BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 12th Amendment

I think the framers had in mind what they wrote in the Constitution: for the VP to succeed the president if need be. In all my learnings about checks and balances, the legislative and judicial branch are supposed to be the check against excessive authority by the executive branch. If the VP has such limited power anyway, we cannot depend on the VP to be a proper check on the president. Likewise, if the VP has such limited power, it's not such a beefing-up of the executive branch either. In the end, if the Congress has at least a 2/3 consensus, the president has no power over making something law or not. That's a lot of power to the legislative branch if you ask me "As for your second part: Of course the people in power found it inconvenient to have the original system -- POLITICIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE "INCONVENIENCED" BY THE CONSTITUTION." That's a good response to something I never said
The 12th Amendment

"The vice president was meant to be President of the Senate and have a tiebreaking vote if need be, and most importantly, to succeed the president if a vacancy occurred. Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about being a watchdog." This is a silly argument. The Constitution does not talk about the VP being a "watchdog," but what do you expect a man to be who finished second in the voting? What would John Kerry be to George W. Bush, or Bob Dole to Bill Clinton? Do you mean to tell me that you think the framers thought the vice president would be something other than adversarial to the president he finished second to? The vice president is given very few powers by the Constitution, but he is a man who has free speech. Look at how Jefferson responded to the Alien and Sedition Acts under the tyrant John Adams: THAT is how a vice president was intended to behave; NOT as Dick Cheney and Dan Quayle and all other VPs since the dreaded 12th Amendment was passed has behaved. The 12th Amendment not only enshrined the duopolistic political party system, it also strengthened the executive branch at the expense of the legislative, disrupting the balance the framers and ratifiers intended. It made the president stronger by removing his adversary from the executive branch, AND it gave the president the tie vote in the Senate, whereas it would previously have almost certainly been against him. As for your second part: Of course the people in power found it inconvenient to have the original system -- POLITICIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE "INCONVENIENCED" BY THE CONSTITUTION.
The 12th Amendment

"The vice president, who has very few constitutional powers, was intended to be a watchdog against abuses by the president. Impeachment was supposed to be applied for really any deviation from proper constitutional governance" The vice president was meant to be President of the Senate and have a tiebreaking vote if need be, and most importantly, to succeed the president if a vacancy occurred. Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about being a watchdog. "For who cares for impeaching Bill Clinton when he is to be replaced with Al Gore; or worse yet, George W. Bush to be replaced with Cheney?" Impeachment isn't supposed to be about policy. It's supposed to be about the president being removed for a crime. If Clinton committed a crime and Gore didn't, then of course Gore should then succeed him. After all, the people voted for the policies of Clinton, not the crimes. Gore would represent that. The people who voted for the runner-up shouldn't suddenly be on top because the winner got impeached. With the 12th Amendment, the president and vice president can represent the country, and even with a death or vacancy, the policies the people voted for can still be implemented. "If impeaching Bush meant that Kerry would take office, then impeachment would be taken much more seriously and the president would be under greater pressure to uphold his oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution." Leaving out the logic I said above, assuming this logic is true, just take a Congress of the opposite party of the president, and then it will be done more indiscriminately. Lastly, the 12th Amendment didn't solidify the two-party system. It arose because of the two-party system. The founders didn't envision two parties becoming arch enemies when they wrote the Constitution (so no, I don't think it was their intention for the VP to undermine everything the president does), and when it arose (see 1800 election. Jefferson and Burr were two Democratic-Republican candidates, and they received an equal amount of votes, and got the most. The tie went to the House, but the length of the battle aroused fear about no president being able to take office on inauguration day) they realized a need for change
The 12th Amendment

"Under the old system, where the runner-up became vice president, you could have a president and vice president who do not like each other, disagree on about everything, and a vice president undermining everything the president is doing." Exactly! That's the beauty of it! "The office of the presidency is too important for something like that to occur." No, the office of the presidency is too important for something like that NOT to occur. The framers were very wise in setting up this aspect of the government. The vice president, who has very few constitutional powers, was intended to be a watchdog against abuses by the president. Impeachment was supposed to be applied for really any deviation from proper constitutional governance, and many hardcore libertarian scholars make the argument that virtually every president to ever hold the office, save for possibly Grover Cleveland, could have and probably should have been impeached. But with the 12th Amendment, the power of impeachment is totally defanged. For who cares for impeaching Bill Clinton when he is to be replaced with Al Gore; or worse yet, George W. Bush to be replaced with Cheney? If impeaching Bush meant that Kerry would take office, then impeachment would be taken much more seriously and the president would be under greater pressure to uphold his oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were contentious group of men. They agreed unanimously on very little. But one thing I'm fairly certain they were in 100% agreement on was in the folly of what they called "faction," or what we call today "party politics." And the founders were clear that the worse possible system would be one of two large factions in which one faction would also be a majority and its opponent a minority -- the very system that has been in place for the last several hundred years. Although the 12th Amendment did not create the system, it certainly solidified it.
The 12th Amendment

Thank you for inviting me to this debate. I have always had the pleasure of being able to debate you the times I have, and this should be no exception. I support the 12th Amendment. Under the old system, where the runner-up became vice president, you could have a president and vice president who do not like each other, disagree on about everything, and a vice president undermining everything the president is doing. The office of the presidency is too important for something like that to occur. Furthermore, and more importantly, the vice presidential position is one step away from the presidency. He/she has to be able to assume the presidency on a moments notice, and it's important that they be on the same page. The people voted for the president, and if a death or vacancy occurred, it's more likely they would want someone who's on the same page to succeed the president, not a person with a different agenda who didn't get the majority vote. For example, in 1996, when it was Clinton vs. Dole, Dole would have become Clinton's vice president. What benefit would that have given? Now, you may say that the 12th Amendment has created the 2-party system, and that's not the case. The 2-party system started before the 12th Amendment.
The 12th Amendment

I support the repeal of the 12th amendment, which is pasted in its entirety below: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Education is a human right.

Let's start off again with the proper definition of education: the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. As the pro in this debate the burden of proof falls squarely on your shoulders. As I have said before you have the free will to do whatever someone doesn't stop you from doing. That is nature. However you have still not proven the second part of the definition, that it is a right for someone else to impart knowledge on you. You cannot prove this because it clearly is not. It is their right to impart knowledge to you, that is part of their free will; however, it is not a right for you to have knowledge imparted to you, it is a privilege. As you have not and cannot prove that it is a right to have knowledge imparted on you (as that part was in your own definition) than you have not fully proven your argument and thus it must be seen that I am the winner of this debate.
Education is a human right.

I hope the judge of this debate is not fooled by this silly attempt at manipulation. I did not concede and I did not need to prove that both were laws, I simply needed to prove that education in the United States as you stated earlier was not a human right. You are the one that narrowed down the field, not I. You are free to acquire what you can until someone stops you whether that be the law or another force. That is your right of free will and it just so happens that that right would then cover acquiring knowledge. However, that is not how education works in America. Education is a system where teachers through their own free will educate students. Now, because the one being educated is on the receiving end of this exchange it is for him a privilege, not a right. For this system to be a right he would be able to demand education from others which would infringe on their free will and thus not be a right at all. As you stated we are talking about the United States and in the United States the education system is a privilege, not a right. There is no possible way that our system could even be considered a right. By the parameters of this debate, I must clearly be the winner, as my opponent has not explained how education, in the U.S., is a right as he claims it to be.
Education is a human right.

Before I begin my defense, I must ask that you see that my opponent has conceded this debate. As I stated in my first round argument, because of the fact that the acquiring OR imparting of knowledge is education, I only need to prove one. Education is not a two-part system in which both the acquiring and imparting are required (which is what my opponent claims it is). According to the definition, imparting of knowledge by itself is education and the acquiring of knowledge by itself is education. Hence, as my opponent has conceded that the acquiring of general knowledge is a human right, he has conceded this debate. Although I will defend against my opponent's attacks, it must be seen that I have already won. To clarify the imparting version of education I offer the following definitions: Impart: to give; bestow; communicate http://dictionary.reference.com... Bestow: to present as a gift; give; confer http://dictionary.reference.com... Give: to present voluntarily and without expecting compensation; bestow: to give a birthday present to someone. Thus, it must be seen, through these definitions, that the imparting of knowledge is not forced like my opponent advocates. In fact, it is given only when wanted, such as a birthday gift as one definitions states. Thus, the imparting of general knowledge does not violate anyone's rights and is thus a human right. Note: education is not the same as education system. I am not arguing that the organized system used to educate is a human right. Thus, any relation to the U.S. educational system is irrelevant. In fact, the observation concerning the context of the debate was only meant for what human rights are. It was simply meant to prevent a "Well, in Iraq it is not a human right" sort of argument. Thus, as of now, the only vote must be for Con.
Education is a human right.

Good luck to you SportsGuru and I hope the best debater does win, not simply the preferred ideology. I have no problem with your definitions and I will accept that we are talking about the United States. I find one fatal flaw in your argument. When we are talking about education it is two parts. One part being acquiring knowledge yourself (the less used method), the other is having knowledge presented to you (how the education system works in the United States). The second method is NOT a human right. No one is entitled to force others to present them with information or anything for that matter. In that respect education, as it works in the United States, is clearly NOT a human right because it requires others to work against their will. In doing so that would infringe on their right to free will. While I agree that acquiring knowledge through ones own means is a right because it is an expression of free will; I do not agree that the system of U.S. education, where others provide students with information is a human right. It is a privilege, because it requires others to--through their own free will--cooperate with the students. As you can plainly see education in the American sense is a privilege and not a right, I will wait for my opponent to respond.
Education is a human right.

The only definitions I have for this debate are as follows: Human right - any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law) . http://dictionary.reference.com... Liberty- 1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Education- the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Observation 1 - The debate must take place in the context of the United States of America. This is fairest possible conclusion, as it is the country both debaters live in and thus have the most experience with. This also adds convenience for the judge, as even if he does not live in the United States, it is the most famous government in the world. Hence, any arguments concerning situations in other countries are unrelated and invalid. Although the definition of human right contains a good list of human rights, I add the pursuit of happiness to that list as it is found along with life and liberty in the Declaration of Independence of the U. S. Using the definition of education, it can be seen that I only need to prove that either the imparting OR acquiring of general knowledge…etc. is a human right. As I will attempt to prove that they are both human rights, my opponent needs to disprove both of them to win. First, I begin with the imparting section of the definition. Now, you will notice, some of the human rights include "freedom of thought and expression" and the pursuit of happiness. As people have the right to express themselves as they please, they by extension have the right to impart knowledge as they please. They also have the right to it if it furthers them in their pursuit of happiness. Now to move on to the acquiring the general knowledge. As we can see, liberty is a human right. As liberty contains the freedom of choice and the power to do as one pleases, one has the right to acquire general knowledge etc. etc. if one so chooses. Thus this half of education is also a human right. As you can see, I have successfully proven that education is indeed a human right. Now, I must simply wait for my opponent's response.
Legality of Abortion

A woman should not bear the right to have the baby aborted for many reasons. The first of these reasons is that studies have shown that mothers that abort their babies are more prone to depression (afterabortion.org). Another reason that it should be made illegal is because the mother is now killing a person. Research has found that the fetus after five weeks of being in the womb, the brain , spinal cord, and heart begins forming (nlm.nih.gov). Also, the babies that are being killed are could grow up to be many great things- doctors, nurses, astronomers, etc.. Do mothers considering abortion realize that families actually go on waiting lists to adopt newborn babies? Do they realize that some couples wait years to adopt the baby they"ve desperately waited to hold in their arms? Do mothers realize how many experienced parents with wisdom, resources, and plenty of love are reaching out to adopt another child "" no matter his or her race, gender, or disability? How many deaths are there in the United States alone due to abortion? Well, an estimated 984,000 abortions took place in 2013. And last, but surely not least, the baby does not have the choice whether to live or not. How would you like to be the baby in the position of abortion? Not having a choice, or a voice? Having no representation or rights? Being treated as a cluster of cells, not a human that is going to one day become a beautiful, smart individual? It is like slavery all over again, except there is more murder due to abortion than to slavery. To end that reoccurring crisis in the country, we need to end the legalization of abortion.
are the confederates racist

Thank you Con... I yet again must re-burden you to show a source. The internet is a great source of information, so all you need to do is provide a link showing where you got said information. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence as well" Regardless of other reasoning, African Americans were beaten and killed for there race. It is the definition of racism.- Until you provide a rebuttal, my arguments still stand. I await your responses.
are the confederates racist

First lets go back in to history slaves were shipped under the American flag it is in every history book so look it up. Also why did Harriot Tubman Take the slaves to Canada because slavery still existed in the north even though Lincoln stopped slavery in the south. There was also about 6% of slaves in the south and the south released more slaves than the north. The south may have been cruel to slaves but so was the north cause the north would trade or keep slaves if they found them.
are the confederates racist

Thanks Con. I'd like to point out that Con did nothing to disprove the confederates racism. Because he has not shown any definitions, I will. "poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"[1] While enslaved, the African Americans were obviously poorly treated because of race.. [2] Con's case is refuted. Thank You. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.historyonthenet.com...
Justin Harrison is NOT guilty and his actions are justified.

I present to you my final rebuttal,"I really don't think dante had any rights except for some basic stuff like right to life." One of the rights a - alleged - criminal has, is the right to a lawyer to defend the - alleged - criminal his/her rights in court. To say that he didn't have "any right except for some basic" would basically suggest that it would be easier to send him to prison right away without trial or defense, which is a perversion on the constitution. These rights and laws are here to protect people, even - alleged - criminals without looking at the crime committed or the severity of this crime. Why this? Because the truth isn't always visible or obvious. Take in mind that since the uncalled for deadly force has lead to the situation where we [the community] will never know the real truth, only the truth as Jawan Craig will mention it, which could very well be a grave lie. Dante Williams could have been pressured, could have been threatened or what so ever and this would be a grave mistake to have shot a man that had no intent of harming people but was simply made or pushed to do so. "Remember dante wasn't shot as a punishment but as self defense. At the time justin is probably wondering if he's gonna die or something."As I stated in my first argument, I don't believe it was self defense, I believe it to be a attempt at a heroic act that went wrong. As I stated, it would only have been actual self defense if shooting his gun would have been the last possible thing he could do. If we take a look at the situation at that time: Justin Harrison was not the first victim of this robbery, there were people that were already actually laying down on the floor and handing over their money [like people tend to do when they love their lives] taking this in mind we could say that Justin Harrison would not have had any sights at that moment that might lead him to think that he was going to get shot himself. Not following the orders of the robbers was a stubborn thing to do. "When you have a gun in your face you probably don't use much judgement."I carry a concealed gun with live ammunition myself too, and I for one tried to imagine myself in this situation, I would not have done the same, unless I really had no other choice. - which is actual self defense - This were my final arguments for this debate, take them in consideration please. Dilara, you were a worthy opponent and thank you for sharing your view with me and the others. ------------------------------sources used:#1: http://gunssavelives.net... #2: http://www.foxcarolina.com...