BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Income and Democratic ideals

America is know as the land of possibility, and that's exactly what it is. For this reason I strongly negate the resolution the in the U. S, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals, for three reasons, the American dream, income gaps are natural, and it will hinder job growth First the American dream. As my opponent stated we have an increasing number of immigrants in America they come to America because they can make something of there lives here, and Evan in the U. S I will use bill Clinton as an example he was born into a low income family. his father died before he was born and his mother was a struggling single mom also trying to be a student to become a nurse. He educated himself and better himself to become president income disparities don't threaten democratic ideals. The choices that people make do. for this reason I only see a con ballot. Second income gaps are natural. Like I said in my first contention the people that choice to education and better themselves make more money and have an easier to finding jobs because they have more to offer, and they are more valuable to there company. Third it will hinder job growth. there are some European countries out there that have tried to make a "safety net" if you will to try to keep finical equality. but that in the end hurts them. if everyone is poor than none can open or run a business, but if everyone is rich there's no reason to work. So to conclude income disparities do not threaten democratic ideals because in America you have a choice, income gaps are natural and important to a working society, and finally it will hinder job growth if we try to make everyone equal fancily.
Income and Democratic ideals

I dont intend to post anything of particular significance on this debate, just the general, expected arguments so sure, you can use it. I affirm the resolution and offer the definition of democratic ideals as ideals including justice, political participation, human rights, and the pursuit of happiness. In this context, "threaten" would best be defined as harming the exercise or procurement of an ideal. No time in our history have we suffered income gaps so great, nor have we seen such bleak prospects for incoming immigrants or those in poverty. I also observe that large income disparities are un-democratic by nature; a simple look at the GINI index confirms this[1]. According to the CIA, the U.S. scores a humiliating 45 on the GINI scale (which measures income inequality). Other countries around that area are Mexico (52), China (41), Argentina (45), and Mozambique (45). There is not a single other liberal democracy that has such an income gap. This already leads us to a pro ballot. Contention one: Cycle of poverty It's no secret that in the U.S., many unfortunate people are trapped in the misery of poverty. They are born poor, they will live poor, and they will die poor. Our social programs designed to help the poor actually backfire, as CATO institute writes[2]:"What’s really striking, if we look at the chart, is that the poverty rate in America was steadily declining. But then, once President Lyndon Johnson started a “War on Poverty,” that progress came to a halt. As explained before, the so-called War on Poverty has undermined economic progress by trapping people in lives of dependency. And this certainly is consistent with the data in the chart, which show that the poverty rate no longer is falling and instead bumps around between 12 percent and 15 percent."The poor now have little choice but to remain poor, and truly have no options left. With such a high unemploment rate they can't seek quality jobs (assuming they can even find any job at all), and it's common knowledge that inner-city schools are education centers in name only, more akin to a place where teenagers buy drugs, hang out, and hook up with the opposite sex as opposed to a place where they actually learn anything of significance. So this leads to a class of under educated peasents with no opprutunity and clashes with the democratic ideal of pursuit of happiness, as well as justice.I know it's short, but since this is an online debate I dont want to give out too much. Also, I want to see my first contention tested, so I look forward to my opponents response.1. https://www.cia.gov...2. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org...;
Sex before marriage

When you wait until you are married, it usually eliminates the idea of unpleasurable sex because you have become so connected and in love with that person, that so many other things overlook that aspect of the relationship. Also, you are usually very young if you are having sex before you are married, maybe even high school. When you are that young you are less likely to find a loyal and trustworthy person to have a sexual relationship with, and those relationships almost always end with sex and then the relationship ending. After the relationship has ended you then have a corrupt relationship with that person but you are still confined with them 5 days a week for 8 hours a day. This can be uncomfortable because they know you and your body more than anyone and will usually take that information to their advantage.
Sex before marriage

Sex is a very natural thing, as marriage is not. Animals have intercourse and kids without any commitment to the other. Intercourse for people, especially in today's society, can bring people closer together. As long as it is consensual between two people who have knowledge on how to be safe and know the possible consequences, it can be fun and a natural way to explore your body. Many marriages experience issues with sex because one is not being satisfied as much as they wish. Having sex before marriage can give you practice and knowledge when it comes to it. Waiting until marriage to find out that the sex between you and your partner is not as pleasurable as you'd hoped can instantly cause problems in the relationship. Faking it during sex in marriage can lead to a relationship without trust, communication and overall happiness.
Sex before marriage

Your virginity is an important part of you and you can never gain it back after it is taken. Waiting until marriage allows you to guard your purity and not give it away to someone who doesn't deserve it. Also, sex should be special, not casual. you lose some of the pleasure that comes with sex when you give your body to people who aren't worthy of it, and when you do find the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, you will not treasure your intimate moments with them as much as you could have if you had waited.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

My apologies if that is what you literally took out of my arguments in round one. I don't mean the individual will take the best choice, but follow the most fitting one. In your case it would be most fitting to follow that path. For the situation and the information within that individual forced the selflessness over self. See it as game design character where the individual has certain levels. The characteristics are displayed and such things as tolerance, patience, anger and everything else is based on these levels. Say your anger level is low and in a situation this area is tested. The possibilities are presented, but at that moment you will already know what will happen. The lowness of that level will force the path and the reaction will be a personal manifestation, but nevertheless will it be anger based. Simplistically described the idea of what I mean. Of course other information will come into play that in a certain type of situation will involve other fields to react as well. For example, if a female is pushing his buttons the enforced idea of not hitting her because that is the information he possesses will come into play. For you see he is raised with the idea that hitting females is wrong. Now obviously in another situation he might break that rule, but that is because she (representing the external force) is no longer within his level to maintain it and thus breaking that rule automatically. With these examples I hope to clarify that particular argument in the first round. Give it your best, I am trying to find someone that can disprove this. Looking forward to your response.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

I accept your claim that our decisions are influenced by prior knowledge and environment. However, choice still is present in the equation. You point out that we take the "best" path to move forward based on our knowledge of what will happen as a result of a particular course of action. I disagree with this. While we generally will take such a course of action, the fact is that we have the choice to engage in an action that may not necessarily be beneficial to us, thus still allowing free will.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

Human beings do have choice, but not freedom within it. As the choice represents the possibility it is only revealed for those who qualify for it. The options shown only to those with the right information at that moment thus giving certain preferences that are higher than others. In a swirl of information within oneself the external influence presented which define the moment of choice will create response. At this moment the input of that influence is embedded with the information and within the brain creating a path. Which is dependable on the information the holder of it currently holds. By it creating what we call the path of enforced direction. What takes away the free will is that the information that holds within the subconsciousness is bound with personal meaning and by it mapping out the route that fits best. Next lies in the gathering of information that is done automatically and by that not forming character of self choice, but inner process. The environment forms that single unit of emptiness to give direction in the future of the individual. All of this is connected with everything and even before the existence of men it can if all is known be pre-determined what direction every single human being is going to take. Except at those moment where the choice presented is not leading. By it creating choice of no preference. However, not free will of choice, but a random one will be formed.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

Thank you for posting a thought provoking discussion. Free will seems natural to a species composed of thinking and evaluating agents, as is the case for humanity. Barring theological perspectives, determinism carries a sense of contradiction with a basic understanding of reality. As such, it appears to be the case that free will is inherit. If it is the case that it does not exist, then the illusion of it must be so convincing that it would not be possible for it to be distinguished from true free will for the purpose of an argument.
Legitimate reasons why gays should not be allowed to have equal marriage rights

Marriage in this case will be seen in the context of civil marriage as it pertains to the regulations of the American Government. There are no logical, or rational state interests that make it imperative for civil marriage to only be allowed between persons of the opposite sex. And all of the arguments used to supposedly provide rational arguments for why same sex couples should not be allowed to get married, either base its foundation on fallacies, or contradicts its own assertions. 1st round - Opening statements 2nd round- Responses 3rd round- Conclusion
In Hearthstone, the Most Overpowered Card is Dr. Boom

The true story of Dr. Boom.My opponent is rogue at 8 health, I'm also a rogue, forgot my health (doesn't matter anyways).My board: Goblin auto-barber buffed to 7 attack, gives my weapon 1 attack on summon, how much health doesn't matter. Hand has shadow step.I don't know what my opponent has in his hand, but he can't kill my weakened minion.Opponent freezes my monster, plays doomsayer. Still has something else on board, but she/he doesn't care.Well played.What do I draw? Hmmmm.... I'll leave you to guess it.I play shadow step.Well played. Bah, this game is slow. Might as well play my draw.Three bodies on the board, two round balls on the side and one crazy guy in the middle with thunder behind him. Boom.Well played.Opponent begins turn.Everything dies.First bomb goes to face.... I need at least 6 damage...4 damage.Well played. Only two more damage to go. 4 damage. Perfect damage.Opponent cries, then quits, and uninstalls hearthstone, never to touch it again. (in my imagination)Dr. Boom OP: a true story.
In Hearthstone, the Most Overpowered Card is Dr. Boom

My opponent is wrong on the bigger picture. Just why did I say dr. boom is more overpowered? Let's see the pros of using Dr. Boom over MC:-Dr. Boom is a neutral card, which means ALL NINE CLASSES can use it. On the other hand, Mysterious Challenger can only be used in a paladin deck. -Mysterious Challenger needs at least five secrets to be very powerful. Yet, by running five secrets your deck is quite weak. Let's calculate the chances of NOT drawing into at least one of these five secrets by turn six:In turn one you draw four cards. The first card, 1/6 chance to draw into a secret. Second card, 5/29. Third, 5/28. Fourth, 5/27. And if we calculate the chances of not drawing into one of the secrets four times in a row, the chances are at an extremely low 0.00095--0.095%. Furthermore, within five turns, even though you have six mana to play mysterious challenger, the chances are lowered down to a number so miniscule that it is an impossibility to NOT have a secret in your hand, or already played on the field. Thus, as a result, Mysterious Challenger is actually not so overpowered since in reality it would only put 2 or 3 or even if you're super lucky, 4 secrets at a time, since the chances of NOT drawing into your five secrets is ridiculously low.-MC actually has more counters than Dr. Boom. Hunter's FLARE completely negate the advantage and turns the tables rather favorably. Kezan Mystic, usually ran to counter mage decks and/or hunter decks, can also turn around the 2 or 3 secrets into 1 or 2 secrets, with one secret for the opponent. And with possible youthful or old brewmasters, she can completely turn this around to 0 or 1 secret at the most.-Boom on the other hand, doesn't have that many counters. There's Big Game Hunter, but unfortunately even BGH trades perfectly with the Boom Bots Dr. Boom creates. The extra deathrattle [Baron Rivendare!] and mech synergy have too much in common with mage or pally mechs.
In Hearthstone, the Most Overpowered Card is Dr. Boom

Even though Dr. Boom is a very strong card, Mysterious Challenger is more OP. With Mysterious Challenger you can take board control from your opponent with one card. If you have all 5 secrets in your deck it will play all of them when you play it. So do the math, you get a 6/6 minion for 6 mana and you also get 5 secrets that cost 1 mana each. Adding all the costs up you get the value of an 11 mana card for the cost of 6 mana.
Christianity is akin to Fascism

My opponent claims that I provided nothing to show differences between the two, but let's reshow this. Communism-Promotes Classless Society-One Supreme Leader-Goal: Spread Communism World Wide. Fascism-Allows for different classes to emerge. -Devotion to Country-Wills of the Country over the people. Not to mention that they are at different ends of the spectrum. Now let's apply Christianity to these. Communism-Promotes Classless Soceity-One Supreme Leader (God)-Goal: Spread [Christiantiy] world wide. Fascism-Allows different classes to emerge. -Devotion to Christiantiy. -Wills of Christianity over people. Now if we look at a key difference is that of the classes. I shall reveal a few verses again that show what the Bible has to say on that. "For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened; but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack, that their abundance also may supply your lack - that there may be equality. As it is written, “He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he who gathered little had no lack. ” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15) "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. " (Acts 4:32-35)Here in Corinthians we can instantly see communism as it is practically showing Karl Marx's Socialist Distribution Principle. This eventually trickles down to a classless soceity of which I've shown ealier in this debate and my opponent has dropped. Here Christ is calling people to give up their homes and pocessions of to give to the poor. Again showing the redistrabution leading to a classless soceity. My opponent has also dropped my argument of John Chrysodom who called for the abolition of property. My opponent brings up that Hitler still stated that the property could be owned by the people, but still owned to the state, but he fails to acknowledge that Christianity abolishes property as I have previviously shown. (Lev 25:23, Acts 4:23-32, Palsms: 50:7, Kings 21:3) Eminent Domain, the government's taking of your property is entirely different than the communist system where there is no private property. In Fascism there is. In conclusion, we can see that I have shown that Christianity is not like Fascism at all and is more like Totalirarian Communism if anything at all. I have provided both Biblical and historical documentation to support my evidence while my opponent is attempting to compare two objects on the surface, but when you dig deeper you see that they are not alike at all. I have shown that Christianity even shares many Marxist ideals with Communism.
Christianity is akin to Fascism

Con made two claims last round. I will negate both Claim 1: Con claims to “prove(ing) that Totalitarian Communism is NOT akin to Fascism.” All Con offers to support this is a few unwarranted claims. None of which demonstrates Communism and Fascism not akin. Again it is important to remember that akin means similar, not exact. I will refer voters to my last round under the section “Totalitarian Communism(TC) and Fascism are Akin:” and restate that “You will notice that none of this is in conflict with what con presented as the core tenants of TC. Thus if these points are Congruent with both TC and Fascism it is reasonable to conclude that they are akin to one another. Con has not refuted those claims, and thus it stands that TC and Fascism are akin. Claim 2: “Fascism is not akin to Christianity.” Con’s main support for this claim is concerning property. I appreciate greatly the quotes provided by Con on the subject at hand. “The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property. “(Barkai 1990, pp. 26–27)- Adolf Hitler [2] Essentially, in a Fascist society people are stewards over property but the state in reality owns all. Now let’s compare to Christianity. The earth and everything in it belongs to God. Consider Gen. 14:199 22; Exod. 19:5; Lev. 25:23; Deut. 10:14; Psa. 24:1; Psa. 50:10-12; Psa. 89:11; 1 Cor. 10:26, 28. In spite of this belief, the God of Christianity does allow stewardship. This is evident by commandments to not steal or covet. Clearly there is a level of ownership/stewardship in Christianity though at the core all things belong to God and he can do as he sees fit. This is synonymous to Fascism. People own property in a fascist society, though the state retains the right to control the owners of the property. Thus we see that Con’s only contention that Christianity and Fascism are not akin is false. Even if it had been true, the sheer weight of all the other similarities that I listed would outweigh the one difference he listed and still demonstrate the two akin. Overview: Due to the similarities of Christianity and Fascism in regard to their axioms and structure (all left untouched by con and numerous); it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity is akin to Fascism. This is a clear win for pro. Thanks for reading and voting.
Christianity is akin to Fascism

Con has made two basic claims. He says “I plan to bring my own arguments claiming that” 1: “Christianity isn't Fascist” 2: “but Totalitarian Communist.” Observation: Even if con manages to confirm the above, it does not negate the resolution. I am not arguing that Christianity is fascist, rather that they are “akin.” As Akin is defined as similar it is reasonable to say that Christianity can be akin to both Fascism and Totalitarian Communism. This is further supported by Con’s map of political orientation. He says “I'm essentially arguing Upper Left while my opponent is arguing Upper Right.” As you can see Totalitarian Communism and Fascism are akin as they are both on the upper portion of the graph. They are not entirely the same, but are clearly and indisputably “akin.” Totalitarian Communism(TC) and Fascism are Akin: If you recall in my opening round I listed 3 Core tenets of Fascism. 1: Absolute power of the State: 2: Strict social order: 3: Authoritarian leadership: You will notice that none of this is in conflict with what con presented as the core tenants of TC. Thus if these points are Congruent with both TC and Fascism it is reasonable to conclude that they are akin to one another. Overview: It was once stated that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other. Again it is worth noting that I am not arguing TC, Fascism, and Christianity are equal. However, if Fascism at TC are both akin to Christianity they are also akin to each other. I have demonstrated this to be the case. Even if Con’s whole argument is accepted the resolution stands. Furthermore, to negate con must show that Christianity is not akin to Fascism, he has not done this. It matters not if Christianity is Akin to several other things including TC, it does not negate Christianity being akin to Fascism. Due to the similarities of Christianity and Fascism in regard to their axioms and structure; it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity is akin to Fascism.
Christianity is akin to Fascism

Christianity is akin to FascismDefinition of terms: 1. Christianity: "the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ"(1) 2. Akin: "similar or related"(2) 3. Fascism: "a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government"(3) 4 Rounds/8,000 characters/72hr/Select Winner Round 1 acceptance Round(s)2-3 Arguments and Rebuttals Round 4 Rebuttals and closing statements (no new arguments.) This debate should be impossible to accept, please comment if interested. Please no forfeits.Sources:(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(3) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Changing two-party system

Yes there are more than two political parties in the US indeed. However, each year it ends up either a Democrat or a Republic winning the election, and the two parties are the main power. Since the other parties play insignificant roles in the congress, we just called it a two-party system. My point is the two party system is becoming a obstacle for Congress to get things done because their opinions are too split up. A multi-party system will make sure that more political voices can be heard, and it can also creates a healthy competition, which can make less useless bickering between two parties.