BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All citizens should be required by law to vote.

That word that you used.I really dont like that word. Forced. If we are forced to vote, we might as well be back in the slave time. You said we should respect the way they use our money. According to a report by Senator Tom Coburn, in 2010 the governemnt gave the univrsity of California 3 million dollars to play video games, as part of research to, and I quote, "study how “emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace.”[1] We should respect the way the government uses our money? Here is another example. In that same report, Senator TOm Coburn reports, that the VA donates 175 Million dollars every year to maintain hundreds of buldings tha they do not use. One including a monkey house in Dayton, Ohio. [1] So WE should respect the money? The definition of democracy, is "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run." The word , MEANT, means that is is not mandatory. That is what it was SUPPOSED TO DO. That means it is optional. An obese individual is SUPPOSED to eat the right way. We always are SUPPOSED to do something. That does not mean that it is mandatory. In the end, it is all up to the individual, if he wants to eat healthy or not. In the end it is up to us if we want to partake in voting in politics, but no one can force people to vote. And you really think that forcing people to vote, will encourage people into action? If anything that will cause a rebellion. Like in Hunger Games. No I am just kidding, but not everyone likes to vote. If you force people to do something that they dont want to do, there will definetly be some rebellion. Protests in the streets. You know what you are right. Forcing people will encourage them to get into action. But not by voting. By Rebellion. And I am sure no governemnt wants that.Thank You
All citizens should be required by law to vote.

Clash: You said: Some people might not like the options I (Prop) say: Whether some people don't like the options, doesn't change whether they vote. Even if you don't like all the options, the person can just vote for the best out of the options. And your example about a store isn't like this case. In a store you have to pay money. In a voting station it is free. Arguments: 1. Ballots cost money. Take for example one slip of paper. It doesn't cost much, right? Now take the cost of a specialized piece of paper. The cost is more then the regular slip of paper. Now imagine that cost multiplied by the amount of citizens, say in the USA. You get a staggering amount. People should respect the amount of money the government put into the election, by voting. 2. We are given democracy so we should respect democracy. We have been given this right to have democracy so we should respect it. Enough said. 3. Encourages people to get into action. Once people are forced to vote, they would have to learn about the candidates, which provides education. Also, when people are forced to vote, when the election results come out, more people will agree with the results, and more people would be happy, which is what democracy is about. Thank you.
All citizens should be required by law to vote.

Imagine that you walk into the store during the winter, looking for a nice winter coat. But because of high demand, all of the coats are gone. There is only short sleeve shirts. Now imagine that the store has a rule, that once you enter the store, you MUST buy an item from the store. Forcing everyone to vote, is just like that. Someone might think that all candidates are not good options and that neither desrve a vote. Will you still make them vote?
Car Insurance Should Not Be Allowed To Discriminate Based On Gender

Insurance companies are private enterprise, and this must not be forgotten. In the insurance business you are in essence placing bets on your clients; betting that they won't get into accidents. If someone is a riskier bet then you charge them a higher rate to compensate for a higher risk of loss. Since insurance companies cannot possibly know everything about their clients they must base some of their decisions off of statistics; age, gender, and habits. Even my opponent admits that it is acceptable for insurance companies to charge different rates based on statistical analysis. It is actually good business strategy to charge different rates based on gender, because men are much more likely to get into accidents than women. This is not discrimination, because it follows the same logic as health insurance companies charging different rates based on age; an older person is much more likely to get sick, therefore the insurance company must charge more to make up for this loss. Let's take a look at some statistics I pulled from one of my sources. [1] 1) 3.41 men receive tickets for reckless driving for every 1 woman. 2) 3.09 men drive under the influence for every 1 woman. 3) 3.08 men receive tickets for not using seat belts for every 1 woman. 4) Men are almost 100% more likely to die in car accidents than women are between the ages of 16-19. Looking at this data shows men are much riskier drivers and therefore cost insurance companies a lot more money than women. Now my opponent makes the argument that it isn't "acceptable discrimination" to charge different rates based on gender, because men can't control the fact that they are men. To this I point to the fact that the DMV will revoke the licenses of people with certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy and blindness. A person with epilepsy can't control the fact that they have epilepsy, but they also have a much higher chance of losing consciousness and suffering from altered awareness behind the wheel of a vehicle. The same logic applies to car insurance companies charging higher rates for men, because men are much more likely to get injured and die behind the wheel of a vehicle; the fees of which the insurance company has to cover. [2] I also put a question forward to my opponent: what right does the government have to tell a privately owned company what acceptable discrimination is? Last time I checked someone could charge whatever they wanted for their goods and services, and until 1964 they were able to associate with whoever they wanted to. In a free society we should be able to associate with whoever we want, and charge whatever rates we want for our goods and services. It is immoral for someone to try and get the government to revoke someone's rights, because they do not agree with the choices that they make. [1]http://editorial.autos.msn.com... [2]http://www.epilepsy.com...
Car Insurance Should Not Be Allowed To Discriminate Based On Gender

Difference Between Gender And Other TraitsCar insurance companies charge more if you're responsible for an accident, or if you have points on your license. For an example from another insurance industry health insurance companies charge smokers higher premiums. This is acceptable discrimination, because it is based on traits that people can actually control.The clear difference is that gender is not a choice. Even if on average men pose a greater risk to the car insurance company it's not like the man could've just chosen to have been born as a woman. He is being penalized for something that is beyond his control.We would not allow car insurance companies to charge people different rates based on race or ethnicity even if there was some significant statistical difference. If they did that there would be protests and a public outcry over it. We should likewise not allow discrimination based on gender.
Resolved: God exists

MATTER .I Matter has always existed, it existed before the big bang but the big bang set it in motion. Saying an intelligent designer exists is illogical, matter runs its own course because it is everything. .II If an intelligent designer made the universe, then how did he exist? You dance and dance around this but cannot answer it! If he is beingless then how did he create everything without physical presences or energy? CONCLUSION My opponent has not been able to stand up to solid facts of evolution and still stands by his argument that god made matter the basis of a physical things. But of course since his physical presence has been proven false he has to be beingless therefore unable to do anything. Meaning he doesn't exist.
Resolved: God exists

~~Rebuttel and Defense~~My opponent states the following: It is just a theory, but still there is no proof that god exists. The Big Bang Theory at least has a basis instead of useless theology, molecules powered by protons and neutrons are the groundwork for life on earth. Matter makes up the universe, and everything. That is fact, if god is this matter. .. He is everything not a intelligent designer, your argument here doesn't make sense. He basically says that there is no basis for the existence of a god. However, reason would say say otherwise. As I have stated before in my contentions the universe is under con stant change. There must be something that acts upon it. The only reasonable answer would be a almighty beginingless creator. If there was a Big Bang then something would have had to cause it. Since everything had a beggining and is slowly running down (as stated in two laws of Thermodynamics) the only explaination is that there is a god. My opponent then states that matter is the make up of everything. However, how dod matter come to be? Something had to of happend to cause matter to exist. Something had to have caused time to actually begin so that matter could exist. Therefore, this is reasonable evedence to say that there is a god. A god can't be made of matter because he himself has created it. My opponent then says that what created god? However, if there would have to be time in order for him to be created. Since time can not simply be self existent. Time itself has to have a creator. This means god can have no beginning and no end. Reason and logic proves that time would need a beginning, and a beginningless almighty creator is the only logical answer. ~~Conclusion~~I have given logical proof for the existence of a god. My opponent has not refuted my arguments. He has not given a speck of evedence to prove that god doesn't exist.
Resolved: God exists

BIG BANG THEORY .I It is just a theory, but still there is no proof that god exists. The Big Bang Theory at least has a basis instead of useless theology, molecules powered by protons and neutrons are the groundwork for life on earth. Matter makes up the universe, and everything. That is fact, if god is this matter... He is everything not a intelligent designer, your argument here doesn't make sense. CONCLUSION My opponent still lacks any solid evidence, he simply argues that god made everything. If god is an intelligent designer, then how was he created? And if he has been around forever then he was existing in nothing. Simply impossible, matter is everything. The only argument is god is everything but that makes him no longer an intelligent designer. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: God exists

CREATOR EXISTENCE . I This "Creator" theory has no basis, the big bang theory is a prime example of scientific evidence that proves how the universe was created. You argument has no factual basis except life is to "Complicated" which is illogical. Genetic makeup and environmental effects is what makes life so complicated. . II Your saying that an intelligent designer controls everything, knows the future etc. etc. How is that possible? If so then his followers shouldn't die and the world should be much more just. . III If this "creator" made the universe, that would mean something created it? That means an endless cycle of creators have to make the universe. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://billgaede.hubpages.com...
What is the best video game Youtube series

Both of your points you brought up in your last argument are invalid. My show is also about videogames, and clearly has videogame in the name. You have failed to prove it is fun to watch video game characters fight to death, only going off of your own opinion. And your last point brought up an entirely different show that wasnt even in the argument. To furthermore state my case, Video Game High School is popular enough to have three seasons, each funded by an expensive kickestarter, which fans paid money for. This series is a better series for its better writing an professional cast. Video Game High School is also more well received by fans, as currently the first episode of VGHS has 133,837 likes and 10,225,863 views, while the first episode of Death Battles has 18,187 likes and 3,740,710 views.
What is the best video game Youtube series

I apoligize for my long absence, but here it is. Video Game High School is a YouTube series by Rocket Jump that features a lasting plot about a world where Gaming is a very honored profession, enough so that many different high schools are made to teach children to game. The story follows a boy who defeats the best gamer in the world online, and is then invited to Video Game High School, where he meets many friends and plays many games. This is a superior video game series because it has a logical plot, developed characters, and well thought out plot twists and turns. for information about the series, check Rocket Jump's website here: http://www.rocketjump.com...
What is the best video game Youtube series

Death Battle (stylized as DEATH BATTLE!) is a web-based video show hosted by "Wizard" (Ben Singer) and "Boomstick" (Chad James) presented by ScrewAttack. The show pits two or more fictional characters from different medias such as movies, comics, manga, television programs, literature and video games, and create a simulated battle to the death. The characters are analyzed with their respective powers, strengths, and weaknesses, to determine a winner.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) All of the episodes are currently on this wiki, including the one soon to come: Godzilla vs. Gamera. If you want to learn about each Death Battle episode, you can watch the videos i posted, or, you can review each episode on the Death Battle Wiki, (http://deathbattle.wikia.com...) This is ultimatly one of my favorite shows on the planet, because it pits two characters that you know and love and makes them fight to the death. I await my opponent's response.
on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses

It seems as though my opponent has forfeited this round, thus having a hole in the flow. I have proven why the internet is a hazard for businesses all around the world. There are way too many dangers that could get a company to a bankrupt status, and this he has not defended adequately. I have attacked all my opponent's points, and I have maintained the burden of refutation Please vote CON / NEGATIVE for this debate! ~Radicalguy44 P.S: Thank you for a great debate. You were an excellent opponent and I hope you do good in debate.org!
on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states buisnesses

hello, this is my first time debating on debate.org but not my first time debating, and just to see how debating here is like, i decided to make this round. good luck to my opponent. first, i would like this debate to be similar to Lincoln Douglas debate, where the negative has the burden of refutation, to attack my case, except i would not like to use a value/criterion in this debate. Resolved: on balance, the internet does more good then harm for united states businesses definitions: internet: a way of communicating,getting information and other miscellaneous activities on a computer or portable device good: positively benefiting in some way harm: negatively affecting something in some way united states businesses: a company or industry created to distribute products or provide services to people in the united states and united states allies contention1) the internet allows people all over the world to communicate. in industries, you could have customers all over the world. you need an efficient way to communicate about your products and/or services to these people. by using the internet people can talk anytime, anywhere that they have access to it. if they cannot communicate with their clients then they will be losing money.also, if people know about their products/services and are happy with them, then they can use the internet to communicate with other people around the world that they might know, and might want to use their product/service contention2)the internet allows people to get information. businesses can create a website for their products/services so that people all over the world can know about it. they need people to know what they offer so that they can have a successful business. it also allows the business to know what their competitors are doing. with the internet they can have easier access to know what the other people have to offer. with this information, they can get ideas on how to better their products/services. thanks for reading, and i hope that my opponent is able to respond soon -bored123456
Abortion

Abortions reduce the number of adoptable babies. Instead of having the option to abort, women should give their unwanted babies to people who cannot conceive. The percentage of infants given up for adoption in the United States declined from 9% of those born before 1973 to 1% of those born between 1996 and 2002. [53] As a result of the lack of women putting their children up for adoption, the number of US infant adoptions dropped from about 90,000 in 1971 to 18,000 in 2007. [46] Around 2.6 million American women were trying to adopt children as of 2002, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. [76] If women become pregnant, they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. People need to take responsibility for their actions and accept the consequences. Having sexual intercourse, even when contraceptive methods are used, carries with it the risk of a pregnancy. [128] The unborn baby should not be punished for a mistake made by adults. If women are unprepared to care for their children, they should at least put them up for adoption. Abortion may lead to future medical problems for the mother. A June 2003 study published by the peer-reviewed International Journal of Epidemiology estimated that about 15% of first-trimester miscarriages are attributed to a prior history of induced abortion, and stated that "Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy. " [34] A 2013 Chinese study published in the peer-reviewed Indian Journal of Cancer found an association between breast cancer and a history of abortions [71]. A Feb. 2014 study published in the peer-reviewed Cancer Causes and Control found that abortion "is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer" and that "the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of [abortions] increases. " [72] . http://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion

This is abortion after 20 weeks. This is in the case of a late abortion. What I would like to see is scientific journals, with results, evidence and discussion on the matter. Early abortion could be eliminating the suffering of a child, be it mental, physically or emotionally. From the Journal of the American Medical Association, "Neither withdrawal reflexes nor hormonal stress responses to invasive procedures prove the existence of fetal pain, because they can be elicited by nonpainful stimuli and occur without conscious cortical processin" (Lee, S. et. At.,2005). Therefore, when someone suggests that the fetus is reaching out, "crying out" etc., it has no correlation with pain responses. "Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks." (Lee, S. et. At.,2005). Approx. 1.4% of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks" gestational age, which we have establish is still unusual and unlikely to cause pain. The Spinal Reflex: Nociception = A nociceptor is a sensory nerve cell that responds to damaging or potentially damaging stimuli by sending signals to the spinal cord and brain. This process, called nociception, may cause the perception of pain in sentient beings. Reflex responses to noxious stimuli occur early in development, before thalamocortical circuits are functional; noxious stimuli trigger reflex movement without cortical involvement. If abortion is limited to the 16th week in a gestation period, where evidence suggests there is no pain perception. Would you still call us murderers? Where this is the best option, the only option? For example: rape victims, terminally ill women who who cannot carry to term, pregnancies where the fetus has been determined with an illness that will leave it with limited mental capacity, with a short and painful life span? If abortion is murder then surely permitting this life to a child is torture? I have run out! links in comments
Abortion

Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester." [18] According to Kanwaljeet J. S. Anand, MBBS, DPhil, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology and Neurobiology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, "If the fetus is beyond 20 weeks of gestation, I would assume that there will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain." [24] Bernard N. Nathanson, MD, the late abortion doctor who renounced his earlier work and became a pro-life activist, stated that when an abortion is performed on a 12-week-old fetus, "We see [in an ultrasound image] the child"s mouth open in a silent scream... This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction Abortion is murder. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." [126] At least 38 states have passed similar fetal homicide laws. http://abortion.procon.org...