenty page english report to protect you and two minutes till class. These are all unfortunate situations that we all know would hate to have happen. Thank you and I hope you respond within the alotted time.