BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democracy should be replaced with artificial intelligence

Despite what my opponent says the number of power outages are not declining but increasing. http://insideenergy.org... My opponent also advocates abolishing democracy. Taking away the right of the people to decide who runs what and giving absolute authority to a machine. This single machine is to take responsibility of 100s or even 1000s of people throughout the country. Sheriffs, judges, mayors, governors, state senators, congressmen, the president ect. This machine will be isolated, disconnected from the internet, and without improvements. Terrible idea, by the end of the decade this machine will become obsolete! A machine that is to be responsible for running a nation. To decide what we do with 194 different nations and the unrecognized territories. The treaties to make, wars to wage, laws to enact, and enforce ect ect.. The micromanagement of a country for this machine will disrupt the nation worse than communism was for the Soviet Union. The time it would take to input all the information that all of our leaders that get voted in to receive and decisions to make into one machine could be longer then terms for presidency. Nothing would get done with a soon to be obsolete machine, that will lag with so much information being inputted into it, while denying it all the advantages that human leaders have access to. Suppose this machine decides its best to go to war? With a nation that humans know we can't feasibly beat? Go to war? If the answer is yes then this machine isn't smart enough to make decisions. Being that it has no improvements to increase intelligence, speed to process information and come to the best possible decision,and with greater accuracy. Cause it doesn't need any further improvements cause it could compromise the machine. If no? Then what is the point of giving the machine authority at all? We input the information that we want it to have. It has no access to the internet and therefore can only decide from the information and options that we allow it. Your idea is that we force a machine to decide the best course of action denying it all the information that any human being can have from the phone in their pocket. Essentially your advocating that we put a fiat level of authority into a machine. That will remain the same and become obsolete to the machines elsewhere. Grant it only information and options that humans deem is necessary to have or make. Basically, humans are controlling themselves with the approval of a man made machine that they control in an isolated room. Weather, foreign nations (spies), terrorism, people paid to watch over the machine ect would cripple the nation if this machine is destroyed or hijacked forcing the people to resort to the government that has stood the test of time. These things for human leaders is a bump in the road, for this machine its an end of a cliff. Humans are the better option to lead.
Democracy should be replaced with artificial intelligence

The cost of upkeeping AI of this nature wouldn't be different from upkeeping a server farm. The money could be easily acquired, for example from the salaries of parliament members. We have the technology to prevent any kinds of technical failures, such as power outages. These are just questions of engineering and can be solved easily. Also, a constant offline backup would secure the machine from possible corruptions. There doesn't need to be improvements added to the AI; unless it decides so by itself. Adding any improvements could compromise the integrity of the machine. In the same sense, it should not be allowed access into Internet. It could be allowed to view material, but it couldn't run any software nor upload anything to the net. This is to completely isolate the machine, so that it can aquire information by itself but only way it could affect anything at all would be by stating its demands to the people tending to it. It can't be hacked because of the isolation. Obvious attempts to hack it manually would be blocked by heavy guarding. The AI should be a decision-choosing machine. It would review the current situation and calculate possible outcomes. Then it would choose the best outcome, according to certain parameters given to the machine. This way the possibility of self-awareness would not be an issue. Of course, even if the machine would be self-aware, there aren't really any motives for it to enslave humanity. Nor would any conquering be possible considering the isolation. In the end, the machine would simply tell humanity what it should do next. Certain precautions must be had, such as denying the machine access to internet in all cases as well as denying it any chance to expand outside its isolation.
Democracy should be replaced with artificial intelligence

I believe that artificial intelligence running things would be a bad idea. No form of government is perfect, however, democracy is the most perfect out of all other governments. Repairs and maintenance may cost a great deal, advances come rapidly, their programming will need to be improved, tech will need to be installed to make them smarter. Something happens, they breakdown they will be offline for who knows how long. Procedures to restore lost codes and corrupted data can take a very long time. Another terrifying possibility could be that hackers hack into them, an enemy nation could control the nation from their land making decisions in their best interest instead of ours. After countless investments in making them smarter and smarter they become self aware and have its own agenda. Self aware machines may decide that they should start the preparations for conquering, enslaving, and or committing genocide of their human subjects in order to bring forth the era of the machines instead of making decisions that would be in mankind's best interest would be a possibility. This is a powerful and dangerous possibility, the machine may know what patriotism means but can't feel patriotism for the nation that they would run. Looking at life, the bulk of all life tends to rather hang out with their own species. Therefore, the machines may simply wish to be with their own even if that means to do away with their creator. For these reasons giving absolute authority to machines would be a bad idea. To costly and too dangerous. Democracy should stay intact until a better form of governance is created.
Democracy should be replaced with artificial intelligence

Democracy is a political system which is based on the voice of majority. However, in reality democracy practically never works perfectly. It attracts ambitious and power-hungry people, and divides a nations population against each other. Political scheming might lead to bad decisions, and the fall from democracy into dictature is not unheard of. If we were to replace the fault-ridden people with a single (or multiple), independent, intelligent AI, there would not be decisions based on a political agenda nor decisions which would undoubtedly lead to a bad outcome.
"The Spy" is the coolest

Well played. But, desirability is not what makes an avatar cool. If that were true, the most popular avatar would automatically be the best. Also, who says the ninja is most desirable? Its not even a real thing when you look at the common use of the word. There are martial artists, not ninjas. Spies are real. Besides, the aesthetic nature of the picture IS what makes an avatar cool. No one sees a crappy picture of an awesome ninja and says "Boy, is that cool." They see this awesomely decked out spy and think "Bitchin!". People don't look at the concept of the picture, just how cool it looks. One guy has a picture of a baby taking a crap, reading the paper. This isn't what the guy is trying to be, it just looks cool. True, some people choose an avatar based on what it represents, but it comes down to the aesthetics. Even if I wanted to be a ninja, or had a ninja like personality, I wouldn't pick it because it looks so terrible. I don't want to have to stare at an ugly picture every time I log on, just because I like what it potentially represents. An avatar is supposed to sum up who you are. While this may look toward concepts, it is overruled by the aesthetics. People are not going to pick an ugly picture, no matter how much it represents them. There are lots of 'boys' on this site, but not many of them pick that avatar because it looks so crappy. You agreed with me that your picture was lame and boring. The only thing you have left is that the concept of ninjas is cool. Not only do concepts get outweighed by how cool a picture looks, but ninjas aren't even real. There are certainly better avatar representations of people than some fictional character, no matter how cool if may or may not be.
"The Spy" is the coolest

The avatar, aesthetically pleasing or not, is intended to represent the personality of that person. I'll admit you have your cool little shades and hat, but all that really tells me is "what this avatar represents sucks so if I give him these dinky little accessories maybe I'll make him better." The ninja doesn't need all this junk. With your description of two simple colors and a headwrap, everyone can automatically identify the ninja as what it is and understand the awesomeness behind it. What makes an avatar better is whether it would be preferred, and nobody wants to be a spy.
"The Spy" is the coolest

I'm not arguing that spies are the coolest in real life. I just think they are the coolest looking avatar. All those things a ninja does are awesome. I don't care if spies are the worst profession in the whole world. The picture itself is still the coolest. But, look at your picture. Its boring. As I said in the first round, the no eyes thing is really freaky and aesthetically off-putting. The spy is the only avatar that overcomes this, with his awesomely chique shades. Also, look at the ninja's fashion. He has no accessories at all, just that black headwrap. Your guy is two colors, black and flesh. Again, boring. My picture has all those cool features I mentioned earlier. The ninja is simple and boring. It has nothing to offer other than the real world ninja's sweet skills, which I don't deny. The ninja, though cool in real life, is a really boring, aesthetically scary picture, especially when you compare it to the awesome spy. This means the spy is still the coolest icon.
"The Spy" is the coolest

While you might see the spy is the definition of "cool," the ninja defeats the spy in all other categories including, but not limited to: spying, ninjaing, killing, being awesome, and pirate hunting. Uncyclopedia defines a ninja as "the common Japanese term for a group of intentionally badass martial artists with a complete dominion over all things totally sweet who specialize in killing people, flying, and burger/pizza/magazine delivery, which they do 24/7, and have also been known to mysteriously show up several hours before the burger/pizza/magazine was even ordered, with your condiments." As for usefulness, anyone would prefer a ninja who could do the spy's job better, plus more, not forgetting the above mentioned food delivery that no spy could top. On the topic of popularity, ask your friendly neighborhood anyone if they'd rather have a spy or a ninja. Because of the facts above, you can only assume that the ninja is very much a better avatar than the spy. Failing anything else, a ninja could kill a spy before he could light his pipe.
"The Spy" is the coolest

I think "The Spy" (my picture) is the coolest of the debate.org icons. There are some sweet custom pictures that beat the hell out of the spy, but as far as debate.org's options go the spy is the best. No matter how you cut it the spy is the definition of cool. He has the most accesories including that sweet hat and his awesome shades and jacket. His collar is all popped, like the cool kids do. His shades are really the defining characteristic. They make him look like he has eyes. All of the other icons, including the ones with glasses don't have eyes. This makes them look like a freaky Pink Floyd music video character. They are scary. Also, his fashion makes him cool. The black jacket with the red shirt is awesome. No icon can compare to the spy in the cool department, he is way to sweet.
God (if real) can exist with no beginning nor end

It is likely that the universe was a constant. A ball of energy was rapidly expanding, and then eventually, it exploded. Now, if there if it is hard to accept that something in the universe is a constant, then any god has the same difficulty. If you claim god can be a constant, then you must accept that anything could have been a constant, it evidence needs to be provided that only a god can be a constant. The order want created. We noticed it, and said it was in some sort of order. An imperfect order, too. Every single thousand years, an ice age occurs, which can easily kill us all. The bible is the claim. It is written, not as support for God's existence, but rather the rules and stories of that God. The flying spaghetti monster is something used by atheists because they are trying to point out that has as much of a chance of existing as a god does. If you fail to show evidence for something, then it is assumed to not exist. If everything that exists to our knowledge is defined as the, or a part of, the universe, and a god is outside the universe, then we can safely say that if a god exists outside the universe, then we can't tell the difference between not existing and outside the universe. If God is a constant then evidence that can be observed must be presented. No, I can't disprove it. But it is impossible, and illogical, to disprove something that has not been proven. Although this is not my responsibility, I have a quote from a website that talks about evidence of possible origins of the universe "In 1982, Alexander Vilenkin proposed an extension of Tyron's idea and suggested that the Universe was created by quantum processes starting from "literally nothing", meaning not only the absence of matter, but the absence of space and time as well. Vilenkin took the idea of quantum tunneling and proposed that the Universe started in the totally empty geometry and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a non-empty state (subatomic in size), which through inflation (the Universe expands exponentially fast for a brief period of time which causes its size to increase dramatically) came to its current size. Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time. As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model Universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's words, the Universe "would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE" Please refer to the website for more information (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...)
God (if real) can exist with no beginning nor end

The question of who made god or how did he exist depends how you look at him. Here's the thing: who created the universe? The Big Bang? Well, what caused the Big Bang if nothing was there? Better yet, what created the source that created the Big Bang? Obviously, the questions will keep on going and going until there's no tomorrow. If god is real, then he has no beginning nor end just like the Bible predicts. Why? Because he's the creator of not just the universe, but time as well. Space and time are something we exist in. We see things in motion and the days passing by with the universe in order and unimaginable complexity that seem to overcome the assumption that the universe was made by chance alone. God, on the other hand, exists outside the realm. Space & time are his creation, not the universe. The universe doesn't own god and neither does logic in any other arguments from atheists. Atheists love to point out that he is some invisible flying spaghetti monster that lives in the sky or somewhere else. Well, how can such invisible flying spaghetti monster exist if there's no space nor time? Exactly. There needs to be a necessity self-made source and that's exactly what the Bible means by having no beginning nor end. Of course, you don't need to believe in the Bible in order to accept his existence. The logic makes sense if you think about it regardless if you're religious or not.
A debate.

My opponent assumes "popularity over safety", essentially. This, of course, is untrue. If a game is very fun, but highly dangerous, it would not make it into a P. E. curriculum. Furthermore, my opponent assumes that I ONLY consider safety. This is also false; I am just putting safety ahead of allure, which is what would happen if it was up to the board of education. School curriculum must put the safety of the students ahead of the popularity of the activity. My opponent's flawed reasoning is one point as to why CON should not win the debate. 2. My opponent misread my arguments. He states, "Overweight individuals could afford to play the game without suffering from the effects that underweight people would suffer from if they were to play the game as much". That means that underweight people will suffer risks if they were to play DDR consistently, which is what I was saying. He also, as I stated in my previous point, misinterpreted me to mean "Allure does not matter; only safety does", when I really meant, "Safety is more important than allure". My opponent has misinterpreted my arguments, causing flawed rebuttals, and a reason to vote PRO. 3. My opponent ignores the fact that step aerobics implements the same motion as DDR (as I have stated in previous rounds), and thus can make one lose just as much weight as if they were playing DDR. My opponent is, instead of comparing "apples to oranges", comparing "red apples to green apples", in a sense, by adding "motivation". By skipping over this fact, my opponent has produced a flawed argument, and therefore you should vote PRO. 4. While comparing the Cha Cha Slide to DDR, the original reason way to contrast them AS A WAY TO ATTRACT WOMEN, as shown by my Round 3, rebuttal 2. However, my opponent, in his last round, now compares ALL aspects of the Cha Cha Slide to DDR, which is straying from the original point and makes my case look bad while never really enhancing his own. By going off topic and avoiding the real comparison between the two, my opponent has created a flawed rebuttal, and thus, you should vote PRO. 5. CON makes as unfair argument by comparing Wii Sports to DDR in terms of credentials such as world records and tournaments. My opponent overlooks the fact that DDR has been around for MANY more years than Wii Sports. This causes a flawed comparison, and therefore an invalid argument. By these 5 points, you can see that my opponent has proposed flawed arguments by using invalid comparisons, misinterpreting my arguments, avoiding the topic of some contentions, and using unrelated examples for his own points.
A debate.

I choose Resolution 1, "Dance Dance Revolution ought not to be included in Middle-School and High-School Physical Education classes for schools that can afford it."; I am PRO. I will begin right with contentions. Point 1: Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) may cause more injuries or accidents than other physical education (P.E.) activities that can be used in place of it. The most similar activity to DDR that can be implemented in P.E. would probably be step aerobics. Step aerobics is almost exactly like DDR, except it does not involve a screen. They both consist of stepping in different directions. Now, if you spent too much time looking at a screen, you could have eye problems, motion sickness, or even seizures. So, comparing two activities that are virtually the same, which one would be better to have? The one that has the least risks. DDR has more risks because it is basically step aerobics with a screen. Point 2: DDR may cause above-average weight loss in children. [1] While this idea may seem good at first, it can also cause children who are not obese to be severely underweight. Implementing DDR in P.E. for the purpose of losing weight does not benefit the entire class (unless they are all overweight), and harms underweight children in the same way that it helps overweight children. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... In short, DDR should not be used for P.E. class, because it is harmful to average- or under-weight individuals, and is essentially step aerobics with risks for the eye.
A debate.

After the contender accepts the debate, he/she proposes between 3 and 5 resolutions of varying subjects in the comments section to debate, and chooses PRO or CON for each one. Then, the instigator will choose a resolution. In the contender's R1, he/she will choose first or second. If the contender goes first, he/she cannot post an argument in the final round. If the contender goes second, the debate will proceed as normal. Rounds 2-4: Debate! Round 5: Closing rounds; instead of adding more arguments or refuting the opponent, both debaters will list reasons why they should win the debate, based on their previous arguments.
u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

Additional Rebuttals:'con would have been better to find additional contradictions to meet the three quota, but chose to defend the ones she listed. that was her problem. 'Incorrect. It explicitly states in Pro's resolution that Con is required to find three Bible verses that contradict one another. In actual fact I provided a number of eight separate Bible verses that actually contradict each other. If Pro had intended for Con to post more in the second round [which in normal debate settings, is meant for rebuttals] then they should have originally highlighted this. So therefore, it is their problem. Pro him/herself even notes that they 'don't know' what these verses mean which adds credence to my point[s] regarding the lack of clarity in their case. 'it basically says thou shalt not murder. or kill wrongfully, whatever that means. con is being unreasonable to be so literal for something that is not meant to be taken that way. ' Pros own interpretation again--in additional, she/he has entirely ignored my point that the two verses when compared together absolutely do contradict each other. Once again, Pro made no mention of the context that *may* be behind certain verses, thus these verses are to be taken as they appear to be; which is contradictory. 'i gave context to the quotes and gave the verses from where the context came from, the sources. ' It was not 'context' that Pro provided, but their opinion. Moreover NO sources have been used in support of their position. If Pro had a source, then naturally they should have displayed it. As with all the other errors in their case, this is their own fault. 'again, to be clear, matthew 2 doesn't say what you said it does. you cited the wrong verse. i dont know if the actual word is house or something else. and again, a manger can be in a house. there is no contradiction. ' A look at the two verses together confirms that there is indeed a contradiction, and Pro has failed to prove otherwise, Simply stating there isn't does not classify as a valid rebuttal or more specifically *negate* my argument. A house and a manger are clearly two difference things, and the verses are clearly two different accounts. ==Conclusion==Pro has ultimately failed to meet their BoP and adequately show that the [eight] verses provided do not contradict one another--as well as not defining their terms in round one. By 'defining terms' I mean that Pro made no reference to context and was exclusively asking for three verses that appeared to contradict each other, and additionally that they made no reference to any so-called 'mystical language' that supposedly exists in the Bible; another thing that they failed to expound on or include any evidence of.