BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Money can solve anything.

Basically I intend to refute any example that CON lists - through my own arguements and explanations. It will be up to the strengths of CON's examples and the debate judges critique to determine if my explantaions are convincing. CON may however, in the final round, may dispute my solutions and check them for factual error and practicality. CON must prove to the voters at least one example of an acutal life event that cannot be prevented or solved by someone with an unlimited supply of cash.*Looking back now, I wish I would have included the words "in theory," but I'll leave the merits of my coming arguements up to the judges.Hit me with your best shot, CON!
Money can solve anything.

I anticipate reviewing your arguments. I shall begin with my arguments as it was permitted by con. The topic is, "money can solve anything," and my opponent favors this notion, while I am the opposer. If we examine the notion further, this indicates that money, as a medium, can resolve any conflict, andy predicament, any problems, etc. . as the term "anything" is ambiguous. The word solve is also ambiguous because solving has multiple connotations, in this particular instance, solve denotes finding a solution or an answer to fix or correct a problem or a imminent predicament. I will supply an example of a scenario where money has no influence is resolving the problems encountered within the scenario, but first I wish to address one particular statement provided by Pro in this round. Pro implies that, during an individuals lifespan, any problem encountered can be resolved by an individual with an unlimited supply of money. As I will provide examples in attempt to refute this claim, I anticipate that Pro provides examples that supports it. I will provide my example of a scenario that requires no money to solve it in the next round.
Islam (Pro) Vs. Buddhism (Con)

This is a No-Scoring Debate. => Readers are encouraged to participate in the discussion, either in the comment section, or in the corresponding topic on the Forum: . http://www.debate.org...Resolution - Islam: a religion whose 1.67 billion adherents, thus members of the Ummah, believe in the Oneness of God ; believe that its founder Prophet Muhammad is the Final Messenger of God, preceded by 124,000 Prophets before him ; & believe that the Qur’an is the Last Revelation, preceded by 604 others before it. Islam has 3 dimensions: Islam (relating to one’s actions), Iman (relating to one’s beliefs), Ihsan (relating to one’s spirituality), each of which comprises a plethora of schools of thought. - Buddhism: a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification. - The debate will be centred around which of the two religions Islam or Buddhism is: 1. more Relevant to present day 21st Century. 2. more True. 3. overall Better. - Terminology: > Relevant: appropriate, pertinent, fitting, applicable. > True: agreeing with the facts, accurate, authentic, reasonable. > Better: more appealing, effective, advantageous, useful. > Religion: Scriptures, Practices, Beliefs, Laws, Theology, Spirituality, Philosophy, Thought, Sciences. . . Structure: - 5 Rounds, 10,000 characters & 72 Hours per Round. - Round 1: Con’s Opening Argument. - Round 2 - 4: Pro’s Opening Argument, Pro’s & Con’s additional Arguments, Rebuttals & Counter-Rebuttals. - Round 5: Pro’s Closing Round, Con must cede this Round. Rules: - The BOP is shared. - Sources are open choice: > They can be a website, a book, a paper, a tv program. . . as long as they are authentic/authoritative. > They can be in any language, not necessarily in English. > They can be linked or just referenced. - Con must cede the 5th Round. Voting: - This is a No-Scoring Debate, thus NO votes shall be cast except in: > ‘Agreed with before the debate’. > & ‘Agreed with after the debate’. - Votes shall only be awarded in ‘Conduct’ in case of forfeit or intense trolling, or in case Con failed to cede the 5th Round. - Voters are encouraged to write an RFD nonetheless, expressing who had better conduct, arguments & sources, without awarding any points (with the exceptions cited above).
Islam (Pro) Vs. Buddhism (Con)

- Unfortunately Con forfeited his last Round, which makes the purpose of the debate, that is discussion/dialogue, obsolete. - As per the Rules of Voting*, I win this debate by default. => Vote Pro. (*) Voting: - No votes shall be cast except in: > ‘Agreed with before the debate’. > & ‘Agreed with after the debate’. - Votes shall only be awarded in ‘Conduct’ in case of forfeit or intense trolling, or in case Con failed to cede the 5th Round. SOURCES: [(chapter,verse)] quran.com [1] http://goo.gl... [2] http://goo.gl... [3] http://goo.gl... [4] http://goo.gl... [5] http://goo.gl... [6] http://goo.gl... [7] [20] http://goo.gl... [8] http://goo.gl... [Ihyaa, book-2, section-2] [9] http://goo.gl... [10] http://goo.gl... [11] http://goo.gl... [13] http://goo.gl... [14] http://goo.gl... [15] http://goo.gl... [16] http://goo.gl... [17] http://goo.gl... [18] http://goo.gl... [19] http://goo.gl... [21] http://goo.gl... [22] http://goo.gl... [23] [28] http://goo.gl... [24] [27] http://goo.gl... [25] http://goo.gl... [26] http://goo.gl... [28] http://goo.gl... [29] http://goo.gl... [30] http://goo.gl... / http://goo.gl... [31] http://goo.gl... [32] http://goo.gl... [33] http://goo.gl... [34] http://goo.gl... [35] http://goo.gl... [36] http://goo.gl... [37] Tarikhuna al-Muftara Alayh, by al-Qaradawi. [38] http://goo.gl... [39] http://goo.gl... / http://goo.gl... [40] http://goo.gl... [41] http://goo.gl... [42] http://goo.gl... [43] http://goo.gl... [44] http://goo.gl...
Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

I agree with Cosmojarvis that "low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle." However, as I previously stated, I believe that there are better ways to do this than doing what would probably lead to a large collection of meaningless voters, troll voting, and vote bombing. Even with a highly capable moderation team, there may just be to many cases to handle. Pro says that, "there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code...". When you sign up on debate.org, you already give your E-mail address so that you can see notifications. The Debate.org moderators need a method to hold voters to accountability. Making voters give a phone number is a way to make sure that they are serious voters. Pro also says that, "I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective...". I am not so certain. I think that a diligent, well designed campaign to teach people how to vote and streamlining the look, appeal, and process of registering would increase the number of voters. I think that by doing nothing about this problem , Debate.org risks losing popularity to other debate forums. However, there are other ways to boost usage that do not lower the quality standards of this great website.
Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

The first point Con makes is that opening the voting system to more people increases the risk of including biased voters. On the contrary, I believe that opening voting will diversify what types of voters we have, outnumbering the amount of potentially biased people there are and might be if we open up voting. Additionally, as I have said before, because Debate.Org has such able and responsible moderators and the report system put in place to report potentially biased votes, and because of the "Reason For Voting" which is mandatory for all debates when voting, voters must give statements specifying why they voted for someone. They cannot provide vague and unspecific statements like "I voted for Pro because he provided a better argument." Moderators will remove votes for these explanations because even though they might slightly explain the reason behind one voted, it is too unspecific.The second point Con makes is that a better solution to resolving the problem with low voter turnout is to advertise voting more. On the contrary, I feel that this will have little to no effect. I am certain that most, if not all people, are aware that anyone with the proper registration can vote. I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective, especially being that this is a debating website reliant on public voters. I believe that many people have considered voting, but have been prevented from doing so because they did not want to give out personal information such as their home or personal phone number.Con ends his argument by saying that "Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards."Yes, I do believe that we should not open voting to everyone, with little to no restriction. It will open the website to corruption and voting fraud. And there will be a point when it may become too extensive and tough for our moderator team to handle, no matter how great they are at their work. However, I do believe that the low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle. If we remain to keep the strict restrictions on voting, not only will many thought-provoking and groundbreaking debates go unnoticed, and a winner remaining undecided, but the failure to gain any new voters, the website itself might spiral down into ruin from inactivity, as people who seek greater debating opportunities will flock to other debating websites such as DebateIsland.
Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

Hello Cosmojarvis, I will be taking the con side, arguing against the resolution. Good luck, Cosmojarvis! Main Argument: Although it is not good to see lower voter turnouts, and is concerning, I believe it is no cause to lower the standards. Think of the potential consequences that could arise from removing some or all of the voting qualifications. Instead of having only those who are experienced debaters (three debates) voting, removing this requirement could cause many non-serious voters to cast biased votes, or "vote bomb". Although it would be nicer to have many voters, we would risk causing a degradation of the quality of material on Debate.org. When debating, we should consider the opinion of one person who is vetted and experienced more valuable than the opinion of one who is not. In addition , there are other ways to attract voters that are not so dangerous. For one, Debate,org could advertise its debate voting feature more. It could also remove the most privacy invasive requirement that asks for a phone number Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.
Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

Rules:This debate is intended to be very short and brief. Therefore, there is a character cap of 5,000 characters, and will only be 1 round. Pro (myself) and Con will have only 24 hours to post their argument.Main Argument:Debate.Org is a website flourishing with many insightful debates and discussions on current events and pressing issues in society. However, due to the lesser amount of activity on this website, we have seen record-low voter turnouts, with a fair amount of debates being declared a tie due to no voters, or merely possessing only one or two votes.Comparatively, debates from approximately 7 or 8 months ago were crowded with commentary from spectators and plentiful of voters. The debate, "The swearing filter on DDO should be removed," had 123 comments and around 22 voters. However, in this day and age, most debates either have one voter or no voters at all. People are able to vote only if they give their phone number. This method is fairly strict being that there is not alternate method of registering to vote, and may seem compromising to people who do not wish to give out personal information like their personal cell phone number. I do believe that there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code, and in addition, voting will only be open to those that are fairly active on the website, to prevent bots or alts from being able to vote. Thankfully, in the event that an alt, bot, or overly-biased person were to vote, the moderation team is very capable and responsible in preventing voter fraud.There are many benefits of opening voting to more people such as awarding debaters a win that they fairly deserve. The less voters there are and the less spectators are present in debates, the less likely debaters will prefer this debating site over others, such as Debate Island. If Debate.Org cannot open debating to more people, the website is likely to get more inactive and be deemed obsolete compared to more active debating websites. Additionally, allowing more people to vote will combat biased voters. Though voters have to write "Reason For Voting" alongside their vote and though the moderators are persistent in removing votes which are clearly biased or underwritten, the lack of variety in our voters may close ourselves off to having to appease to voters who are biased or have a personal preference towards one debater. Voters are a crucial part of Debate.Org, and if the website fails to attract more voters due to its strict policy of who can vote, debates will be less populous with spectators and will be limited to few, if any, voters at all.
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values.

Since, this is my last speech, I will explain, to my opponent, why I win today's round. One superdelegates are elected by the people, but some are bias, take Bill Clinton for example, he was almost impeached and of course he is going to be for clinton. Second, she is saying that closed primaries are good, but they infringe on Universal Suffrage, meaning, everyone has a right to vote. Excluded a group from the process on unbased facts, just assumptions is dangerous and seen as a blanket to cover primaries. two the definition of a democracy is majority rule. Elitism proposes the idea that the governemt is run by the elites, thus it is a minority rule, not majority. Three superdelegates have the power to sway votes to whoever they want. Now they may not do it, or not, but they have the power to do it. Lastly the mere fact of the superdelegates and what my opponent said we should be glad the party gave it to us. But all primaries are is a coverup for the behind the scenes work by the party to pick whoever they want, and that is the major reason it is undemocratic, because they have the power to do so. Vote Aff, I only regret, that I could have debated more, but my opponent has computer issues, but I will live with it.
The US system of presidential primaries is contrary to democratic values.

Madonna & Young in 2007, G. Terry Madonna [Professor of Public Affairs, Franklin & Marshall College] and Michael Young. [Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research]. "America's Hit or Miss Primary System." Real Clear Politics. March 24, 2007. http://www.realclearpolitics.com.... Accessed February 25, 2008. Increasingly, the consequence of the furious frontloading trend became apparent. Presidential nominations now relied on a hodgepodge of haphazard primaries and caucuses in both parties that effectively ended competition by mid March. Any state choosing delegates after March was holding a meaningless contest. Now in 2007, the dam has finally broken as states rush pell‐mell to join the delegate hunt. The rush to frontload the delegate selection process has produced its ultimate denouement; some twenty five states with more than half the national population are likely to move their primary dates to February 5. Some commentators have referred to the impending February elections as a "national primary," but if it's a national primary, it's one in which half the states will be AWOL. It could more accurately be called the "hit or miss primary," with more than 40% of the population effectively disenfranchised. A real national primary with all states participating is worth considering, but this hit‐or‐miss‐Rube Goldberg‐style primary now impending works even more mischief than our present system. It will make presidential campaigns even longer, require candidates to begin running even earlier, compel them to raise even more money, and provide even fewer opportunities for late entrees and dark horses. The New Republic in 2008, The Editors. "While We're Kvetching About The Primary Process…" The New Republic. February 27, 2008. http://www.tnr.com.... Accessed February 26, 2008. It's becoming clear that, barring an unlikely collapse by either Clinton or Obama, neither candidate will secure enough delegates at the ballot box to lock up the nomination. This is thanks to the superdelegates—elected officials and DNC members whose votes at the convention are not bound by their state's primary or caucus results. They account for onefifth of all delegates, meaning that a candidate must win more than 62 percent of all normal (or "pledged") delegates in order to secure the nomination outright. In a contest as close as this year's, that's a high bar to meet. Superdelegates have been around since the early 1980s, when Democrats decided that their previous tweaks to the nominating process, twelve years earlier, had put too much power in the hands of ordinary voters, whose recent choices (George McGovern and Jimmy Carter) were less than stellar. This undemocratic twist to the process always had the potential to be a cure worse than the disease, but it's never made a difference until now. Juat to take up space
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Ok first off you have proven in other debates that you don't read between the lines that well. Plus you have taken attitudes towards me that are not to kindly either. So don't patronize me. She cited the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on the second or third line. Their research is enclosed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov... Rhett Butler the founder of mongbay is an environmental writer that is featured in several newspapers and is endorsed by several scientists. But here is the same research presented on a different site. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the internet. You just need to look. Plus the internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories Fritjof Capra-Gaia Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy There, start with that. Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems. Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion. I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause. A separate point aside. Avery and Singer fail to address several important factors Solar Dimming Carbon accumulation and acceleration I mean the point where they day the Atmosphere is "saturated with CO2" is wrong. There is still C02 being pumped into the air today, right now. Plus they were funded by Natural Gas.
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Oh now I have to be a scientist to even speak on the subject. And of course you give a source which is the word of god and cannot be refuted in any way. Your sources just like mine are worthless except your sources aren't because you of course went to a class. And you also believe in people who tout hydrogen as the next great fuel source. You discredit all of my sources in the a typical environmentalist manner, Politics or it is bought and paid for by some greedy corporation or go as far to reject it by the political affiliation of the Governor of some state. How pathetic. If all of my sources and evidence are going to be rejected because of political reasons then yours are all just as worthless for the same reasons. The only difference is I provide more thorough and reviewed research that makes yours look foolish.
Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

Everything that I am saying about global climate change or global is not political. Some of it is like proposed solutions are but the facts are the facts. You seem to preach about all of this evidence but I have failed to see any specific source. Citing just a press blog of a bunch of studies is not a proper citation and is not within context. What is your scientific training? When was the last time you took a class or attended a lecture about climate and our world? For me it was just two weeks ago. I don't think you have the credibility or the knowledge to determine what science is garbage and what is not. Catalytic converters have solved the smog problem. However this has come at the cost of lower fuel efficacy, removal of rare metals to produce it, and the recent discovery of nitrous oxide being released. I don't have a solution because I am not a engineer. I don't have the slightest notion where to start. I think I did provide peer reviewed sources. The books, the government websites didn't that do the trick. I mean you certainly didn't have anything to refute any of those claims or at least for the stuff you can read. Plus you provided very few sources yourself. Just links to blogs and a press page for a opposing political viewpoint. Are you an expert to determine what is a waste of taxpayers money. What about the war on drugs or the war in Iraq or no child left behind. Now those are wastes of tax payers money. Our government wastes far too much money on other things rather than climate change. "The science is settled when it comes to studying the climate. It will all support the environmental movement and any contradictory evidence will be shelved or marginalized by politics." Science only settles itself when it reaches a conclusion. Right now the conclusion is that we are injuring the planet and ruining our chances for survival. No matter what we do when we are gone the planet will still be around. However we might not be. They are only supporting the movement because they believe their data has proven that is the correct choice. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu... What about these scientists. You have to go down to Annex 2. Really when it comes down to it you have provided very little sources, failed to refuted many of my claims, and failed to establish and logical connection. I mean you run around claiming that all of these scientist who are against you are somehow wrong in their data and presentation. Do you even have a college degree? Right now I am trying to finish mine in history and environmental conservation. Really though I do envy you. It must be incredibly nice to be so ignorant of what is truly happening in our planet and government. But of course you with your infinite wisdom knows better I'm sure.