BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Articles of Confederation were salvageable

I accept this challenge and am looking forward to an intellectual debate. My opponents BOP is to show the exact problem with the Articles of Confederation and his plan solve it. They must solve every problem (or at least a majority) with the Articles otherwise the Constitution is a better well Constitution. Their biggest problem will be exactly how to amend the Articles when amending them required a unanimous vote of all the states and as the country grew bigger their would be more states. With further ado, I hand the baton to my opponent.
The Articles of Confederation were salvageable

Now that it is the last round just so I have something to do I will deal with my opponent's arguments seen in the comments...officially my opponent has conceded my points but, boredom sets in so… Opponent in quotes my response underneath: "My opponent claims I ignore the founders of this country which is completely untrue, in fact I even quoted some of them." Yet, you consistently ignore the fact that the founding father's tried to amend the Articles of Confederation but, failed to do so. "Yes, some did support a stronger federal Government, especially Alexander Hamilton, but he was in the minority." If he was in such a minority, why did the federal government grow to such a size it is now and why were most of the early president's federalists or supporters of a strong government? (Washington and Adams are two good examples). Jefferson was the only president in that early period which supported limited powers and even he took it upon himself to invade the Barbary Coast. "Yes, soldiers not being paid was the primary reason behind Shay's rebellion." Concession. If the federal government could levy a tax they would have been able to avoid this rebellion. "George Washington opposed the formation of political parties, which would have been less likely under the articles (albeit not impossible). He followed through and never joined a party." George Washington was still a supporter of a strong federal government even if he never officially supported one party (1). And my opponent never explains why having political parties is necessarily a bad thing. People will naturally band together to advocate their ideas even if it does not have the label "political party". "True the United Nations is not a country and technically speaking the United States at this point were not meant to be either as each state was its own country but they were joined in a "league of friendship" similar to how the Countries in the UN are meant to be." This is a bad thing if the United States was not the United States rather the country of Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia, etc. With the constant threat of Britain (later realized in the war of 1812) how exactly could the "United" States defend itself if it was not one country but, rather 13? Simple answer, it could not. These separations would destroy the United States in the time of war with a foreign power. "A majority did not support a standing army but rather each state would have a militia." The majority of the early presidents were federalists who supported a standing army. Most people did support of standing army. Federalists supported it, they obviously had the majority. Once again my opponent never explained why a standing army was bad. I thank the readers for reading. 1. http://new.civiced.org...
scream music should be encouraged

Well, some people arent into that kind of stuff.I like only one screamo song. (Death note OP2)It is impossible to sing back.Blaaaaaa!!! nkdjflaspf,dfj!! !AAAAA!!!! asdfjkahdflkj!!!!l h l jaljhflakjhl!!!! jkakkaksdfkj!!!1!You relly cant sing tht back But it is your preferencePlus, the only way artists get popular now a days is to be either hot, or sing good.People in heavy make up really isn't young people material
The world is christian dominated

hey the world isnt christian dominated. i am a christian but i think most of the people just say they are christian. sorry bout the other roun i spaced out. but ne ways i agree with part of what you say about the population and what not but i think tht alot of them just say they are and i love god so i am in tht population count. most people say they are christias, but some are ...and sorry bout the other round.
The world is christian dominated

Okay, let's start <> Yes, how is this related? > I don't understand what you mean by this. If you mean that many people say they are christian, when in fact they're not, then which evidence to you have to prove this? On what do you base this theory? <> Okay you're just repeating yourself. Again, on what do you base this theory? Which reason would they have for doing this? <> Again, I cannot understand you. Yes, you love god, great. And...? And in which population count? <,most people say they are christias, but some are >> This is not a logically correct sentance. IF you mean that many people say they are chrstian, and a lot of them are lying, but some are chrstian, then, I have to ask again, why do you think that? You have presented a very weak argument and I hope our next one will be better.
1=1 simple as that

It seems he had enough time, 5 rounds, to post something that 1=1, but he never, in fact, does so. In all of his rounds, he either only responds to my arguments or forfeited. There is no other way to vote right now. "your 1/3 example is the reason you dont use repeating decimal approximations it throws your math off. " Actually .33 repeating equals 1/3, while .33 might not. Math simply does not make sense. This is only one example. There are many contradictions in math. Plus, as my opponent says, math was created by humans. Thus, math doesn't exist and he is running under a false case. Also, he only clears up his argument and contradicting until this round, and thus it is abusive because I only get one solid argument on him. "And your equals argument of math and science changing everday is a lie math and science are always the same what humans understand of it is diffrent. " This was in new argument in R5 and is abusive. He also states this "yes math was ceated by humans," which means math is what we make of it. Thus, his interpretation is wrong because he makes a contradiction in saying that our interpretation varies and math is always constant, but we created it. FINALLY, MY OPPONENT DROPS THE ARGUMENT ABOUT SIMPLE AS THAT. In none of his 4 rebuttals does he adress this, and thus the resolution is proved false because of 3 words. Please extend my argument about simple as that into this round, as it needs no re-itorating.
1=1 simple as that

your 1/3 example is the reason you dont use repeating decimal approximations it throws your math off. In the end of your proposition you say .99=1 and as you can see its not man may say what it wants but common since says its not. And yes math was ceated by humans but you can still make sense of it and if a 1st grader can understan 1=1 then so can you i would say thats down on the simple end of things. You would be unwilling to trade anything of two thing for one of the same thing (assuming they are the exact same thing). And your equals argument of math and science changing everday is a lie math and science are always the same what humans understand of it is diffrent. but today yesterday and guess what even tommorow 2 of the exact same item are the exact same if they have equal forces acting on them. but no matter what when you weigh 2 one pound items they are equal no matter what you say. so in the end of this i have nulled every one of my opponents arguments
1=1 simple as that

Again my opponent fails his burden of proof. Nowhere in all 3 of his rounds does he provide evidence saying that 1, in fact, = 1. I urge you to vote CON, as if he brought it up now, it would be abusive to the CON side. Let's take a look at his arguments: "1/3 and 33.3333... have several problems and that is because you cant represent 1/3 correctly in a decimal form so we use the closest decimal approximation we can and until you can show me a piece of anything to make up the diffrence between 100% and 99.9999...% that seems to be a null argument." This is a complete contradiction by PRO. He says 1/3 =/= .33 repeating, and yet says 99.99... is the same thing as 100. If 1/3 =/= .33, then 100% would =/= 99.99 repeating. Also, I was not arguing that .99999 equals 1, I was arguing that math was invented by humans, and does not make sense. How has there been so much debate about .999=1 if math made sense? It is just our way of measuring. "and in the next argument when you use fancy algbra to make 1=2 or 5 or 10 using this math and the transitive propety you make 1=1,000,000 and until your willing to trade me a million dollars for 1 i find that you are unwilling to support your theory." hmm... seems to me that that was not my argument. I was arguing that the resolution has =, not equals, and thus does not mean in the present tense. So, your argument is proven false because 1 could not equal 1, as math and science change every day. My opponent drops the argument about 'simple as that.' Again, I do not have to disprove the entire resolution. Therefore, if I disprove one word in the resolution, I win this debate. Right now, I see no reason to vote anywhere but CON.
1=1 simple as that

so sorry about last round on vacation and i just barely missed it. any ways back to the point 1/3 and 33.3333... have several problems and that is because you cant represent 1/3 correctly in a decimal form so we use the closest decimal approximation we can and until you can show me a piece of anything to make up the diffrence between 100% and 99.9999...% that seems to be a null argument and in the next argument when you use fancy algbra to make 1=2 or 5 or 10 using this math and the transitive propety you make 1=1,000,000 and until your willing to trade me a million dollars for 1 i find that you are unwilling to support your theory. Again so sorry about last round
1=1 simple as that

My only contention is that math was invented by humans, and does not make sense. Observe: 1/3+ 2/3= 3/3 = 100% 1/3= 33% repeating .33+ .33+ .33= .9999999999 repeating. Because we know humans invented math as a way of measuring, we can conclude that math does not exist in the natural world. Also, math is what we make of it. Tommorrow 1 could not equal 1. And since the resolution isn't in present tense, 1 could not equal 1 soon. One more thing: he states that it is as simple as that. But in fact, math is not at all simple. That's why humans are the only ones who know math, because they can ask why. Plus it's complicating to a lot of humans. Try a microwave propagation equation. Not that easy. Oh... yeah... the burden of proof thing.
Words

Pro has presented three arguments, I will counter each argument in order. The argument of technology is easily voided, by the fact that humans and other animals spurred from non-technological means, and by my original premise of the doom that comes with technology. Humans would be more likely to evolve far into the future if technology wasn't around, and my proof is that in the days before technology, our species would have been expected to live much longer. I have never stated that all technology should be removed, I have stated that words should be removed. Safer, less advanced technology might be necessary to live, and it's possible we would use technology as such in a more nature-friendly world. Less advanced technology would bring about a more advanced natural environment. My evidence is that polluted water is not healthy for humans, whereas pure water is healthy. Technology creates purified water, but also polluted water " I imagine Pro's next argument will be biased to the fact technology can make water pure. My argument against this would be that there was already enough pure water prior to technological advancement, and because of technology, there is more polluted water than there was prior to word-technological advancement. On the argument of ethics, again, easily dismissed by the fact we can be wise of our society and ethics would still exist, and by the fact humans can find harmony in chaos. Wisdom comes with experience, and helps us to judge if knowledge is true. and benefits our judgement ability. We are wise mammals, and in a wordless world, we can easily be civilized. We are not civilized now, especially in the west, words make us less-civilized. Insulting and immature behaviour Is common in the west; our code of ethics just doesn't work. The burden of proof is on Pro, to prove that the wordless world would be unethical " that we couldn't have civilized, wordless populations. The concept argument was a bit bizarre for me, we can still formulate concepts with imagery and wordless thought " it's harder to express them, but the expression is unnecessary for survival. In fact, the expression of formulated concepts is only useful to technological and social development. Thank you for the argument Pro, eagerly awaiting your next.
The earth is an oblate spheroid

There is no irrefutable evidence for a spherical earth that I know of. There are very many reasons to consider a flat earth, and even a few that would suggest a concave earth. I don't know, I'm still on the fence. My opponent is convinced that the earth is a spinning ball, and has irrefutable evidence for this belief. For this to be true, two things must be proved: curvature and axial rotation.
Debate me about anything you disagree with Ron Paul on: foreign policy, economy, Iraq/Iran, etc

First, i just want to say that I am too a Ron Paul supporter, i can't vote for him, but thats besides the point. I agree with ALMOST everything he says, listening to him in the debates, he is the only one that is true. These are just my opinions and im sure many agree, and disagree with me. Being a supporter of Ron Paul I often visit his web-site. Ron Paul, as with every other candidate, has a tab on his web-site with his position on all the "major" issues. I have read through there multiple times but one thing does stand out to me. His position on homeschooling. "Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children's education...I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students...I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment." Home schooling is a good thing, if they are held accountable to their childs learning and Ron Paul sadly does not do that. Ron Paul also will give tax credits to homeschool parents so they have more money, to buy supplies. I know a couple kids that are homeschooled. One of them has been my friend since 2nd grade. I always saw him as a smart kid, good kid. He went to homeschool in 4th, and things seemed to go downhill. He abused the fact that his mom was very leniant on the schedule, so he went out and skated. It started as just a little a day then work, then to all day, no work. My point is, the school system is good as every other around the world because, for the most part, we are held accountable to being there, and being on time. Im not saying the school system is the best in the world, i believe we are far from it. But with Ron Pauls plan we give money to parents that homeschool their child. In my friends case, he does NOTHING in his homeschool anymore. But his Mom would still be recieving money. I also don't like the fact that he will give money to parents for homeschooling, but not hold them accountable with standardized tests. Not only is he not holding them accountable, he will give equal chances of getting into college of these homeschoolers. I look foward to hearing back from you, the debate is on this plan in particular right?
Debate me about anything you disagree with Ron Paul on: foreign policy, economy, Iraq/Iran, etc

I don't believe that Ron Paul's words are like gospel, but I agree with nearly everything he's saying right now, and I'd love to debate someone about it. I differ slightly with his environmental views, but I believe Ron Paul becoming the next president of the US is the best chance the environment has got, and I can explain why in this debate or another. I debate to challenge and refine my political beliefs, as well as yours. Maybe I'm right, or maybe you are. Either way, I aim to arrive at a more enlightened position by the end of the debate. PLEASE leave your emotions at the door. I'm looking for rational, well thought out debating here, not a shoot from the hip type of argument that will get neither of us anywhere. Please explain specifically what it is about a certain principle of Ron Paul's that you don't like. If 3 rounds is too short, I'll repost for longer.
misbehaving children should be beaten

Misbehaving Children are everywhere, and yet they get no punishment severe enough to change their ways. They are ruining our society and clearly something must be done to stop this. Beating them with any sort of weapon, eg a shovel, should surely knock some sense through their thick skulls. This will prepare them for the harsh realities of the real world, and even if they object to it during the beating, they will surely thank us in the future for this great service.
Should Students Be Home schooled if They are Being Bullied

As my opponent has just said, "but like I said if it gets to serious.. home school would be a good option." As my opponent has AGREED to my side, I deem his argument void as Con has basically arguing for MY side. Kids should get home schooled if bullied. They don't need to be bullied to learn to stick up for themselves, they can join a boxing/wreslting club insead. Bullying is by no way a way for a child to learn for them to defend themselves.I look forward to my opponent's next (void) argument!
Should Students Be Home schooled if They are Being Bullied

I agree. I have been bullied .. but like I said if it gets to serious.. home school would be a good option. but otherwise kids have to learn to stick up for them self's . I mean I hope they would. but yes I think I should change sides defiantly. you have made me think about it more. but they should stick up for them self's. that's not a bad thing to do ... its a good thing!
Should Students Be Home schooled if They are Being Bullied

I think they should get home school if they are being bullied because the people who bully them may lead to serous events such as suicide or depression etc. No human being should be able to go through this tough time. I don't think people have a choice of bullying. They just can't say yes I will ignore it. It is so much more. Almost half of all children and young people (46%) say that they've been bullied at some point during their time at school, according to the Tellus4 National Report (PDF, 1.33Mb), carried out in 2009. [Sources: http://www.nhs.uk...]
People should not do drugs.

People should not do drugs because it can cause them to do things that they would not normally do. When someone does drugs, it hinders them from thinking properly. This means that their judgment is also off, and they can hurt people or break the law without thinking about the consequences. As well, it can hurt their health by changing the way their brain functions, and by making them crave more, they often overdose and die. Also, doing drugs can ruin any relationships you have by putting the ones close to you in danger. If you are in debt to a drug dealer, they may come after friends and family to get at you. This is why people should not do drugs.
According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death!! Lord have Mercy!

I must have failed to make my point well in the previous round because you seem to either misunderstand the nature of my argument or are willfully ignoring it. >>"My opponent has not posed any argument or form of evidence for this premise. Regardless even if it were true "chosen people" are still people. My resolution holds." My point isn't that the chosen people aren't people but rather not all people are the chosen people. "People who work on the Sabbath" seems only limited to those individuals who work on the Sabbath. Rather, that doesn't hold accurate. Last Saturday I did a significant amount of work. I am a person. However, under the proper Jewish interpretation I am not to be put to death. The Torah is rather specifically rules for Jews to follow. You can go ahead and eat pigs and have all the gay sex you want. They are not rules for everybody but rather the rules for Jews. I am a person. I do work on the Sabbath. Therefore I am to be put to death. However, the rule doesn't apply to me and I am not to be put to death. There is something very specifically wrong with the topic as given, namely that it doesn't apply to me.
According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death!! Lord have Mercy!

Alright ... I am arguing that the bible says that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death. I quoted the bible so it would be pretty hard for my opponent to refute this point. Why have i posted this debate? (this is for you cogito) B/c theists on this website feel the need to debate whether the bible says that homosexuality is a sin and infer that it is. They have the right to do this, just as i have the right to debate other claims made by the bible. "You'll notice that even today many Orthodox Jews don't work on Saturday, however they never say that other people should be put to death for it." this is an irrelevant point in the debate. Simply b/c some jews don't adhere to the word of the bible/torah doesn't mean that fact changes the word of the bible/torah. "Jews take the Sabbath off as a rest day for recognition of the covenant with Yahweh this was never intended to apply to "people" in general rather just "the chosen people"." My opponent has not posed any argument or form of evidence for this premise. Regardless even if it were true "chosen people" are still people. My resolution holds. Thank you Tatarize
According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death!! Lord have Mercy!

Yeah, it is pretty straight forward with the whole put to death thing for a plethora of different crimes. However, those were Jewish rules, for Jewish people. You'll notice that even today many Orthodox Jews don't work on Saturday, however they never say that other people should be put to death for it. Jews take the Sabbath off as a rest day for recognition of the covenant with Yahweh this was never intended to apply to "people" in general rather just "the chosen people".
According to the Bible people who work on the Sabbath should be put to Death!! Lord have Mercy!

Pretty simply, Exodus 31:14; 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36 Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Numbers 15: 32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. 36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.