BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Two party system in the United States does not adequately represent the people.

Off your first point about there is not an official two party system I have the following responses: 1)ಠ_ಠ 2) I realized that there are multiple political parties when I wrote this and the intention was to evaluate the paradigm of two dominant parties in the United states. 3) I think its best that the current dominant parties are ignored by US voters and new parties (more than 2) are put into effect. While the empiric examples are correct, they prove my point. Woodrow Wilson did handily beat the republicans because he split it, the second someone rose above one of the dominant parties and address the issues as they intend and believe people not only believe but vote. I suspect he lot because of the polarization between democrats and republicans. Finally your last statement that americans are not dissatisfied with the parties is also false, the republican party is currently going through a huge shake, the truely conservative parts of the party feels as though the politicians are not actually conservative and the religious right are angry that republicans aren't doing anything and a possible party split is on the horizon.
The Two party system in the United States does not adequately represent the people.

Malaki, I'm not sure this is going to wind up being quite the debate you'd intended, but...well, we'll see. Your profile shows that you're 17, so I have to assume that you have never actually voted in the U.S., and may not have ever seen an official ballot. It may therefore come as somewhat of a surprise to you to learn that the U.S. does not, strictly speaking, have a two party system at all. There is nothing at all to prevent the formation of other parties, and in fact numerous alternatives exist. These include at least the following at present: America First Party American Party American Independent Party American Nazi Party American Reform Party Communist Party of the United States of America Constituion Party Democratic Socialists of America Green Part of the United States Independence Party Labor Party Libertarian Party National Socialist Movement Natural Law Party Peace & Freedom Party Prohibition Party Reform Party Socialist Labor Party ...and numerous others. Obviously, few of these have ever come close to challenging either of the two major parties in recent years; the Greens and the Libertarians have probably been the most consistently successful. While neither has had much impact at the federal level yet, both parties (notably the Liberatians, in terms of the most elected officials) have been successful in getting candidates elected at the state and local level. There have also been some fairly successful "third party" attempts at the Presidential level; possibly the most notable was Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 run under the "Progressive Party" banner. While Roosevelt lost that election to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate, he handily beat the Republican nominee (William Taft) in both the electoral and popular voting (88 to 8 in electoral votes, 4.13 million to 3.48 million in the popular vote). So while it might be argued that the two major parties do not "adequately represent the people," we simply do not have a formal two-party system, and the people are certainly free to support any of the alternative parties if they choose. That this has not yet happened would seem to indicate that the majority of Americans have yet to become sufficiently dissatisfied with the choices provided by the Democratic and Republican parties to be willing to jump ship. It appears that most ARE satisfied with their representation - whether you or even I would agree with that choice is beside the point.
The Two party system in the United States does not adequately represent the people.

Currently when people go out to vote they are given two choices, it doesn't matter that in the political spectrum there are hundreds more beliefs/ideas out there the american public, the so called most democratic place on earth, gets only two choices that have any hope of winning. Whats more is that the majority of national and higher up state officials represent the same thing and differ only in the "whats hot" issues (I.E. abortion gay marriage ect.) and when they get into office many the differences are negligible. With the two party system it over shadows many political problems which need attention and decisions but won't because they are represented by small specialist parties. The two parties currently do not represent what is good for the american public because they are obligated buy campaign contributions by big corporations, whether or not a president is uncorrupted or not enough in congress exist to block bills that would help the american public. Its easier for corporations to control politicians with fewer political parties, also the two party system encourages incumbency. What the US needs are completely new political parties with new leadership, more than two but not many more because historically two many cause problems. I believe the US people have enough experience with democracy to make the transition.
Did Jesus come back in 70 AD

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I present to you the core of the existence of multiple denominations. Scripture is to be taught to you BY God. I assure you God has no need for websites, multiple copies of translations, certainly NOT peoples books were they are presenting information which at its core is a direct violation of the instructions of God .... to wit; No personal interpretations!!!!!!!!! Let go and Let God! after all that was presented, opinions, Greek, Youngs literal, RSV, NBC, CBS, Escatologies, consternations ..... what we didn't get? Was the answer which was very simple. The question, the ONLY question was: Did Jesus com Back in 70 AD! The Answer: NO Clearly a reminder of scripture IS in order:The Requirements of God are simple! It's not rocket science people! Luke 10:27 He answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. 2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things. John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. Isaiah 54:13 All your children will be taught by the LORD, and great will be their peace. tell me you were left with a feeling of peace AFTER you reading my opponents statement? okay, lets re-answer the question: "Very I say unto you, there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." The Kingdom of God arrived IN POWER in this order, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and finally on the day of Pentecost, WHEN the Holy Spirit came to INDWELL the children of God, imparting the true power of Christ. John 14:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. It's not hard people. Submit your reasoning, to God. Believe God, not Young, seminary scholars, multiple books, multiple versions, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Your just gonna end up as confused as the scholars are, and worse NO CLOSER to the Real answer, that God would have freely given you, if you'd only asked Him? In conclusion: Did Jesus Come in 70 AD: all together now ..........NO and What is meant by matthew 16:27-28 That Christ will Judge the masses at the great white throne judgement when all dead shall be given up, from the seas, from Hell to be cast into the lake of Fire per Revelation. and new subject: Men who WATCHED Christ die on the Cross, saw Him RISE in glory, honor and POWER, to the glory of the Father ..... The Children of Christ receiving the POWER of the Kingdom of God by the indwelling Holy Spirit ON Pentecost! that wasn't hard was it? Now Go and be at peace. Don't forget to study and spend time WITH God everyday! You'll be GLAD you did!
Did Jesus come back in 70 AD

But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven . (Mat 26:63-64) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mat 16:27-28) Jesus promised those whom he was speaking to that His return would occur while some of them yet lived.
The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

This should an interesting topic for my first debate. I will address your points in order. "1. Torture is dehumanizing and degrading. To torture any individual is to declare that their life is worthless and they are merely an object which can be used for a purpose." I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. The people that we are using the "enhanced interrogation techniques" on are not human and are completely worthless other than for the information that they can provide. If an individual that plans and orchestrates attacks on schools, mosques, police stations, etc. hasn't forfeited all worth to the planet, who has? The techniques are not used on average, everyday prisoners, but rather on known high value prisoners that have information about terrorist activities. "2. I will make the preemptive argument that if you claim torture is legitimate, then you must also claim it can and should be used on anyone who is viewed as withholding valuable information." This is where you hit one of those subjective grey areas. Where do you draw the line? How do you define "valuable information"? Is it appropriate to find out where someone hid stolen money? No. Is is appropriate to find where someone placed a bomb? Yes. I would say that the criteria that were until recently being used by the CIA were actually pretty good. "Is there a high probability that this person has information that will stop people from dying?" If the answer is yes, go for it. "3. Torture is ineffective and rarely works. Individuals often suffer so much pain and anguish that they will say or do anything to stop the torture from continuing." Under certain circumstances, this can be true. However, if you have a very fast verification method, say Special Forces teams standing by to act on the information, the subject's respite is very brief. As a result, this is usually only tried once. I look forward to your response, and good luck.
The USFG should disallow torture and forgo using it as an interrogation technique.

Exactly as the title states. I will define torture as extreme anguish of body or mind, and I accept that torture can be both physical and psychological. I view all torture as illegitimate. I would like to debate these tenets: 1. Torture is dehumanizing and degrading. To torture any individual is to declare that their life is worthless and they are merely an object which can be used for a purpose. 2. I will make the preemptive argument that if you claim torture is legitimate, then you must also claim it can and should be used on anyone who is viewed as withholding valuable information. 3. Torture is ineffective and rarely works. Individuals often suffer so much pain and anguish that they will say or do anything to stop the torture from continuing. Those are what I plan to work with throughout this debate, feel free to bring up other points that I haven't. Good luck :)
yes to bf1 no to cod inf. warefare

i see what your saying, but we aren't talking about mods. (thiss is just a joke debate btw) weere talking about quality, and OMG what in the world? fr ? snow? anyways, im talking about game wise and it being fun to play. so which one is more fun too play for me. bf1. ive never heard of hot strippers in bf1. but that's ok
yes to bf1 no to cod inf. warefare

Battlefield 1 is a game regarding the topic of shooting. Call of Duty Infinite Warfare is also a game regarding the topic of shooting. They are both violent games and are not suitable for all ages as shown on the box as there is gore violence and hot strippers. The strippers are very attractive in the airports when modded that it is inappropriate. They need to look ugly in order for the serious gamer to stay focused because on average, a research done by scientists has shown that over 69.99% of U.S gamers that get paid to game get distracted easily. These gamer nerds are getting paid for this and are losing money and family from these hot stripper distractions. It is ridiculous. Cod nor bf1 are good as they are both the same game with different graphics. Why pay 59.99 for a game when you can get it for 5.99 three years after it's release not to mention the hefty tax prices. I remember doing a research online and even famous gaming legend Ron Jeremy has been distracted when attempting to MLG "No-scope" a "noob" and got noob killed when looking at the snow which leads me to my next argument. Snowmen should never be looked at as "Sexual objects". This is because they are snow. They are white. What if you are gaming and all of a sudden you hump the snow? You will freeze your balls off not to mention that you will lose your sperm in the white snow. Therefore swimming with polar bears is dangerous and not might but WILL end your kill-streak. To end my argument, I would like to speak on behalf of professor Shnitzel. N. We do not believe that either game has met our expectations therefore your topic is not only invalid but is not great. Please get some help.
The USFG and state and local government should increase the punishment to age restriction violators.

Bravo spoon171 this has been an absolutly marvolus debate. (not really on my side) there have some fairly good arguments thrown around. Honesly (just to clear things up) I do not beleive a single thing i have said in this debate other that a little bit of the Torture should be legal arg. not much of them though. trully i shot myself in the foot when i said the "i might smoke" thing. I do hoever beleive that there needs to be something done to help stop young abuse of tabacco. well i have to leave so nice debate obviously things do not need to be this drastic to stop childhood smokers. About you being a smoker...Uwh yuck...lol...
The USFG and state and local government should increase the punishment to age restriction violators.

Before you judge me or condemn me as stupid or completely idiotic, please understand that this is not a joke but an actual believe. A believe by someone in you own nation, possible state, possibly the same city. It is me, momo_taro that believes this. Now onto the body of the argument. the United States federal government should increase its punishment to age limits violations. Specifically pertaining to tobacco age abuse. the punishment for underage tobacco abuse should be, for every three cigarettes, pipes, or dips chewed or smoked one cigarette should be put out on their arm or any body part. Now before you say, (as anyone who hasn't seen the light on this subject yet would say) Oh my God that is horrible. Think of how harmful Tobacco is especially to underage participants. If you have done as i said and think about it, you will see that Tobacco is a horrible thing. One of the main things is oral cancer, GINGIVITIS and damage to teeth. These are bad ... but there is more. It is also a major killer carcinogenic substance. Lung cancer is the leading cause of dealth in America. Underage smokers range from 21 percent to 28ish % of the smokers from state to state. It is horrible. You may ask will it work... yes obviously it will work would you do anything if you knew you would have a cigarette put out on you? probably not. So we would be drastically decreasing the amount of U-A smokers. And if you look to several studies you will see that almost 90% of current smokers began before the age of 18. And the other 10% (i'm just guessing) began because there friend whoe began smoking before the age of 18 pressured them. So you tell me should we implement this plan and possible give a couple scars yet save the life's of our fellow countrymen or just let the nation continue to kill millions of people per year due to allowing them smoke?
Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

This is a five round debate, and my opponent has already made a few arguments, though they are all anticipated rebuttals of what may lie in my constructive points. Because anticipated rebuttals do not make an actual argument, and because my opponent has yet to offer independent constructive points in greater detail, I will treat this round as merely a round for acceptance and allow him to further elaborate in round 2. Best of luck to you, and excited to see your full argument next round! Just to let you know, this is actually a fantastic case and I debated it a while back in real life for the same side I'll be debating here, although the case was not my own so I really don't remember any of the points. But I do remember the round being exceptional and very interesting, so I await your constructive points.
Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be allowed by the global community to develop nuclear weapons. I believe that its supposed nuclear energy program is a front for a nuclear weapons program. For instance, Iran has enough oil reserves to power itself for a long time without nuclear energy. So why do they need nuclear power? As for Iran's claims that it needs its nuclear weapons for self defense, Iran hasn't been attacked by another nation in 25 years as of 2013. It was last attacked by a regime that no longer exists. If a nation did attack Iran for no good reason, well, Iran has oil. Western nations would come to Iran's aid in this case. I await a response.
Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

First, how Anti-Semitic do you have to be to slaughter millions of innocent civilians? Don't forget that Germany prior to the Nazis was a civilized western nation, but they ended up slaughtering millions in death camps, most or a lot of these Jews. As for your rebuttal of my Austins/Barnes/McBrowns analogy, you said that Israel also has bombs. This is true, but when Israel was building bombs, were their leaders caught chanting "Death to Palestine" or "Death to Iraq" or "Death to Iran" or whatever other country? Israel has the bombs, and they haven't used them. They haven't used them to threaten or coerce any country. As for Iran, on the other hand, I heard that the Mullahs once stood up and started chanting "Death to Israel." I'm referring to the Mullahs, which unlike Ahmadinejad are still in power. Also, what you probably didn't know is that Iran actually gives money to Hamas, and we all know that Hamas likes to fire rockets at Israel. Therefore, the evidence suggests that Iran's leaders have a thing against Israel and that by helping fund Israel's enemies, they have indirectly attacked Israel. Israel attacking a nation that is already assisting in attacks against Israel is called self defense, not immoral. Then, you've stated that Iran has not participated in previous wars against Israel, such as the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Do not forget, however, that the regime that was in power in Iran back in those days was more secular than today's Iranian theocracy. Then, my opponent stated that two or three nuclear missiles would not completely incapacitate Israel. You were right, and I apologize for my misinformation there. Israel could counterattack, You have suggested that Iran would not sacrifice itself to destroy Israel. Maybe not the Iranian people. However, crazy leaders would do so with no hesitation if they believe they'd be serving Allah by doing so. There are plenty of doomsday cults that want to bring about the apocalypse, and some adherents to radical Islam may share this trait with such cults. I also said that Iran could give the weapons to Hamas or Hezbollah. You struck my argument there down, or so you think. But what about Improvised Nuclear Devices (INDs)? Also called "suitcase nukes," they could be detonated quite easily. And it'd never be traced back to Iran. You'll probably think of some brilliant counter to all the above arguments. But before you do, I would advise you to get a book called "Atomic Iran," written by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. You can probably find it at your local library. The book may have a conservative bias, but it is a very informative book, and it can argue my case a LOT better than I can. I await a response.
Iran Should Not Be Allowed To Develop Nuclear Weapons

Unfortunately for you, this round probably will not be as interesting as the previous debate you joined. You'll probably hear a lot of the same arguments that you've heard before. Nevertheless, I will try to make this an interesting debate. I'll begin with a few quotes from Ahmadinejad: "There is no doubt that the new wave in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world." Source: Al Jazeera (October 26, 2005) "Death to Israel! Death to Israel!" Source: MEMRITV (August 2, 2006) "I want to tell them (western countries) just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out." Source: Democracy Now! (December 13, 2006) "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime [Israel] must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement" I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world." Source: New York Times (October 30, 2005) So what's the point of me posting the above statements? It was to prove a point: that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I think that's his name) clearly wanted to wipe out Israel. In a country ruled by Muslim religious leaders, this view is probably shared by most of the nation's leaders. Ahmadinejad is no longer in power, but his ideas hold a lot of sway in a country ruled by Islam. The Quran has several anti-Semitic quotes, so people who take every word of the Quran seriously are willing to kill Jews to obey Mohamed. Israel has a lot of Jews in it, so it would make sense for radical Muslims to try to kill Jews in obedience to the words of Mohamed. Before I continue, here is one example of an anti-Semitic quote: "Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind the rocks and the trees, but the rocks and the trees will say: Oh Muslim , oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him " except for the gharqad tree, which is one of the trees of the Jews." Now, as I've stated before, Iran has a lot of oil, 10% of the world's proven reserves according to Wikipedia. This being said, why do they need nuclear power? I believe their "peaceful" nuclear program is a front for the secret creation of nuclear weapons. Granted, Iran has made some concessions to the international community, but I do not believe they've ended their nuclear weapons program. Let me overview: Iran's leaders have the motive, though they may sometimes deny it. No one's taking any real steps to stopping them, so their nuclear progress is slowed down at best. Russia is helping them with their nuclear program, so they clearly have the means. Now before I end my turn in Round 2, I'll state that Iran attacking Israel was prophesied in the Bible in Ezekiel 38-39. Of course, since you're an atheist, you can ignore that one.