BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Direct democracy

Introduction is not relevant to the debate. R1) Only voting MAACs often need internet. Other MAACs will only need few minutes on internet, to give their election point. More then 80% Americans reportedly uses internet. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Yes, voting is also done trough internet. Voting MAACs would of course, allow non-voting MAACs to use their PC for few minutes. If someone can not handle the computer, it is good thing if he doesn't vote. I thank my opponent for making an argument for my case. My opponent obviously does not know that access to servers can be limited to specific countries. In other words, it could be hacked only from America. Since it doesn't benefit American people to crush their own system, programmers would only have to deal with several individuals. R2) It makes ruling impossible for individual politicians. That is the whole point of direct democracy. It makes it possible for people to rule. What does my opponent mean by educating whole country? It is absurd. People will just thrust other people who are already educated on each specific issue. There would be no totally new government. Every congressmen who done well would remain in congress. Election points are never automatically reset. If non-voting MAACs are satisfied with how their representative(voting MAAC) is doing, country's politics wouldn't change at all. R3) We are talking specifically about America(which is to be concluded by number of congressmen(535), I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough). I don't see any wars over religion in America. There would be too much voting MAACs to kill them enough to change vote. It is much easier in America's current system to kill few congressmen. - They can possibly be re-elected each time, as long as they are alive. - There are not meant to be any campaigns. Most of the people would give their election point to their friend or family member who knows what he wants. Then that person checks out which voting MAACs are voting for what he wants, and then that person gives that voting MAAC his election points. I hope my opponent now understand proposed system better.
Direct democracy

"has to" clearly does not leave a choice. My opponent made conduct mistake. Here is why proposed system is better then the current one: 1. It takes less money to count up all the votes on elections. 2. It is more immune to mistakes in counting up the votes. 3. It is almost impossible to bribe enough MAACs to win voting(on altering laws), while in current system, big companies may bribe enough congressman to win the vote. 4. If voting MAAC is not doing as people who gave him their election points want, they can simply take back their election points. So, people would actually have their interests represented. 5. Bad politicians would be replaced faster. 6. Politicians would care less about their party, and more about people. 7. Some of the people who actually do not know whom to vote for, would not vote, because everyone can see for whom they voted. 8. There would be no long, expensive campaigns by parties.
The plane impact with the WTC

The 9-11 videos of the planes impacting the WTC Towers shows both planes melting into the towers without slowing down and not even a bolt or piece of carbon fiber falling to the ground below. This violates the fundamental 3rd law of motion without a equal and opposite reaction. I challenge anyone still believing the official conspiracy theory to explain how a reaction would also not be occur if the plane was standing still and the building smashed into it traveling at 500 mph? Open link below to view the impact of the plane in slow motion. Also all planes create a wing vortex from the trailing edge of the wing tips acting like a horizontal twister. Which should have been clearly seen in the smoke from the fire ball after impact. This is definitely missing and should not be in both impacts . Why? Open the link below to view a wing vortex.
The plane impact with the WTC

You seem to have no understanding of basic physics or aerodynamics. Question 1 'The 9-11 videos of the planes impacting the WTC Towers shows both planes melting into the towers without slowing down and not even a bolt or piece of carbon fiber falling to the ground below. This violates the fundamental 3rd law of motion without a equal and opposite reaction. I challenge anyone still believing the official conspiracy theory to explain how a reaction would also not be occur if the plane was standing still and the building smashed into it traveling at 500 mph?' The official conspiracy theory? I was under the impression you were the conspiracy theorist. The 3rd law of motion [1], just to recap is 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This picture clearly shows the damage caused to the Twin towers by this equal and opposite reaction. http://3.bp.blogspot.com... The plane flowed into the hole fluidly. In your heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logic, if even one part of the event were not true then therfore there must have been a conspiracy. Question 2 'Also all planes create a wing vortex from the trailing edge of the wing tips acting like a horizontal twister. Which should have been clearly seen in the smoke from the fire ball after impact. This is definitely missing and should not be in both impacts . Why?' I'm going to choose to ignore the double negative, and assume that you mean that it should be there. A wing vortex of an airplane is created by the plane's forward movement. This cannot occur if , like in the Twin Tower incident the wings are sheared off, and have no forward movement. The direction that the wing vortexes face is directly behind the wings, the plane was at a 20 degree angle. Therefore, no wing vortex. QED. My point: Occam's razor. What is more likely, that there was a terrorist atrocity commited, or that hundreds of thousands of people are participating in a conspiracy theory. Who would we suspect? The government? Point of reference, not including the post office has over 1.9 million employees. In the face of the hard cold facts, I challenge my opponent to refute them. Thank you [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_laws_of_motion [2] Popular Mechanics, debunking 9/11 myths, 2002
Macro evolution

you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years. ok well that is pretty much it for your evidence oh and well you dont like my evidence what ever ok but you cant just dismiss those like that and then say well no duhh carbon dating is true... ok then i pose you with a last question how do you really come to believe that you come from a fish or single celled organism
Macro evolution

" I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are" That's not how carbon dating works. That's how scientists initially guess at how old something is when they're in a giant hole digging. Carbon dating is measuring the levels of radioactive materials in fossils; all radioactive elements have specific half-lives, and they can determine how much of an element was there, how much of it is left, and then based on the half-life how old it is. So yes, carbon dating is legitimate. 1. All I'm going to say is that there's a lot of dust in space. A lot. 100,000 tons a day is an impressive amount, but it doesn't mean that the dust would be gone by now. Besides, I thought we were talking about the Earth's age, not the sun's. 2. I didn't bring this up, but I'll respond to it anyway. Light travels at different speeds depending on the distance, so, no not all of it would arrive in three days. Proxima Centauri, the next closest star to Earth after the Sun, is 4.2 light years away so it currently takes 42 years for light to travel here. The speed of light slowing down seems like a legitimate theory, but it is highly likely that the change is not dramatic enough for light to arrive in three days 6000 years ago. Maybe the light from Proxima Centauri, but there are many stars in the sky, a lot of which are incredibly far away. Even with such a dramatic change, some of them are still too far away for their light to have arrives so early. 3. Huh? Heat isn't something that just sits in the corner and piles up. It dissipates in space eventually, keeping the levels fairly constant. Also, stars don't just get hotter and hotter, they cool off too. 4. You're assuming that the moon has been moving away since the beginning of time. First, the moon was caught in the Earth's orbit, then it started moving away. 5. That is dust on the very surface. There is an estimate 5 million tons of moon dust within its sediment that has collected there over billions of years, and the estimated levels of dust per year concur with levels on Earth (of course, the amount of dust that stays on Earth is different due to the dramatic climate differences between the Earth and the moon). Even a creationist paper agreed that this wasn't proof http://www.talkorigins.org... You have not proved that the Earth is only 10 or 6 thousand years old, and since that was your only argument against macro evolution there is no reason not to believe it.
Macro evolution

Special thanks to solo for taking up 2 of my debates. Ok my debate will be posted in one piece which is a general statement because many of you made the same argument. I would appreciate if you would be so kind to read any of the other debates so that I don't end up copy pasting the same argument several times First my general argument ok next I don't want to here about carbon dating ok because all that says is that the fossils are in the earth and because how far down they are we know how old they are. This then immediately posses the question well how do we know that. Here is the answer creationist receive well that's how old the dirt is. This posses the question "how do you know that. " here is the answer we receive oh well its cause off the fossils that are in it then we say well you just told me you date the fossils by the dirt which you date by the fossils. isn't that the same thing as saying we date the fossils by the fossils and there fore I say well then cant i say the fossil is 6,000 years old and there for the dirt is and then the fossil is. Those who would like to post links that would explain this in a scientifically provable way please. Ok next many of you brought up the fact of me not providing evidence for the earth being under 10,000 years old 1. The gravitational fields of the sun and stars pull cosmic dust toward them known as the pointing-Robertson effect. Our sun sucks in 100,000 tons a day if our son was more than a couple million years old all the dust would be gone better there is still some in our system and estimation sets it that 10,000 years of dust has been sucked out . 2. ok second you say well no duhh it would take light billions of years from the farthest star to get here. (well this part not scientific but religious if god created it couldn't he have light were he wanted it if he created the universe) ok also it has been scientifically proven that light is slowing down and 6,000 years ago the light from all the stars would have arrived in three days in time for animals to start seeing it. 3. ok now the hottest stars burn well really hot and if we were to go back more than 100,000 years they would fill the entire universe currently and from what I have read monkeys were evolving into humans must be monkeys wearing real good sun screen 4. ok here is my two favorites the moon we all believe in the moon I hope. Ok well the moon has been slowly moving away 2 inches a year ok so 4.5 billion years ago the moon would have been 142,045 miles closer to earth hmm let me check that would mean that the earths gravitational field would suck the moon down and ka boom no more life on earth. 5. next the Eagle(the piece of the Apollo space craft that landed on the moon) was designed to land in 6 ft of moon dust which would roughly line up with some millions and billions of years but no there was ï¿½ of an inch (easly visible go look at any one of the pictures of the moon foor print) well guess what that is the 6-10 thousand year period. Ok well there you go
Macro evolution

Hello again firemonkey. You cited this as the reason macro evolution can't be true: "earth could not have existed for more than 6-10 thousand years" Why not? There is no evidence that the Earth CAN'T be older then 10,000 years, but there's a lot of evidence to say that it can. All the fossils that are found to be millions of years old are determined as such using carbon dating, which is a legitimate scientific process. Therefore macro evolution is quite possible, and there is evidence to support that it's not only possible but true.
Macro evolution

"you said that maybe the sun the sun sucked in diffrent amount of dust so i can say so maybe carbon has decaide at diffrent points ok then another question why then when someone recently dead is carbon dated to 14,000 years." I didn't say that it sucked in different amounts, I said that there was enough dust to go around to refute your argument in Round 1 that all the dust from our solar system would be gone. As to the recently dead argument, when did that happen? I have never heard of that happening, nor could I find any information about when I looked it up. "ok well that is pretty much it for your evidence oh and well you dont like my evidence what ever ok but you cant just dismiss those like that and then say well no duhh carbon dating is true" You only contested two of my points, one of which was off from what I said and the other of which I doubt the reality of. And as for dismissing them, I did research what I didn't know about. As for carbon dating, I explained to you that it works differently from what you thought; you haven't given any real evidence against it because you didn't know how it was actually done. "ok then i pose you with a last question how do you really come to believe that you come from a fish or single celled organism" Well, it makes sense. Mutations happen in organisms all the time, and a changing environment combined with millions of years can add up to some very varied creatures. That is my opinion since you asked. But I rest my case that there is no substantial evidence that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, but since there is evidence that it is billions of years old then macro evolution is a possibility.
Jesus was NOT God

Contention 1: The Omniscient SyllogismOpening Syllogism 1. God is omniscient.2. Jesus is not omniscient.3. Therefore, Jesus cannot be God. Defense of Premises 1 Omniscient, according to carm.org’s Dictionary of Theology means the following: An attribute of God alone. It is the quality of having all knowledge (Isaiah 40:14). God knows all things possible as well as actual. He does not need to experience something to know about it completely. Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience represent the nature of God concerning His relation to the creation. (1) Therefore, because of Isaiah 40:14, God has to be omniscient. Defense of premises 2 This is where my burden of proof lies. I need to show that Jesus is not omniscient and lacks the attribute of God of having all-knowledge. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son,but the Father. –Mark 13:32 (2) Here, we see that Jesus was ignorant of the fact that he did not know when he would return. If you read the entire chapter of Mark 13, we see that it is referring to the tribulation period and the rapture. Jesus does not know when the rapture will take place. Therefore, he cannot posses all knowledge. CONTRADICTION!!!! This verse is also contradicted by the following: Of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. –Colossians 2:2-3 Lord, thou knowest all things. –John 21:17 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things. –John 16:30 Not only is this evidence that Jesus does not know everything, it also shows that there is an un-reconcilable contradiction in the Bible. Does Jesus know everything? That all depends on what verse you look at!Source: http://carm.org... Back to you, con!
The universe was created by a God

I am here to disprove atheism. They say science can explain how the world was created, and maybe it can. It can't explain other things like how we have physics, or even 3D space. The only way you can be atheist an logically believe this is if you believe we live in a computer simulation. However, a computer simulation has to be processed by an actual computer. Which must exist in A. Another computer simulation or B. a reality. All conclusions come down to a root universe that it all has to come from, which brings us back to the first problem: how do we have things like scientific laws, 3D space, or even time? The only way this could is with a God.
The universe was created by a God

Pro has conceded that he can not comprehend God's ways with the following statements: "God is unknowable in the sense that we can't begin to comprehend the things he does" and "his ways are far beyond our comprehension". This explicitly illustrates that he can not measure, detect, quantify, categorize, or otherwise typify the causes or effects of God's actions. As stated before, the burden of proof lies on Pro's assertion that God created the universe. Because he has admitted that he can not parse, nay, even imagine God's methods, he can not possibly demonstrate logically that God created the universe. P(Pro) needs GW(God's Ways) to prove C(Conclusion) GW can not be known P can not prove C I have won the debate.
The universe was created by a God

God is unknowable in the sense that we can't begin to comprehend the things he does. He says he creates the universe, so thats him telling us. Not us guessing. For example, we have no idea why god said meals had to be prepared a certain way or this or that, because his ways are far beyond our comprehension. You said god had limits... the verse you sent changes translation to translation. Basically most of them agree that what he meant by that was "can you begin to understand gods ways" so no, he has no limits. If you mean in the sense "god can't sin, therefore is limited" no, he's not. Can god make a rock bigger than he can lift? No, he can't. "But that still means he has limits" you might be saying, no it doesn't. It means we can't comprehend omnipotence. It doesn't make sense to us, but to an all powerful god it makes perfect sense. I don't think I understand that last part... what you're saying is that by me saying 'things exist god must have made them' is the same as you saying 'things exist dogs must have made them'. Well... no its not. Last I checked dogs aren't omnipotent.
The universe was created by a God

1) Burden of Proof I would like to point out that as My Opponent's premise makes more assumptions than mine, the burden of proof lies squarely on him{1}. He postulates that "God created the universe" whereas I only claim "The universe began to exist". Clearly we both agree to the premise that the universe does exist, but he takes it a step further in claiming that God created it. Therefore, in order to win this debate, he must exhibit the following: A) God exists B) God created the universe To satisfy the requirements of point B, he must explain how God created the universe and why God created the universe. I posit that it is impossible for My Opponent to do so; he has indicated Yah'Weh, the God of the Hebrews, to be the progenitor he speaks of in his argument. Consequently, he must understand Yah'Weh to elucidate why or how Yah'Weh would do something, and according to Yah'Weh's own words, he and his limits are unknowable{2},{3}. There are two possible conclusions to draw from this: 1) Yah'Weh's is unknowable, and therefore it can not possibly be demonstrated that he exists or created the universe 2) Yah'Weh is fallible and therefore not a God,{4},{5} therefore if Yah'Weh created the universe the universe would not have been created by a God. 2) Refutation Sadly, the light argument made by Pro is tenuously grounded, to put it mildly, it amounts to this: Everything comes from something scientific laws, 3D space, and time exist God exists Furthermore, Pro asserts that "God exists" is the only possible conclusion from these premises. However this declaration is easily demonstrated to be spurious: Everything comes from something scientific laws, 3D space, and time exist Dogs exists This is the same reasoning used by My Opponent, and my conclusion is as valid as his. It should be readily apparent that this logic is deeply flawed, ergo Pro has not validated either point A or B, and the burden of proof stills rest on him. {1} https://en.wikipedia.org... {2} https://www.biblegateway.com... {3} https://www.biblegateway.com... {4} https://www.merriam-webster.com... {5} https://www.biblegateway.com...
should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance

"First off before I answer your questions, I am on a debate team and this case is our class case." -- This obviously renders the case unoriginal. Moreover, it is exactly the same as another case posted preivously in a debate between TheJuniorVarsityNovice and Carson_KS. http://www.debate.org...Moreover, a closer examination of the case shows it isn't coherent. I'll get into that next round in my rebuttals, though. Regardless of whether or not it's the "team" case or not, it's unoriginal because it's on the web and also used by Carson_KS on this site."Where did you find those sites?" -- I showed the URL's in my argument, and it was via a simple Google Search. Also, as I mentioned, the same arguments appear on the debate between Carson_KS and TheJuniorVarsityNovice as referenced above. I already basically answered your first question in Round 3, so there's no need to answer again.**Since there isn't really any more questions to answer, I will conclude this round and send the debate back over to my opponent**
should the U.S federal government curtail its domestic surveillance

First off before I answer your questions, I am on a debate team and this case is our class case. Now onto your questions. Are tangible benefits measurable? If I understood your question correctly yes there are. If a policy maximizes societal welfare, should it be preserved? It should be preserved yes. If a policy demonstrates the maximization of societal welfare on a utilitarian level, should it be implemented? I believe this is pretty much the same question but yes. Is the destruction of societal welfare and safety advisable? No the destruction of both is not advised. Hypothetically, if you were to commit a crime, would the realization that documented footage of the activity would exist, would it in any way dissuade you from committing the crime? If I were to commit a crime, the demented footage existing would dissuade me from committing the crime. Should tangible benefits carry weight in policy decisions? Yes Should a just government attempt to protect their citizens? Yes because there could be possible terror attacks without anyone knowing. Should a just prioritize citizen protection over potential privacy infringements? No because the government would want the citizens to trust them. Now i pass it off to my opponent.