BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America should have followed Alexander Hamilton's model and set up a Constitutional Monarchy.

"I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue." I find most parity with libertarian ideals, which in itself is a bit too nuanced to claim allegiances with either liberalism or conservativism, however, I definitely lean more to the right. Hope that works for you. "1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior)" I think this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Lets just go ahead and give a person that is the cause of much cognitive dissonance as the perfect illustration for why your (Hamilton's) plan is less appealing under scrutiny: George W. Bush Imagine having this twice elected official in the White House for the rest of his natural life. You make it contingent upon "good behavior." What exactly that constitutes is unclear to me, and some clarification would be greatly appreciated. As it stands now, good behavior would seem to mean anything that is not an impeachable offense. GWB could potentially continue in the manner he has without hindrance or without ever leaving office because no one can unambiguously prove misconduct on his part. A lot of people have made innumerable assertions of misconduct on his part yet he has managed to survive all of the allegations. Why should we expect anything different in the future? The Constitution specifies the maximum time a president can assume office. I assume that much of the Constitution you are in disagreement with being that Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian politics differed markedly. In fact, the two vied for the affection of this fledgling nation with heated debates. How much of the Founding documents that enshrines the United States of America are you actually in disagreement with being that you desire a Constitutional Monarchy? "2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior)" We run in to the same problem as I've outlined above. These sentiments were shared by Thomas Jefferson when he gave reasons for setting term limits. The reasons are "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress." This makes sense because it lends itself to oligarchic thinking. People sometimes become disillusioned over time. People get old and develop ailments that would prevent them from delegating their authority with clarity. Imagine having Reagan as senile as he became in his latter years, running the country on the whims of a flippant thought. "3.A House of Representatives that is elected every 3 years." Why only the House of Representatives? "An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem." Can I ask how since you have not yet divulged any details at this point? Platitudes sound nice, but they don't offer the reader any insight on to how a plan might work out in practical terms.
America should have followed Alexander Hamilton's model and set up a Constitutional Monarchy.

I would prefer to debate a political conservative on this issue. I really don't want to debate a populist liberal on this who is foolish enough to believe in something like "the more democracy the better" (mob rule) This is because it would turn this debate into something I don't want it to be at this time. At the time Alexander Hamilton was hated by many for suggesting this idea. I'm sure I'm going to recieve a similar reaction. I'm going to present Hamilton's idea and then let my opponent respond. 1.A monarch who is elected for life (on good behavior) 2.A senate elected for life (on good behavior) 3.A House of Representitives that is elected every 3 years. I should also add that the monarchy would not be hereditary. My premise is that the president and congress are too busy pandering to fickle and un-educated popular opinion in order to get elected to do what's best for the country. An elected-for-life Senate and Monarch would eliminate this problem.
Evolution

Evolution:If Evolution Occurred (IEO) -IEO: Some races of humans would be more closely related to our apelike ancestors than others. Fact: A study was made in 2001 that showed all humans are equally human. -IEO: All fossils will be in the vertical position in order. Primitive at the bottom and advanced on top. Fact: rarely if ever in the right order. Tons of horizontal fossils(a good example is petrified trees in Nova Scotia I saw them myself by the hundreds) -IEO: We would see genetic information being added every so often. Fact: Never been observed or recorded -IEO: The world would have to be at least a billion years old Fact: If you calculate the rate the earths revolution decrease and calculate backwards you will discover that it is physically impossible for the earth to be even 50,000,000 year old. -IEO:You would see thousands if not millions of transitional fossils. Fact: There are only a handful of transitional fossils that have been found. Roughly 90% have been proven to be either fraudulent or inaccurately described. Examples Piltdown Man, Archaeopteryx,Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus, Homo habilis africanus, Nebraska Man...etc( I will explain why they are inaccurate in the comments) IEO: You would see lots of vestigial organs Fact: None have been found. If Creation Occurred(ICO) ICO: You would see design in living thing Fact: If you study Genetics you will see lots of design ICO: You will observe emotional responses that are not beneficial to your survival Fact: Germans helping Jews during WW2 is a perfect example. ICO: If a worldwide flood occurred you should see flood myths in most cultures regardless of which continent they exist on Fact: Nearly every culture has some form of flood myth. Conclusion: Evolution is contrary to evidence and common sense.
Evolution

The belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a hypothesis that is defended by the scientific community with a fiery passion, despite macro-evolution's (evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) contradictions with several key scientific Laws. The origins, insufficiency of substantial evidence and the inconsistencies of evolutionary dogma will be outlined in this debate. Evolution is a hypothesis that contradicts physics,biology,the fossil record and common sense. If people want to believe evolution that's fine, just don't teach it in a science class as a well supported theory. My only request is that my opponent lists sources to the information he/she presents. I will make sure that I list my sources as well. To my opponent I wish you good luck, because your certainly going to need it.
Evolution

Evolution:If Evolution Occurred (IEO) -IEO: Some races of humans would be more closely related to our apelike ancestors than others. Fact: Evolution does not state that: Evolution is not linear and humans are common ancestors. The differences in race are caused by adaptation to local environments (e.g. black skin is better near the equator to prevent damage from the sun, while fair skin is better in the arctics where vitamin D is hard to come by) -IEO: All fossils will be in the vertical position in order. Primitive at the bottom and advanced on top. Fact: This is true, except for certain examples where organisms can be too big to fit in a single layer. Because of this issue radiometric dating is used. Radiometric dating is accurate and the speed of decay of particles is mostly constant.[1] -IEO: We would see genetic information being added every so often. Fact: Has been observed and recorded. Novel information and gene duplication have been confirmed to increase genetic information. -IEO: The world would have to be at least a billion years old, and the slowing down of the Earth's rotation proves that it isn't Fact: The earth slows down by 0.005 seconds per year, meaning that 4.6 billion years ago the length of a day was 14 hours. That is not physically impossible, but rather extremely reasonable. [2] -IEO:You would see thousands if not millions of transitional fossils. Fact: There are many transitional fossils. Some are inaccurate, and those inaccurate ones were quickly discovered most of the time by scientists. Con ignores my evidence that the Archaeopteryx was not fully bird or dino. IEO: You would see lots of vestigial organs Fact: A lot have been found. Vestiges are not always completely useless, just remainants of something else.[3] If Creation Occurred(ICO) ICO: You would see design in living thing Fact: Poor design has been found, consistent with evolution or at least guided evolution ICO: You will observe emotional responses that are not beneficial to your survival Fact: Strawman: evolution does not state that ICO: If a worldwide flood occurred you should see flood myths in most cultures regardless of which continent they exist on Fact: Cultures in Mesopotamia had flood myths, because the river valley frequently floods. Conclusion: Evolution is supported by evidence and common sense. [1]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202. [2]http://www.talkorigins.org... [3]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Resolve: Einsteins theories are lucrative

IntroductionUnfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his second round. As such, I will take this opportunity to simply present my arguments (as I have nothing to contest or refute) in hopes that Con may respond in the final round.Nobel Prize EarningsIn 1921, Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics "for his work on theoretical physics, especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". And as with all Nobel Prizes, Einstein's Nobel Prize in Physics was accompanied with a financial sum of approximately 120,000 Swedish Krones (approx. 180,000 Swiss Francs).[1] This fact alone affirms the resolution.Earnings After DeathDuring the period of October 2007 to October 2008, Albert Einstein raked in $18 million[2] and placed fourth in the Forbes' list of the top earning dead celebrities[4]. Due to having no living heirs or relatives, "he bequested all his personal papers, intellectual property rights and the right to use his image to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem."[2] This vast amount of revenue is garnered from the marketing of various Einstein paraphernalia such as calendars, mugs, jigsaw puzzles, action figures, coffee brands, and most significantly, Disney's line of Baby Einstein educational products for toddlers.[2]ConclusionI have produced unfalsifiable evidence that not only did Albert Einstein's theories directly provide him with financial gain, but that his fame and image (whose causation is undoubtedly due to his theories and findings vis-à-vis special relativity and matter-energy equivalence) have produced and continue to produce lucrative amounts of wealth. Thus, I have fulfilled my burden of proof and the resolution is affirmed._________Sources1. http://www.einstein-website.de...2. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...3. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...
Resolve: Einsteins theories are lucrative

Due to the lack of format and round stipulation, I will take the opportunity to put forth relevant definitions pertaining to the resolution: "Einstein's theories are lucrative". Definitionsthe·o·ry noun:a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena[1]lu·cra·tive adj:producing wealth; profitable[2]By assuming affirmative position, I will need to show that Albert Einstein garnered any amount of financial gain directly due to his theories, and the opposition, the converse (a loss of or no wealth). I wish my opponent good luck and await his arguments. _________Sources1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Global Warming should be taken more seriously.

This is my first debate, so i hope i can do well Since the Industrial Age, humans have been releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and after a century the effects have become significant. There are about 1 billion cars in the world, each releasing greenhouse gases. Yet actions taken by the government have not shown significant results. Even though most people believe that global warming is nothing more than a hoax, it is impossible to release so much poisonous gas into the atmosphere without causing any problems. That is why I strongly believe that global warming should be taken more seriously.
Japanese Chinks should not be able to continue living

Japanese people have a right to exist because all men and women were created equal and have an unalienable right to life. Although they might have done some mad things to China and America back in WWII, there race has come a long way. They are generally very nice people, hard workers, team players, and all that good stuff. There contributions to the world include Zen Buddhism, martial arts, karaoke, Japanese food, manga, anime, Nintendo, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, and a lot of stuff that weeaboos like.
Japanese Chinks should not be able to continue living

I believe that Japanese people do not have the right to exist! they are vermin to the united states and must be taken out of existences. They steal our jobs, our children, and our hope for brighter future. They always seem to squint at everyone, because our brighter minds are too much to handle for their smaller chinky brains. They NEED to be executed as soon as possible, because their plague is poisoning the world.
Should college athletes be paid

College athletes should not be paid for various reasons. First and foremost I would like to say that the idea of scholarships is plenty enough for athletes. Most athletes receive compensation such as scholarships and financial aid instead. I do believe in the freedom of choice for the athletes, for Example: Brandon Ingram was a one year and done star small forward on the duke basketball team. If the student has the ability to go to the next level and potentially make millions of dollars in a league above then he should by all means do that. Paying the student only potentially stay at university should not be put on the shoulders of the other students, this is America where we have the freedom of choice, and if the students priorities are to receive an education then he will stay, if he want to go pro and make a huge amount of money that is also his choice, it's ultimately up to him or her. If the university is required to pay students it would ultimately affect all other students as well.
Vaccinations Should be Mandatory

There is a wonderful thing called democracy and human rights that allows an individual to choose what happens to their possessions in most circumstances. As a human being you have reasons that you can use to object to a vaccination. 1. A religious reason such as it being unnatural, or intervening etc. 2. The vaccination could have certain side effects you would prefer to avoid 3. You may even be intolerant to the vaccine 4. You may simply not want to without logical reason.
Vaccinations Should be Mandatory

Thank you for accepting my FIRST DEBATE! I am familiar with the rules of the site, because I have been looking on for a while and decided to create an account.The first round will simply consist of a message of acceptance. As for the rest of the rounds, let's see where the debate takes us!I ask none of the judges to have any personal biases and vote purely from a judging viewpoint. If you have any religious or philosophical objections to this subject, please message me in advance!Thanks!
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

This debate shall be whether a gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada. By this, I mean a bubble that will: A) Cover the entirety of Canada, excluding maritime claims. B) Allow certain things or people to enter and exit C) Prohibit certain things or people from leaving or entering. Rules: 1. In this debate, I am not counting the issues of 'limbo', or 'no salvation outside the catholic church'. 2. This debate presumes the technology to create such a bubble exists, and that such a bubble could be created; all other measures (such as the cost of such a bubble, whether such a bubble would be effective, whether such a bubble is moral, etc.) are on the table. 3. This is a troll debate. 4. Round 1 is for acceptance, Round 2 is for opening statements (no rebuttals), Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttals, and Round 5 is for closing statements. 5. If either side forfeits a round, all votes should go to the side that did not forfeit. Good luck!
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

Invade Canada What are you talking about?In America we LOVE snow! In the sunshine state we have a Giant snow machine! We would LOVE canada for all the snow + we turned the entire New England into a Economic Center and industrial hub! Clearly canada would and could be a great investment. Much better than shutting it off with a bubble -_-Giant Robots As I said, these robots are primed to think logically and would keep canadians in their place. Who's to say the bubble wouldn't turn on us? These robots are highly deadly and Any attempt at propaganda or escape from the Anti-Christ he would be dead.Giant Soundproof Black Box1) Honorability. Even ninjas have a code of honor (example: Naruto) and will stick to it. killing an unarmed BABY would be very unhonorable.2) You destroy harvestible land that will never be replenished. We could use that for Lumber and Farming. You obviously don't know how to conserve things or take advantage of opportunities either. The Anti-Christ loves the colour black and therefore want to stay in there forever. not wanting to leave. (And as you said the Anti-Christ would take over and control things I.E. maple syrup production. He would not allow it to pass) I have posted 3 better solutions than placing a Transparent bubble on canada. invading canada, surrounding it with robots, or placing a giant black box would be better than A bubble. Thank you TNO5 for debating with me. And thank you Viewers, for voting and viewing. May the best argument win.
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

Final responses to my opponent:Invade CanadaThose two places are deserts. We built Las Vegas in a desert. To contrast, we have not built anything that good in snowy wastelands like Canada - heck, we have a whole state (Alaska) with a similar environment to Canada, and virtually nobody lives there! If 'Murcia can't build it there, why could we build it in Canada. Giant RobotsSkynet's AI and the AI of a robot are fundamentally similar. If we need to deactivate a robot - for whatever reason - who are we to say it won't fight back, like Skynet did? The odds that one out of 500+ robots would go rogue and wipe out, say, Vermont, is very high.Giant Soundproof Black Box1) Ninjas will be fine working for money, especially to eliminate the Antichrist - just tell them it is an 'evil spirit' who is disrupting the Chi of the world or some crap like that and they'll be fine.2) You use Hitler as an example, but Hitler never convinced any country outside of Germany to join him other than at the barrel of a gun. Worst case scenario is that the ninjas fail; the Antichrist is he takes over all of Canada (except Quebec, because he doesn't speak French), and sets up base in Toronto. Because we can control what goes in and out of the bubble, we can keep the Mounties from attacking us, launch a nuclear missile straight at Toronto, and prevent the fallout from leaving Canada. Antichrist dies, and the rest of the world goes on as normal.Now, to sum up:My opponent has argued there are several other methods that could be better than a bubble. While I believe these options have been utterly refuted, none of them preclude the possibility of the Canadian bubble. I have demonstrated the Canadian bubble is the most effective solution to that pesky Canadian problem. It lets the best country - us - decide who enters and who leaves Canada, while letting them ruin their own country and without violating their rights. The other proposals - such as robots, invasion, and box - are not as good as the Canadian bubble. In fact, they do not even prevent such a bubble from being useful. The Canadian problem warrants a serious answer, and the bubble is the solution we all need.
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

Invade Canada We have fought for more horrible, barren countries than canada. Look at Afghanistan, or Iraq! and they're farther away than canada, and we are fighting them for oil. canada has Oil and Marketability! even if the land is horrible, we can make some of it a "national park" and the Stoner hippies will all buy to go to it, making us, Merica, more money. And think on this, why was it horrible in the first place? its all because of the canadians Americans would never let that happen, so when we get there we can make all of it beautiful! We made New York beautiful, why not canada.Giant Robots Oh please, Skynet is run by a giant set of Super Computers the robots are controlled by them. So as long as we don't build a Super Computer, with links towards the robots we'll be fine. And I have to say, Would you think the stupidity of the canadians would be a Lesser threat than just a pile of silly old nukes? Also we could make the robots just like this, and they would NEVER hurt us!( )Giant SOUNDPROOF BLACK Box 1) Pro fails to realize that the Antichrist would posses a ninja and it would be even MORE dangerous. Plus ninjas are Asian and aren't Christian, so I would be a hard time to have them kill a Baby! 2) If the bubble is Not soundproof and transparent then the Antichrist would EASILY propagandize Alaska and the northern part of Merica. Just look at (what people say) The anti-Christ we had earlier. Hitler was a GREAT Speaker, and since it is theorized he was the anti-Christ, who's to say he wont be as good, or Better than Hitler ( )
A gigantic, transparent bubble should be placed over the entirety of Canada

Invada CanadaSure, America can and has made wastelands into paradises. But how does that provide living space if nobody wants to live in it? Those Canadians are crazy, and even they don't want to live there - the only people who do are Inuit, really.Aside from that, much of Canada is not arable - the Canadian Shield, basically a very large bit of igneous (volcanic) rock that prevents you from growing plants. (I assumed it would be fairly obvious, given I note the bubble can allow people to come in or out. My apologies for not making it clearer)Giant robotsI'm not saying robots couldn't help... But robots have also been shown to have a mind of their own. If they are 'primed to be logical', might they not determine we are the threat, since we have nukes and Canada doesn't? There are many examples of such robots, but the biggest is Skynet - an evil robot that caused a nuclear apocolypse when humans tried to shut it down.[1] Whose to say our giant robots might not do the same when they have to be deactivated and replaced? Giant boxTrue, but the point still stands. Aside from this, there are two solutions to the antichrist:A) Kill it before it can grow up. A team of skilled ninjas could easily accomplish this.B) Program the bubble to keep the antichrist in Canada.As you can see, the bubble solves the problem immediately!References:1. The Terminator