BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. Constitution: Do you agree with eminent domain

to start of eminant domain allows for the Federal government, not the state governments, to take your land but needs to use the land for public use and also needs to pay for the market price of the land. The problem is that there isn't much use for the land as the federal government agencies in themselves are against the 10th amendment to the constitution, and the use of these lands are to be for the creation of voting booths.Who determins the market price? As inflation and deflation is occurant thoughout are economy it is increasinly harder to get the true market value for a land or property. Therer is no set amount for market prices only a mean, which in itself csn be subjective and only implyed in a small area because it is next to impossible to caulculate the trade between all lands of property and impossible to specify means of commerce in a land.I concede that eminant domain can be useful but it should be held at a state level instead of a federal level, and all disputes between states are to held up in the United states supreme court.The constitution highlights that cases that go to the supreme court are cases of there choosing, and all cases of disputes between states. The framers intended for the supreme court to be the median between states and there should not be any disputes between states about eminant domain because a state can only claim land in the state boundries. National parks will be preserved on the state level with state run agiencies, also note that it is easier for the people to be the masters of there government when it is at a local level
single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

-The Con team has provided no way to SOLVE this supposed problem. -The Con team has not clarified their stance adequately, making it impossible for the Pro team to attack them properly. In fact, the Con team has actually changed their stance when confronted with arguments that contradict them, showing that they aren't really sure whether they are right or not. -All of the Con team's individual arguments have been disproved. Clearly my opponent should lose this debate. I have stated I know several people who say it's wrong to vote prochoice. You can't simply pound your foot and say there are not. At least say you don't know of them. please go to www.phatmass.com and you will find many people who think that way. just ask, or do a search. You lose this point because my facts are straight.... and whatever the case, your assumption I'm mistaken even without proof is not wise given that surely some people think voting solely for the prolife candidate for that reason is flawed. Even if most people don't vote only on abortion and I stated this, a significant amount of people do vote that way. You lose this point because I only say most don't that way, which does not translate into next to none vote that way. As to the single issue voting stuff. We're not even debating because you have a problem reading things in context. I have never brought up the issue of single issue voting not in the context of abortion. I have referred to them as single issue voters in passing conversation, but it was always in the context of those singled on abortion issue. Again, single issue voting is sound if there's a decent chance for change on that topic. Social Security is a political football that's up for grabs right now. Abortion is not. One has a chance to change, the other does not. There is no real political solution to those against abortion. That's the whole premise of my debate. You response, other than the confusion you created taht I addressed in the last paragraphs? "what else are they going to do" That's the essense of your argument. Well, they can change hearts to be prolife, for a start. That'd eventually change politics, if the change in hearts occurred. Remember, this whole topic, if you actually read it, says we're talking about voting for president. As I pointed out, which you didn't respond to, history hasn't changed anything pertaining to abortion (except the partial birth ban, which doesn't prohibit it at any point, other than when it uses that procedure. the amount has not gone down) and all the public sentiment or abortion is in the Congress preventing further change. "what else are they going to do" is the weakest argument I have other heard, and all the other confusion you're sowing show clearly why you lose this debate. All this debate seems to be doing is fixing your constant state of confusion, misreading, and poor use of logic. That's why you lose this debate.
single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

If you think people don't vote solely on the issue of abortion, then, actually, that's easily disproven, because all I need to do is find one or a few people who do. I know people who do, therefore the issue is relevant. Also some say it's a sin to vote for someone who is prochioce, even if that's not why you're voting for them. "If anti-abortion Republicans were repeatedly voted in, then wouldn't that be a sign that people wanted the decision overturned? I'm not sure I understand your argument, would you care to clarify?" I was arguing that, even if republicans were repeatedly voted in, that wouldn't necessarily change abortion, because of republican presidents who don't push that agenda and democrats who veto a justice who'd overturn. They are not repeatedly voted in anyway, because most of the nation doesn't vote on that issue alone. So anyway you look at it, nothing will happen, and it's unwise to vote for them solely on that issue. My position is you can't vote solely on that issue, and when I say democrats can't be overlooked, I'm saying those bent solely on that issue are overlooking that demoracts will change things The game plan I'm referring to is.... people vote on that issue alone, but there's no plan of attack to make in front of the Court. They'd be simply going on the chance an issue arises which the Court could address. I don't see much change that could occur given the previous decisions, and that's what I'm seeking info on. If you're going to vote for that issue alone, you'd think there's a game plan of attack and not some off chance theory. I'm not advocating the public be all of one view, I never said that, I simply said voting on that issue alone is unwise, because it's pointless. "Slavery was abolished because the North won the war, thereby changing the country." Ok, I don't know, maybe I can concede that public sentiment for race was not changed first, and simply winning a war by force is what caused change. My argument that public sentiment would first change before abortion can change then might not be as strong. But, if slavery which was divisive was only changed by war, again, how can you expect something people are divided on to change without a war? And, actually, I don't think I can concede completely that public sentiment was not sufficient in the civil war days alone to change it; it's simply that a few southern states wanted to be independant, and they represented a minority. I'm not saying people who vote only on that issue are "not allowed" I'm only saying it's unwise. I'm not saying it's wrong to vote only on one issue, especially if there's a decent chance for change on that issue, but if no decent chance, then it's not wise to vote that way. I'm not torn between abrotion and single issue voters, I'm only referencing abortion only people are single issue voters.
single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

I will address your arguments one by one, beginning at the top. While fifty percent of the public may support the allowance of abortion early in the pregnancy, this does not necessarily mean that they will vote specifically based on this issue. Several of your arguments are based on your opinion that they will, however this can be easily disproved by a simple look at the stances of presidential hopefuls. If you look, you will notice that there are many more topics being debated than just abortion, meaning that the American public cares about these issues. In fact, the issue widely believed to be most important is Iraq, not abortion. People are not voting entirely because of abortion now. The problem you talk about is simply not happening, and there is no need of change in the status quo. As stated before, people vote a certain way for many, many reasons, and abortion is just one of those. If anti-abortion Republicans were repeatedly voted in, then wouldn't that be a sign that people wanted the decision overturned? I'm not sure I understand your argument, would you care to clarify? What exactly is your stance? When you say "the democrats can't be overlooked," this implies that you would vote for someone who could overturn the precedent, thereby making your voting decision be entirely based off of their stance on abortion (which is what you are trying to convince people NOT to do). I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no game plan." Is there supposed to be a game plan? What exactly are you referring to? Of course the country is divided, are you suggesting that we force people to be of all one view? Slavery was abolished because the North won the war, thereby changing the country. Segregation was abolished because people like Martin Luther King got enough support, thereby changing the country. The change in America was not the means, it was the result, and after that the laws were changed to reflect that. The means was force for slavery, and activism and protest for segregation. On your last statement, are you saying that choice supporters are allowed to vote specifically based on abortion? I'd assume not, but you seem to pointedly exclude them from your statement. Care to clear that up? Finally, some general questions: Why exactly is voting specifically based on one issue a bad thing? What is the impact of it? If voters feel that strongly about an issue, is it possible that it is important enough to vote specifically based on? Could you clarify exactly what topic we are arguing? You seem torn between abortion and single-issue voters.
single issue voting for abortion, for president, for prolifers

Abortion should not be the sole issue, even by prolifer arguments. i am prolife, but i think voting for abortion only is not wise. 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.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

The Normandy landings, also known as D-Day is usually viewed by the west as one of the most important events of WWII. However what is not understood, is that D-Day took place in 1944 when it was clear that Germany would lose. Germany was heavily outnumbered on all fronts and had no sufficient reserves of planes and armor. During D-Day, 156,000 allied troops assaulted a 10,000 man German front. Germany had relatively few troops in France because most of those soldiers were fighting on other fronts. D-Day enabled the allies to later invade France, however besides shortening the war by perhaps a couple months, the allied invasion of France did nothing. Germany would have lose, sooner or later. [1]The Battle of Stalingrad however can be considered as the most important battle of WWIIReasons that Stalingrad was important:-Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR)-Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. [2]-Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt)-Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties [2]-This was the largest defeat for Germany-The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war)-The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad-Ensured that Turkey would not join the axisWhat was more important, a battle that resulted in 20,000 casualties, or a battle that resulted in 2,000,000 dead? At D-Day, Germany suffered some 6,000 casualties. At Stalingrad the axis suffered 850,000 casualties. Before Stalingrad, Germany had a chance to win. After Stalingrad the chances of a Germany victory were almost nonexistent. D-Day shortened the war by a couple months but had no effect on the outcome of WWII. I would like to also state that Con picked a weak battle to support in this debate. The Battles of Moscow,the Battle of Britain, or even the Battle of Kursk might have been debatable in importance to Stalingrad, however D-Day is not. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

Reasons that Stalingrad was important: -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis Con FF, therefor I win.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

"Is considered the turning point of the European theater of WWII" Most historians agree that there were three turning points inin the European Theater. The Battle of Moscow ensured that Germany would not win a quick victory on its own terms. The Battle of Stalingrad ensured the Germany would lost the war, the only question remained how badly? Total defeat or a negotiated peace? The Battle of Kursk ensured Germany would lose the war, the only question would be how long it could last. D-Day occured when the outcome of the war was no longer in doubt. Therefor it is not a turning point. "The landings required the Allied troops to work together and coordinate, therefore strengthening our ties with other nations." Oh really? Perhaps, however that does not support your argument that D-Day was more important in terms of its effect on the outcome of the war. "Fostered a sense of pride and patriotism in America" Irrelevant in this debate. I'm sure Midway did the same for American soldiers. Stalingrad and Moscow did the same for Russians. "Gave the Allied troops new hope and motivation to fight the war" Err...except that Germany was already losing. "Essentially ended the war in the European theater, by proving to Germany that the Allies would keep going until they won" The allies won victories everywhere, in Africa, in Italy, in the east... I think Germany already knew that the allies could keep going. "Showed that the world superpowers, especially America and Britain, would not stand for someone trying to take over well established countries." Britain, who had recently lost its empire to the Germans and Japanese was in no way, shape or form, a superpower. Its army and navy was in ruins. People already knew that America and Britain were unhappy with Germany taking over Europe. Most of Con's arguments do not show how D-Day's importance was greater than Stalingrad. Although Con's grandfather fought at D-Day and said great things about it, that does not make D-Day any more important than Stalingrad. At D-Day there were 20,000 casualties. At Stalingrad, there were 2 million. D-Day's most important role was to ensure that the Soviets would not grab western Europe.
The Battle of STALINGRAD was the most important battle of WWII

You listed the reasons you feel that Stalingrad was the most important battle of the war. I hope you don't mind if I do the same with D-Day. The Invasion of Normandy: -Is considered the turning point of the European theater of WWII -The landings required the Allied troops to work together and coordinate, therefore strengthening our ties with other nations. -Fostered a sense of pride and patriotism in America -Gave the Allied troops new hope and motivation to fight the war -Essentially ended the war in the European theater, by proving to Germany that the Allies would keep going until they won -Showed that the world superpowers, especially America and Britain, would not stand for someone trying to take over well established countries. My grandfather served in World War Two, and was part of the landings at Omaha Beach. and he says that the landings at Normandy made a huge impact on the troops. It boosted their moral and made them feel like what they were fighting for was real. They were there to free a people that were help against their will. It can be hard to foster that kind of morale in troops that downtrodden. This is while I say the landings were the most important battles.
The Earth is not standing still, it is in constant motion

I am aware of the massive burden of scientific studies that I am facing. I can not expect to prove beyond doubt that the world isn't spinning. I can only hope to show that many of the studies are in fact "theories" and not 100% factual information. In our everyday lives we see many things done that seem impossible. Magic tricks give the audience the idea something incredible happened. The truth is lost in the confusion. I requested that you challenge me to the debate so I could refute your claim. I would like to remind my opponent that his responsibilty for being on the 'Pro' side of the debate doesn't stand at decreasing the belief against the world standing still. It stands at proving that the world is not standing still as the title states "The Earth is not standing still, it is in constant motion. " Thank you, I await your argument.
The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

I accept the challenge, and I will be arguing that the God hypothesis should not be a scientific theory. Given the fact that the debate is scientific in nature, I feel that some arguments may perhaps involve statistical theories. (e.g., P-Value, Standard Deviations). I accept all the rules & definitions proposed by Pro, and if it is necessary, I will be supplying some additional definitions as well. One more thing, please state the Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis so that there would be no confusions. May both of us enjoy this debate and Let's begin.
The God Hypothesis should be a Scientific theory

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis is a supported scientific theory. In principle, I technically have all the Burden of Proof, but for the purpose of winning and losing this debate, my opponent must successfully poke holes in my science based on the criteria I set out without appealing to pure philosophical arguments. This means unless my opponent can back it up with scientific evidence, NO philosophical arguments or claims. My opponent will have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being an established theory: Essential criteria "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. .. .. .. A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before. )"[1] The "God Hypothesis" is there exists a personal God who is the creator of the universe and who is interested in having a human affair. A "scientific explanation" therefore makes an unknown phenomenon comprehensible by relating it to known scientific facts and established theories. Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

Starting with refutations: 1) it is true that 18 year olds logically do tend to be more mature than 16 year olds. However, Rockylightning has not listed any sources as to where these "scientific studies" came from that prove that they make better decisions on the road. Being older doesn't increase your reflex timing. Being older doesn't help you know when to turn, or give you a better clue when the light is red or green. It really doesn't make any difference. Also, my opponent has stated ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that a 16 year old is more likely to drink and drive and has failed to refute my point successfuly that 16 year olds, being farther away from the age of 21, are more likely to get caught drinking underage due to their appearance from maturity. Experience doesn't matter then you're drunk, but being drunk does matter when it comes to getting away with it. 2) This obesity point is completely ridiculous!Rockylightning has unsuccessfully tried to refute my point once again. It is inconvenient for the parents of the teenager and the teenager themsevles to have to wait until maybe even after a year of college just to be able to be independent and drive to school or work! There are some places such as the countryside or Central Valley in California where there is poor public transit. How would you be able to get around? You would have to live in a major town like Frenso to do that! And what will waiting two years do for you? Encourage you NOT to go outside and rather sit around all day doing nothing. This point should be disregaurded. For these reasons, please Vote Con. Thank you.