BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Term Limits

It is my first debate so I am glad I have gotten it correct so far. Removing a term limit would hurt democracy. Typically an elected official stays in office until retirement. Having a president in this position can allow him more power as time goes on. You can see this with Hugo Chavez. Also, this can be seen in our own history with Roosevelt (which will also be explained with my next point). Roosevelt was elected for four terms. He was an old man who was not expected to survive his last term. His party knew this. But he was adored by the people. He brought the country out of the Depression and became a successful wartime president. His popularity was used to secure the next president with Truman being his running mate. President Grant wanted to run a third term. He was not a good president (although his first term went well, he was an alcoholic and his second term did not go as well to say the least). He wanted to run again but was talked out of it. His candidacy would have hurt the country. As to the point of the Voice of the People, originally there was not a Presidential Election. The president was chosen by the Legislature. It was not until Andrew Jackson that the first public election was held. They believed the people could not be trusted with the vote. And it was customary before the 22nd amendment was set in place that two terms was appropriate (with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt). Even Theodore Roosevelt stopped after one elected term (his first he became president after the assassination of McKinley). He did run again but this was due to the disappointment of his former Vice President Taft. In terms of decreasing democracy my opponent asks "why shouldn't they? " Well typically when a politician holds office, he tends to keep that office. We can see this with senators and congressmen. In my own newly home state of Massachusetts, Kennedy was drunk and killed his girlfriend with his car. He continually got elected. Kerry is up for re-election this month and no one is making an effort to run against him (much like Kennedy's last win which took over 70%). If all people have is the same people run over and over, the lines become blurred and one group of politicians gain more power. Restricting the President forces a checks and balances. The Legislature can keep running over and over, the Judicial is for life, and the President is limited. Change is needed in government to survive. And sometimes the will of the people can be reluctant for that change.
Term Limits

Let the debate begin! NOTE: I messed up the resolution when I said it in the first round. Thankfully, my opponent realized this and is debating the right side. The resolution should be: Presidential Term Limits in the United States should be used. Sorry for any confusion. ~~~ I'll start with a topic analysis: This topic asks us the following question: Should United States Presidents not be allowed to have more than 2 terms of office? As the Con to this debate, I must argue that US Presidents should be allowed to have more than 2 terms. My opponent, as the Pro, must argue that they should not. ~~~ Contentions: 1. The Voice of the People. The United States has a strong tradition of the people giving the government power, not the other way around. Simply put, we are a democracy. If we are truly to represent the voice of the people, and the people want the President to stay in office, then we should respect the people's decision and keep the President in office. 2. Term limits have the potential of decreasing democracy. If the people want to have the same President 3 or more times, why shouldn't they? The government should not be controlling the people, the people should be controlling the government. If the people want the same guy/gal in office, let it be. I leave it at that, I have a couple other arguments to write. Thank you
Term Limits

Thanks to my opponent for the debate. This debate shall be about Term Limits in the United States. More specifically, Presidential Term Limits in the United States. I am against them, and my opponent is in favor of them. Restated the topic is this: Presidential Term Limits in the United States should not be used. We all know who the President is. We all know what term limits are. They are: 2 terms of 4 years. We all know what the US is. Some rules: These rules cannot be broken, or else my opponent forfeits the debate. He is free to suggest some of his own, but they are only in effect after I say ok. 1. No semantics. We all know what we are talking about. No arguing in the words. Just argument vs. argument. 2. We both have burden of proof. You have to prove that we should have term limits. I have to prove that we should not. 3. No arguing in the comments section, during the debate, and after the debate. 4. This round is not to be used for debate. It is to be used to establish the topic and the subject matter, and the rules. I think thats it, and I await my opponent.
We humans are over dependent on our own electronic technology

A forfeit? What can I do now? I have nothing to say, so I will just tell the voters this: How come we always see people attached to their phones? The over dependency has literally become a cultural aspect (especially in America). Thus, it can be seen that we are destroying our social lives, and justifying it with the stupid addictions to media and the inseparability from our tech. I hope that my opponent doesn't keep forfeiting, because it would make the debate boring.
We humans are over dependent on our own electronic technology

Technology makes our lives easier. Take for example, this website, without it, we would have to write letters to random people, and meet at parks and other public places (which you can't do with strangers on the internet). So, this site helps us in several ways, but it doesn't turn us into mindless sheep. It actually increases our knowledge, but it doesn't do any better than a meeting room. This only speeds up the process and makes it easier, like I mentioned before. When there is good tech, there is bad tech. Some people become addicted, but this usually happens only because of a previous influence. It used to be that this influence was much less common. Back in the day (when people used "car phones") most parents where strict, but assertive, in influencing their child. Now this is less common. Children are allowed to play violent games and watch violent movies, and it has become much more easy with the increase of dependency on electronic technology. The violent games aren't even very creative, or good for ones thought process, and if children play more of them at a younger age, than the dependency will spiral out of control. There is one last thing that really makes the modern generation over dependent. Social media. It has grown insanely fast. Facebook was only a mediocre company, when it sky rocked into a famous tool that people use so often. Other social medias, such as twitter, yelp, Instagram, and even youtube sometimes, can also cause over dependency. Game companies that don't adhere to the violent and dumbening genre are becoming less successful. Think about how many websites (even including this one!) have been encouraging social media. They want that one tweet, that one like, that one subscribe. Most people will say they aren't overdependent on their social media, but if they say this, they are only more addicted. Now what if someone says, "how is this so called "dependency" going to do us any harm?" Than we need to think of what it does. It makes us attached to a tiny screen or computer all day. Imagine if someone from the 60's era came here today in a time machine, they would see everyone looking at these little tiny mobile TV things. They may ask "What are you doing, why don't you just talk to your friends instead of looking at this little movie thing?" Most people will take the latter unfortunately. this decreases our general sociability, and prevents us from becoming more knowledgeable, and no petition will help, they will only look back to their phones.
We humans are over dependent on our own electronic technology

I accept your challenge. First of all let me give a basic introduction on what technology is. Technology is the application of practical knowledge in practical situations. Technology was developed to make life easier for. Unfortunately technology has actually us,changed our behaviour and attitude. Let me take an example to make my point more clearer. With the use of technology we, human are becoming lazy. We lack general knowledge and the ability to think. In the past when ever we needed to define a word we look it up the dictionary but now a days due to the influence of technology people just simply google it up. I know this is much more easier and faster but we would lack the knowledge of actually knowing the definition. In my next point I would like to say that technology has influenced the lives if many young children children who are just Four or five years old have become addicted to video games. This addiction causes them to lose their basic knowledge in studies and in future it very difficult to cope with them this would eventually lead in depression and mental trauma. I f technology is used properly these problems will not rise at all.
Th 2'nd amendment should be abolished, Change my mind

You finally decided to take this 15 year old up on a debate. We do have SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, And US Marshalls. We do. The citizens who conceal carry in this country don't enforce the laws. They protect themselves. In 2016, Roughly 11 thousand people died to criminal use of guns. I don't have statistics from the same year, But nearly every national estimate states that anywhere from 500 thousand to 3 million lives are saved by concealed carriers in the US each year. Of course thorough background checks are necessary, But the outright ban of guns is foolish. You can make guns illegal, But crack is illegal and people still find a way around that. Cannabis is illegal, And people still find a way to get that. Prostitution is illegal, But people still do that. Moral of the story is, Regardless of whether guns are legal or not, People will get them. And with no citizens to defend against that, More innocent people will die at the hands of criminals with guns. You may say, "guns kill innocent people". Saying that guns kill people is like me blaming my pencil for failing my math test. It's all about the person carrying the gun.
Th 2'nd amendment should be abolished, Change my mind

There are way too many senseless killings in the USA because of guns. We do not live in the wild west anymore, There is no wild posse riding into town against one sheriff, There are no scalping Indians, We have modern police enforcement, SWAT, State Police, Local police, ATF, FBI, US Marshalls, WE DO NOT NEED GUNS. They just end up in the hands of criminals, Mentally ill who go on to mow down half a school, Or some lone wolf terrorist who decides to machine down a night club, Mall, Movie theater, Or the disgruntled fired employee who returns and goes postal at work. Get rid of the guns and the shooting will go down. I am going to present irrefutable evidence that shows that guns are bad and the second amendment needs to be abolished to stop the gun violence in the country of the gun!
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.

You are way to wordy!! Do you expect me to really read all of that...well stuff? Simply your message in less words, so i don't get bored reading your lecture which is nonsense anyway. I do not know how else to say it. You are beating around the bush! I support gay marriage. Okay? But I don't support if a family member of ANY gender who has sex with their family member. It's sick, bud. That means it's wrong if a son has sex with his mother and it's wrong if a daughter has sex with her mother. OKAY?!? I have no problem if people of the same sex have sex, nor do I with opposite sex, just not with family members. There, does that help you understand it?
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.

No, I'm sorry, I must have explained myself wrong when I made my argument about homosexuality. My argument was as follows: If the only moral issue you have with incest is the possibility of the couple producing a child, then do you concede that incest is okay between homosexual family-members, where it is absolutely impossible to produce a child? I then extended this argument to many other couples who can't reproduce i.e. infertile couples, post-menopause women, men who have had a vasectomy and couples who, though sexual, don't actually have intercourse. And, as I said in my last round, even if you are talking about incest between fertile couples, the ease with which people can now access contraceptives makes it entirely possible to avoid pregnancy. So, when you said "would u want to say this is my mum and she's also three months along," you are arguing with a straw-man. I have not defended people who produce children from these relationships, my argument is that they can have these relationships without producing children. You're other argument is "It's JUST wrong." Why is it "just wrong"? You can't just say, it's wrong because it's wrong. To deem something wrong you have to establish who it's hurting, otherwise it cannot be called immoral. I'm glad to here you show your support for gay couples but can't you hear the similarities between your arguments and those of the homophobes "It's just wrong," "It's just the way it is." You're right that it's illegal, but the illegality of something doesn't necessarily negate the morality of something. Many things are illegal which shouldn't be; marijuana, gay marriage, hard-core porn. There's a long list and I'm sure you can think of more way our rights are infringed by governments creating laws against things which aren't immoral and are a personal choice. You can't use it's illegal as an argument as to why it's immoral. It's immoral should be the argument for why it's illegal, not the other way around. So, to conclude this round, my argument stays the same. It does not hurt anyone and, in the words of Cory Taylor, "Sin is only sin if it's hurting someone."
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.

No, YOUR argument falls flat. IN what way did I mention "homosexual 'incestuous' couples"? I just really love how when I have a debate with someone, they come up with something I never even mentioned or said. Don't do that. And yes, incest is just wrong. How ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SAY THAT? It's wrong because it isn't moral. To me, that is. Why would a son want to fall in love with his mother? Or father? I'm not saying heterosexuality nor homosexuality is wrong, I am saying that it is not a "normal" thing. You wouldn't go around saying, "Oh hey Jim! Check out my new girlfriend! She's my mother as well. She's due in 3 months" That's really normal. Isn't it illegal? But I really am Not the one to judge. If the man/woman wants to have a sexual relationship with their loved ones, that is their personal business. But if they want to tell people about it, it is not really something accepted in society. All in all, this is really hard to say if it is wrong or not. I really cannot say, I guess. And you are very wordy too. NOW your turn to debate.
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.

I completely agree that it would be wrong for a child to come from said incestuous relationship, but in todays modern age of easy-to-access contraceptives and abortions it is more than possible for two consenting family members to have a very fulfilling sex life without producing a child. Furthermore, if the only issue you have with incestuous relationships is the possibility of a genetically-deformed child, then does that mean you are okay with homosexual incestuous couples? Or relationships where one, or both, of the parties are infertile? Do you agree it's okay for post-menopausal women to be in such relationships? What about men who have had a vasectomy? What about couples who, though intimate, don't actually have intercourse in the traditional sense? So, your argument falls flat. Many couples would have no possibility of producing children and the ones that do can, and should, prevent this by using contraceptives and, if necessary, terminating a pregnancy. You repetitively stated, in you're argument, that incest is "just wrong," yet you don't seem to be able to justify why it's wrong. Incest is a victimless crime, and you want to know the great thing about victimless crimes? If there's no victim, then there's no crime.
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.

Personally, I do not feel it's right for a brother and a sister to have sex! Do you think that healthy too? If a brother and sister, who are biologically related, (Same genes) have sex and then give birth to a child, there is a high chance that the baby might have a birth defect. How could a brother and sister want that? But go ahead, have sex with your brother or sister and then permanently damage your child. Sex is not wrong. Sex with some one who just about has the same genes is simply wrong. It's almost like a mother having sex with her son and then giving birth to a child.
There is nothing wrong with incest between consenting adults.

I would also like to take some time to define what incest is. Incest is sexual activity between family members and close relatives. In this debate we are talking about incest between consenting adults and I in no way condone rape or paedophilia. I feel the burden of proof is on con to explain what it is, exactly, that is immoral or unethical about incest. I look forward to a good debate.
Samsung Galaxy s7 is better than iPhone 6s

I'll thank you for hosting this debate. I will be arguing that the Samsung Galaxy S7 is not better than the iPhone 6s. The point will be conceded that the Samsung Galaxy s7 does have some better hardware components, it does not have all better components. This point will be argued in my next response. The iPhone 6s however does have many benefits that I will list in my next argument. I did not have enough time to completely type up all my arguments for the iPhone 6s. I will let my opponent take the next round to argue their point and respond with counterpoints. Again thank you and good luck!
Samsung Galaxy s7 is better than iPhone 6s

The s7 is a lot better than the 6s in terms of everything. The specs, the screen, the hardware, the software. I have no idea why anyone would vote for apple at this point. Their innovation these days is just force touch, which is utterly useless. That was the only thing that changed from the 6 to 6s, which was disappointing. I can bet you if Samsung did this, no one would buy their phones. Unlike apple, the s7 was a LOT different than the s6, in a good way. They added micro sd card slots, water resistance, better camera and less camera bump. What has apple done this year from the iPhone 6 to 6s? Basically nothing... Their camera upgrade had no difference, only adding 4k resolution which samsung had 2 YEARS BEFORE. Like i said, the only major thing was force touch, which was utterly useless. As an added bonus, Samsung makes most of apples parts, so it is basically a samsung phone with Apple written in front of it. Unfortunately, apple has very loyal fans and they will pay $700 for the exact same thing.
Agnostics are Atheists

My opponent has again contradicted the resolution. They openly admit that "there CAN be agnostic theists" and yet the resolution disagrees with this statement.The claim that 'When people say they're agnostic, they generally imply that they don't know, NOR BELIEVE in the existence of a deity." is irrelevant due to Pro's concession that agnostic Theists exist. It doesn't matter if the majority of agnostics happen to be atheist, the resolution states that all agnostics are atheists, binding one to the other.The way the resolution is worded, agnosticism is a subset of atheism whereas Pro is claiming that atheism is a subset of agnosticism. Actually both of these are wrong because neither is a subset of the other.Pro then states agnostics "are similar to atheists, in that THEY DO NOT BELIEVE." yet they earlier stated that "there CAN be agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists." meaning that one does not need to lack belief in God to qualify as an agnostic.The last section of Pro's Round 3 is not relevant the resolution of the debate and is another debate in itself.In conclusion, Pro has failed to uphold their burden of proof and thus Con has won the debate.
Agnostics are Atheists

I never stated that there were no agnostic theists. My problem with someone labeling themselves as merely agnostic is that it tells me nothing, because there CAN be agnostic theists as well as agnostic atheists. I don't know where you are in regards to belief, only that you admit you don't know. When people say they're agnostic, they generally imply that they don't know, NOR BELIEVE in the existence of a deity. If that is the case, then they are similar to atheists, in that THEY DO NOT BELIEVE. This being said, why not simply say you're an atheist, because this would tell me where you are in regards to your beliefs. You can go further by saying agnostic or gnostic in front of either theist or atheist, but in regards to a person's belief, saying you're a theist or an atheist, or a deist for that matter, is more important than admitting you don't know or asserting you do.
Agnostics are Atheists

Before I proceed to explain why the resolution is not upheld by the argument I will like to point out another self-contradiction:Pro specifically states that "one is either theist or atheist, there is no in between agnostic." before proceeding to claim that "If you do not believe in any gods, you are an atheist. If you say, "Well, there could be, I don't know," you're just speculating and should therefore be labeled as, "Undecided."".The issue with this is that if there is only the possibility to be a Theist or an atheist, how can one be labeled 'undecided'? Surely this would mean they'd be the agnostic middle ground which Pro proclaimed to not exist.Aside from that self-contradiction the more pressing issue that the resolution is not being upheld by Pro in the slightest.Pro makes a clear distinction between belief in God and knowledge of God's existence. This contradicts the notion that not knowing God means one doe snot believe in him/her/it."God" is unknowable according to Pro. Thus, Pro states that it is actually impossible for one to be a Gnostic Theist or Gnostic atheist. Even if we accept this to be true, Pro has failed to explain why there are no agnostic Theists.In Round 1, Pro states that all Theists are agnostics and seems to have completely dropped this notion by Round 2. Then, after dropping this notion, Pro asserts that one can only be a Theist or an atheist and that it's impossible to know God (meaning all Theists are forced to admit to being agnostic).Pro is labeling all Theists as agnostic Theists and this completely contradicts the resolution in itself. On top of this, Pro has entirely separated the concept of knowing God from the notion of believing in his/her/its existence.In conclusion, Pro has not only forced all Theists to identify as agnostic Theists but has additionally separated the knowing of God from the belief in his/her/its existence. In doing so, Pro has not only contradicted the notion of all agnostic being atheistic but has also rendered the resolution fundamentally impossible to uphold as knowledge and belief are independent of one another, according to Pro's logic.