BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Non-members should be allowed to vote on debates.

First of all you said you support universal suffrage. Well when it comes to voting in a local, state, or federal election one must register to vote. Registration allows those who are holding the election to see where the vote is coming from and to convey a sense of legitimacy in the election that was just held. Without proper oversight you allow the process to be potentially be undermined. Bsergent, you mentioned in your other debate how you feel people just look at the topic and vote based on the Pro and Con without considering the argument. Dalzuga, the gentleman that posted a comment on our debate page essentially refuted that argument by stating that even though he disagrees with you, at this point in time his is more inclined to vote for you.
Non-members should be allowed to vote on debates.

"I suppose the reason I believe only members should vote would be due to how easy it is to register to debate.org." It's also easy to hand over your SSN when buying a cheeseburger, this does not mean you should have to. For me it's a civil rights issue. People should be allowed to express their opinion without jumping through hoops, no matter how big and low to the ground they are. "Essentially, by having members you give others the chance to better learn the political ideology of their opponents…" I'm in favor of requiring membership to initiate debates. But if we're gunna crowd-source who won, then let the whole crowd in. Wiki doesn't require registration, and look how well that turned out. "Remember, membership of this site is still rather low, so that means members are more likely to read the debate and judge on content, rather than their choose the winner based on their own political inclinations." Heheh, boy, do I ever disagree. And here's my currently running debate on the subject. http://www.debate.org...
Non-members should be allowed to vote on debates.

I suppose the reason I believe only members should vote would be due to how easy it is to register to debate.org. There is no litmus test, or test to see how well versed one is on a variety of issues. You do not have to record your leaning on the sample of questions posed in your profile that is accessible to all regardless of registration status. Essentially, by having members you give others the chance to better learn the political ideology of their opponents, instead of blindly looking at their positions based on pre-selected questions established by the host of debate.org. Remember, membership of this site is still rather low, so that means members are more likely to read the debate and judge on content, rather than their choose the winner based on their own political inclinations.
Non-members should be allowed to vote on debates.

I'm a big believer in universal suffrage for a wide variety of reasons, the most important of which being that the wider the sample the more accurate the data. Restricting the vote to only those willing to join an online debate site could in some cases alter the numbers and give false impressions. If anything it would be easy to keep a separate list, "15 votes from non members 4 from members." or the like. and then keep a percentage of wins/losses accoridng to each type of vote. P.S. I love this page.
Christians should take the whole bible literally

While today, Christianity has become a cult, it really doesn't need to be that way. While Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, all religions began as a way for people to explain the world they lived in, and create a moral framework. This is philosophy. Over time, things were proven incorrect, and some aspects of the moral framework were abandoned due to their immorality, many people still can live a rational life with religion in the background guiding them. It is the Christians who live specifically for their religion, unquestioning, that are a part of the cult. Perhaps the term 'slightly' was incorrect, but to extend my opponent's metaphor, people can have varying degrees of pregnancy. Some pregnancies are more pronounced than others. Some have varying symptoms. But just because somebody is not as visibly pregnant or has as many symptoms as somebody else, does not mean they are not pregnant. The same goes for Christianity. Just because one Christian does not share all the beliefs as another Christian does not make either one any less Christian.
Christians should take the whole bible literally

When I say that it might be impossible for the bible to be taken literally I do mean that. People are very narrow minded and it would take time for someone to stop believing in their religion. I know it did for me, and I still feel a little uncomfortable people talk about religion with me. My argument for this debate isn't about the fact that it's very difficult for the bible to be seen as factual. I see the bible as something a Christian has to believe in completely in order to consider themself one. If they don't believe in everything in it they can become agnostic and or follow different religions like deism, theism, etc. The thought that Christianity is a philosophy I don't think is true. Philosophy is the investigation of the truth (1). Christians I"m pretty sure think they have the truth mostly figured out, I"m not saying that they think they know everything, but that they know who created them and what their purpose in life is. A cult is a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies (2). That sound like Christianity to me. What Christians believe isn't true, logical, or even possible, but they need to believe in their teachings. They cannot just be "slightly Christian" because someone cannot be slightly pregnant. Christians should believe in the bible or believe in something else. sources: #1 http://dictionary.reference.com... #2 http://dictionary.reference.com...
Christians should take the whole bible literally

When my opponent says that he is "not even saying that it's possible for the bible to be taken literally" has just admitted that the very thing he is arguing for might just be impossible. He then proceeds to say that Christians should deny facts because they "devote their entire life to this Jesus Christ guy." Anybody who cares about reality needs to rethink their life if they disregard facts. But they don't have to abandon calling themselves Christians. Christians need to decide for themselves what being a Christian means to them. If the title becomes them, Christianity is a cult, not a philosophy. But Christians can and do view their religion on a philosophical level. This connects to what my opponent says in the next paragraph: "I say believe in the whole darn bible, and if something in it contradicts logic, then maybe they need to think more about their religion." Like I mentioned, they should rethink their religion. But the transition from a fundamentalist Christian to an atheist cannot happen overnight. The transition takes time. It can take years. For many, it is never completed. It is of course better to be 'slightly' Christian than to stay a fundamentalist. And if the change is too quick, the result is atheists with a Christian mindset. I speak of atheists who preach non-belief and shove it in people's faces, as well as atheists who protest anything remotely religious, such as a nativity scene or the 9/11 cross (1). My opponent believes that Christians should just accept the logical fallacies for God. This is not a good philosophy for anybody, even if they have some messed up beliefs in the first place. Sources: 1. http://www.cbsnews.com...
Christians should take the whole bible literally

I see what you're getting at. There are many different versions of the bible so there is no way to know which one is right or even if any of them got it right. I'm not even saying that it's possible for the bible to be taken literally. I'm saying that believing is most of the bible shouldn't be good enough. "Real" Christian devote their entire life to this Jesus Christ guy. And, if someone makes that kind of commitment they need to really believe in the bible. And I don't think saying that some parts were just metaphors after they've been dis proven just to make their belief work better is the way to go. I say believe in the whole darn bible, and if something in it contradicts logic, then maybe they need to think more about their religion. They need to think about what the bible is meant to be. A collection of stories that teach lessons to make you a better person. (at least at the time it did. I guess the whole men being dominate over women and killing your neighbor if he works on a Sunday thing hasn't really stuck with today's society.) I don't have a problem with Christians I just have a problem with liars. There are a LOT of different translations and versions of the bible, and they may not hold up to what's true, but if it doesn't, then what else do they have to believe in? To sum up: The bible is the only collection of the word of God that exists that holds any ground. If people choose what parts of it to believe, they are choosing the parts of their God to believe in.
Christians should take the whole bible literally

Like you, I am an atheist, but I disagree with you on this subject. My opening arguments follow: 1. Versions Which version of the bible should Christians be taking literally? On this list, 48 different versions are listed, and at the top there is a disclaimer saying "There are Bible versions not included on this chart" (1). How is it possible for a Christian to take the Bible literally, when there are so many different versions to choose from? 2. Contradictions The Bible also has many contradictions within it. I have included a list of some of these. If one is to say they take the Bible literally, this is impossible even if they pick a specific version. For example, when discussing Noah's Ark, the Bible says that "one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones" (2) were taken on board. This can't be taken literally because it physically is impossible. There can never be one of something and seven of something. It has to be one of the two. Thus, the reader must choose between passages, and thus the Bible cannot be taken literally. Sources: . http://www.allbibles.com... . http://www.infidels.org...
Christians should take the whole bible literally

I am not a Christian. (Just thought I'd clear that up now) All the time I see people on TV thank god you their accomplishments. I have friends who are Christians who say that they believe in god and the bible. But, whenever I try to tell them about the things in the bible that are completely impossible, (Jonah being eaten by a whale and living for example), they say that ether god made it possible, or that the entire bible shouldn't be taken literally, because the bible can't possibly be taken literally. The whole thing is a collection of stories that were written by a group of men that were probably drugged up at the time. I'm not saying the bible doesn't teach us things I'm just saying I think people are mocking their religion my picking and choosing what they believe about their holy book. The bible is the foundation of Christianity. Without it, there wouldn't be the 2.2 billion people worth religion. When the bible first became popular it was actually taken literally then after many many years technology became better and things like dinosaurs and the age of the earth. After things that people can't deny, they morph the writings that they have dedicated their life to. I would be ok with people being Christians. People have a right to believe in whatever they want and they also have the right to tell me i'm wrong and here's why... I just don't like the idea of people trying to tell me that their belief is the right one when they don't really believe in it themselves
Abortion

A baby isn't always planned. Contraception methods (a condom) may fail in the last minute, so even if safe sex is practiced, its not always the women's fault for having this baby in the first place. Also, when women are raped, as if violation is not shameful enough, they must also carry a life inside of them that shares their nutrients with them on top of the burden? The 14th amendment says we all have the freedom and equal rights as everyone around us. Whether a person is responsible or irresponsible for their actions doesn"t change the fact that they have the freedom to choose and act to begin with. It is the not the place of government to legislate against woman's choices. Research shows that an unwanted child in the womb is exposed to a variety of circumstances outside the womb, so if the mother is not happy with this pregnancy, her actions will psychologically impact the child for the rest of their life, growing up as mentally ill or portraying themselves as failures later on.
Abortion

Abortion should definitely be legal. . Many arguments against that statement would be that she would be killing an innocent life that cannot speak for itself, but by oppressing the right of a woman's decision, you are in fact limiting that right to the speech of a born citizen. It does not make sense to limit the right of speech for those who are born and make conscious decisions for those not born. It may not be practical for the women to kill her infant and she could give up her baby for adoption, but after delivery, a mother will feel the need to take care of the baby as her own, which usually is not practical for her financial state. Most women, around 83.4% , who opt for adoption are either in high school, or in a financial state not able to provide for her child, causing an increase in the individual's poverty line. According to the 14th Amendment, we all have equal rights, and since the baby can not live outside of its mother, the mother must be able to choose over her body,
Ain't should be considered a proper word

Ain't should not be considered a real word because it ain't a real word. And there ain't nothing you can say to change my opinion because my mind ain't open to change. You might think that i'm stubborn because of that, and I ain't saying your wrong, i'm just saying you ain't gonna change my opinions bout it no matter how many times you try cuz it ain't gonna work. What i'm saying here is that you ain't gonna change my mind about ain't being a real word cuz it ain't.
Ain't should be considered a proper word

First off, it can be seen that even con is using the word ain't. Ain't ain't a real word yet because the all the literature teachers say so. But shouldn't it be considered a proper word? Shouldn't language adapt to the time and to the people using it? Why shouldn't uncommon words be removed from the dictionary and commonly used words added to it? Shakespeare bent language to his desire and his words are adapted into proper english, but why not ain't be given a chance? And "cuz" ain't a real word either.
Central Africa is the Region That Should Recieve the Most Help

Since my opponent has not replied with an argument, I will restate my side. Central Africa is NOT the Region That Should Recieve the Most Help. I don't believe that one region deserves more help than another, but they should recieve help based on their conditions and problems. Also, my opponent needs to define "help." Help could mean anywhere from volunteer work to a complete renovation of a country. Also, Central Africa is a poor region and does need help, but should we really be focusing on which region recieves the most "help" instead of the important things such as how we can help them?
Central Africa is the Region That Should Recieve the Most Help

Central Africa is a region with lots of suffering, and many do not recognize that. Many people will disagree and say that a different region of Africa needs help. The Southern region is known for HIV/AIDS. The Northern region is known for humanitarian crisises (Darfur) The Eastern region is known for constant ethnic rivalry. The Western region is known for its malnutrition. You don't hear much about Central. Central DOES suffer, and many people look to the other regions. In the Democratic Republic ALONE, with 67 million people, there is a less than 44 life epectancy. The Southern region has a good economy compared to other regions. The Northern region has more education. The Eastern and Western region have many resources and access to the coast. What does the Central region have? Land-locked countries dependant on crops, corrupt leaders, dense rainforest, and tragic histories. You may say that many regions had a tragic past, but have you considered the Democratic Republic of Congo, where King Leopold (Belgium) mutilated arms and legs of those who didn't get enough rubber from the trees?
Why do Muslims believe in mohammed when it says in the quran that Jesus is the Messiah

Conclusion:Muslims claim to believe Jesus is the Messiah, but have no idea the implications of what they are saying. The Messiah does NOT mean a prophet who simply says 'God is one' and 'believe in God and you will be saved'. The Messiah is the Savior of the World. Jesus is the only Savior of the world. Muhammad strips Jesus of his title 'Savior' by denying his atoning death on the cross. Muhammad was fooled by Satan to mislead people into believing in a Jesus who doesn't save people from their sins, something the Bible says false prophets would do, and Muhammad ends up being the number one person in history to fulfill.
Why do Muslims believe in mohammed when it says in the quran that Jesus is the Messiah

Well nothing more needs to be said. This isn't really a debate to be honest. Muslims do believe Jesus is the Messiah but they have no idea what that means. They think Messiah simply means a prophet, but that is not at all what the term means. The Messiah is the Savior of Israel and of the whole world. Islam strips Jesus of his title 'Savior' by denying his Crucifixion. It is interesting to ponder the lengths false prophets will go to in order to deny what Jesus did for us.Islam claims to believe in Jesus, but dig a little deeper and they don't understand the implications of calling Jesus the Messiah.I don't think my respected opponent would disagree with anything I have said so far.
We Cannot Create Artificial Intelligence via Computation Alone

After some discussion in my past debate, UndeniableReality would seem to be a good opponent to debate this with. Definitions: Artificial Intelligence (as defined by Searle): The claim that an "appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Computation: "process following a well-defined model understood and expressed as, for example, an algorithm, or a protocol." or to use Turing's definition of what a Turing machine does " Print "0;" erase" I;" print" I," erase "0;" move one square left; move one square right." Format: R1: Debate info and acceptance R2: My arguments followed by Con's rebuttal. Con can present arguments if they wish, but it's not required. R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals Rules and Other Debate Information: No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. BOP is on me. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 10,000 Characters Max. 2 week voting period. 7 point voting system. Open Voting
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

Notice the terminology the CBO is using... $30.bn in new economic activity. They aren't claiming it will create enhanced quality of life- or that it will result in new spending in the economy just that it will create " New economic activity." Let me show you why this is smoke and mirrors. http://finance.yahoo.com... Raising the minimum wage will do nothing to stop this behavior in corporate America...and it is the behavioral science that undoes your argument on the spot. Now, in round 2 I endeavored to explain to you that the government is in fact-in bed with big financial. Its not a conspiracy as we use the term in modern days, its corruption. That corruption is extremely relevant to this argument- this move to raise the minimum wage is a mechanism of alleviating inflationary pressures... you seem to have taken that point out of its actual context in this debate. I will apologize to pro formally, private matters have restricted my time and the amount of energy to allocate into debates how ever I believe I have sufficiently made the case for this debate that 10.10 minimum wage will NOT benefit the average person and the ones who come out on top will in the end be the big-financial sector- very much in collusion with the Federal government especially our current administration. The current admisnitration is no more-or-less corrupt than the former. Pro, feel free to send me a direct challenge any time you like. Thank you for the debate.
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

A conspiracy you say? http://www.investopedia.com... ( for further reading) http://richmondfed.org... But : http://www.federalreserve.gov... Mr. Tarullo on the Board of Federal governors. Shadow banking is no kook fringe theory my friend. The U.S. government is on the hook in ways I don't think you yet understand. I draw your attention here to something important people are missing because its honestly...confounding to the senses... http://www.usdebtclock.org... When looking at this number shat we are use to talking about eh Number at the top left, the National Debt. Now over 17Trillion Dollars. But that number is not honestly a big concern. I direct you instead to look at the number on the bottom, right. That number is the one you need to worry about.Finally: Your argument is that if Inflation is already here Why than, or even how than can raising the minimum wage not be the answer? This Maneuver as I illustrated in the first round is a Calculated maneuver designed to alleviate inflationary pleasures NOT to improve the standard of living. = The Solution = The problem is not that people are warning too little, the problem is that costs are too high. Any measure of success to improve the economy and improve the quality of lives for people in the United states must be aimed first and Fore most as Reducing expenses. Decentralized renewable energy sources to drive down energy costs... Renewable powered vehicles and more sophrticated transports to reduce travel expenses. In Truth, A complete redesign of our cities is required. Raising of the minimum wage is an Incomplete answer to issue. Only if our solution is aimed at addressing the expenses of our population can we have success. This also includes massive Financial sector reforms and deleveraging on financial sector as a whole.The gains made from a 10.10 Mininum wage raise will be erased by already existing inflation in only a couple of years. An out line to do that is found here. http://www.zerocosteconomy.com... ( I am sorry this post is being short I will be out of town when this round expires and I procrastinated my response too long)
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

You biggest problem is that your addressing the issue in a vacuum, I will show you how the only people who will benefit from a minimum wage raise are the top tier of the wall street financial. prepare for a schooling in the interconnecting nature of our economic reality, I am fealing paticularly ruthless today. I accept the challenge to show how this will have little effect on the actual living standards.