BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Compulsory Voting

First off, you're right, the debate should be judged on the arguments, and which ones are more believable. But that doesn't mean that the one who is more elegant should automatically win the round. It's about who's argument is better. The person who debated that "1=2" lost the debate because what he was saying was outrageous. 1) What's wrong with not being elected by the majority of the people in the U.S.? They were elected by the majority of those who showed up to vote, so what's the problem? President Bush didn't even win that in 2000, are you saying his victory was illegitimate because of that? Even if all the registered voters in the country had showed up and voted that day, he still could've won without winning the popular vote. An incentive would essentially be the same as a fine because where does that money come from? Taxes. The only difference would be the rich would have a bigger penalty than the poor. 2) If someone chooses not to vote, they are essentially saying, "I don't know the issues well enough to make an informed decision" or "It doesn't matter enough to me to get out and vote." If someone doesn't think that they themselves should vote, who are you to tell them that they should, regardless of whether they actually know the issues. "CV would increase voter knowledge and interest." No that's simply false, it would increase American interest on the whole but the average voter would be less informed. There are cons to Compulsory Voting. It would be creating yet another useless bureaucracy and it would decrease the percent of informed voters. No one's stopping anyone from voting, if you want your opinion to be heard it will be heard. Is it better to have everyone vote and make the wrong decision or have 20% vote and make the right one? Isn't that the point of a Representative Democracy? So that not everyone has to vote on something they may know nothing about?
Compulsory Voting

I would encourage people to vote on debates not on the topic. Please determine who stated their case better, not who you agree with. I'm not assuming I'm a better debater than my opponent, I just want it to be judged legitimately. Anyway, you state two points here. 1) You can't make people vote. In what way is it unconstitutional? If anything, compulsory voting is constitutionally warranted. Our leaders are supposed to be elected by majority. There haven't been many, if any, presidents who have had over half of the full voting population vote for them. In order to have a legitimate democracy, everyone's opinion should be heard. Also, I'm not making anyone do anything. Each person has the option to abstain. The primary reason people don't vote is pure apathy. This gives them an incentive. Instead of a fine, we could give them a small tax break if you want to flip it the other way. The principal point is to have some incentive for voting. 2) CV increases uninformed voters Who is to qualify a voters decision? If we were to use your logic we would have poll tests requiring you to demonstrate your knowledge before voting. The Supreme Court has already ruled this logic unconstitutional. Each person has their own reason for voting. No one can qualify that in any way. A college dean's vote isn't worth five points while a high-school dropout's vote is worth a half. It doesn't work that way. Also, CV would increase voter knowledge and interest. Since people are given an incentive to vote, voters will take their decision more seriously, learning about the candidates and making a MORE informed decision. The mentality, at the lowest level, would be, at least, "well, I am going to vote anyway, might as well learn something about the candidates." Finally, there are no cons to compulsory voting. The pros are a more invigorated democratic spirit and community along with a TRUE democracy. Had everyone's opinions been heard in past elections, we would have had different government in some circumstance. This fact is the most important to realize. How do we call ourselves a representative government when only 10% of our population voted for our president?
Compulsory Voting

Although voter turnout is at all time lows, there is something more important than increasing voter turnout; our freedom. It is not only unconstitutional to enact such a law, it would be bad for our democracy. We have the right to vote not the obligation to vote. But past that, it would injure our democracy as people who don't know any of the issues, or care what effect they have would be voting just to avoid the fine. Many people would vote randomly, not really caring who they are voting for, as the only reason they're there is to fulfill their obligation, rather than exercise their rights. It would increase the uninformed vote, but is that really an advantage? If someone is unwilling to learn the issues on their own and get the initiative to get themselves out to vote then they are more likely to be less qualified than someone who does. It's better to be governed by a few who know more of what's best for the country than by many that don't.
Convince me that the Christian faith is the truth

Recently, I have had many discussions and arguments with friends on this subject. I was a firm believer in evolution, however they managed to sway my views and now, I'm not so sure. The point of this debate is quite simple. My opponent has sole BOP to prove Christianity correct as the sole truth and to prove evolution wrong. The voters will decide whether or not my opponent has fulfilled his burden. Any questions will be answered in the comments.
Love is not real

Firstly, about the photo, it is not of the emotions felt after a break up, but it is of the emotions felt by a person in "love". I'd like to know what made you think that it was. Maybe, I was clear enough in my last argument. What I meant was that "love" is not required to produce children. Also, I'd like you to clarify whether you think "love" is an emotion or "love" creates an emotion or both. For your point, "if love was not here on earth not even a hint of it. Ask yourself this where would (you) be standing right now", you need to understand that I don't even believe that love exists. So, the answer I would give is that I would be at the same place I am right now. Lastly, this may be off the point, but since you mentioned grammar and spelling errors, I would just like to say my piece. You also made a few errors, such as "love is just a emotion" which you wrote in the second round. I'd also like if you would tell me my own errors and how I was off the point in the previous argument. If you prefer, you could send me a message.
Love is not real

Sorry, about the last round. I was busy at school. In response to your point "if love was not real we would not be alive right now on earth.", I feel that it is false. If you speaking from the sense that people fall in "love" then reproduce in order to continue the existence of specie, then I'd beg to differ as people can continue life whether or not they're in "love" as people it reproduction does not require it. Many people, in fact, already do this when they feel they don't "love" someone. If you're speaking from the religious sense that we were created out of love, then I'd have to say that's not a very solid basis for an argument. I hope I don't offend anyone in this comment. I'm so sorry if I did. As for the point about love being an real feeling/emotion that you have reiterated quite a few times, which I have also done in my previous argument in some ways, I would like to clarify. The way that you feel love or any other emotion is through hormones and neurotransmitters. Here's a picture of how you feel love: http://upload.wikimedia.org.... So, what I'm trying to say is that these hormones and neurotransmitters can be stimulated through different means. For example, dopamine can be stimulate through cocaine. (Not trying to encourage the use of cocaine) So, theoretically, you could make a person feel the same way they would feel if they were in "love" through different means. You could make someone feel in "love" with almost anything this way. Maybe even a chair. But, that's not the point. What I'm really trying to say is that "love" is just a combination of hormones and neurotransmitters being stimulated. So, it's not really what you would think of a meant to be relationship, assuming that's what you think.
Year round calender for public schools

My opponent brings up a valid point in the case of summer jobs and on the weekly job system, but one must also realize that most students work these jobs during the school week as well. Students would not have to worry about finding employment seeing as these students will already have jobs in evenings and weekends (as I myself had done). This would just be a simple matter of giving the employer a heads up that the student would be available for more time during these breaks and obtain the possibility to make more money. As to summer break, I do believe that we have reached a stalemate and I would like to congratulate my opponent on previous arguments on that topic. As for the transition from high school to college, however, there are many colleges across the nation that are open full time in every season. In many colleges, such as the one that I am currently attending, there are summer courses offered to complement the courses offered in the fall and spring, and year round education will help students prepare for having to take classes in the middle of the summer. In fact, the only reason that we have our standard education schedule as we have it today was so that students could have the summer off to help with planting and tending to crops and animals back when America still heavily relied on farms. As this is no longer the case for the current state of our nation, and with college education having classes in the summer, I believe that it would do more harm than good to stay with our current schedule. With that I will end my side of the debate.
Year round calender for public schools

As for summer jobs, I agree that the amount of days available for working would remain the same. I would also like to congratulate my opponent for his point that working every other couple would provide students with the money WHILE they need it. However, I must point out that finding an employer who hires students every other week-or-so is rather difficult. Also, although the matter is out of the students' hands, many employers hire students as seasonal workers, where working week on and week off would be even more pressing. I do agree that an extended summer break is harmful to students' memories, but as standardized test scores appear to remain the same, I must rest my case. I think, as far as this point (about length of break affecting education) goes, we have essentially reached a stalemate. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to present another argument in round 2, but it is a fairly simple idea. If students had to transition from, say, a year-long high school education to a traditional college education, I am sure the change of schedule would be detrimental to the student's studies. If year long education were to be implemented, I say it would only be fair to the student to implement this education in every level of education so as to not cause the student an abnormal amount of stress transitioning into the entirely new yearly schedule.
Year round calender for public schools

Ah, and so the debate begins. Let me start off with saying that year-round does not mean that students will be in school for longer than normal, as the normal stigma would have people believe. Students in the year-round school system would still go to school for the standard 180 school days, with the only difference being that the days that students attend school would be more evenly spaced and school breaks would be more regulated throughout the school year, with breaks usually being 2-3 weeks long. As for the summer jobs, these students will not lose any working time in the year-round school system. Logic would plainly state here that seeing as the actual number of school days are still the same, then the days available to work would also remain unchanged. This would actually benefit these summer workers, as working for several weeks in the spaced breaks of the school year would give students the money they need WHILE they need it, and will not have them dependent on one lump sum in one point of the year. I will agree, however, on the retention of knowledge. There is only so much one can learn in 180 days of the school year before the extended summer break (Usually extended by two-three weeks), but at the same time putting off education would do harm as well. Just ask older generation going to college how they are doing in math after not using it for so long, and you will find that the typical high school kid will be helping THEM with their work. These summer breaks may not matter much to some kids who are naturally good with information retention, but one must also accommodate for the kids who have trouble with recall. By all means continue, I look forward to your rebuttal.
Year round calender for public schools

I assume that by year-round schooling you mean the week-or-so breaks throughout the school-year (correct me if I'm wrong here and if you are referring to a year-round education with no breaks). I would first like to point out that year-round education is much more costly than traditional education. I am not aware of the exact figures of this, but I figure it's obvious enough that more school days equals more costs (for electricity, plumbing, teachers' salaries, etc.) Furthermore, many high school students use the traditional summer as an opportunity to begin a summer job. These students jobs are, from experience, crucial not only for everyday items such as gas and leisure activities, but help significantly with paying for college and developing a general idea of where the student stands at financially (as far as what colleges are in reach, only considering cost). Proponents of year-round education claim that the traditional summers cause the students to retain less information, and thus when school begins in the fall, students have to backtrack to re-learn the information they forgot. Though this seems logical, it does not encompass standardized test scores. It is true that students lose information over the long, traditional summers, however, in a 1994 study by Dr. Teresa Greenfield, she found that even with the year round school, the "results of standardized tests showed no such improvement." Though the overall amount of information learned in school is important in life, test scores really are the determining factor when it comes to college acceptance and thus employment.
Year round calender for public schools

Though my opponent brings up a valid point that standard education was originally and primarily for those needing to work on the "family farm" in the the summer, I must remain firm in my opinion that transition in America's education from the majority of traditional schedules to year-long education would prove harmful to the students' education. With that, I will also end my debate. My opponent has widened my perspective on this topic, and I also thank him for not only the best challenge I've had, but for his excellent and respectful debating etiquette. Well done.
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

Alright, I'll briefly reiterate. First, God is shown sanctioning many violent acts in the Bible, especially slaughter. Second, being omniscient, God knew exactly who would go to hell before creating humanity. So, by creating these people, he is damning them to hell. When God created Adam and Eve, he knew they would sin, but created the forbidden fruit anyway. When somebody murders someone else, God knew it would happen from the start of time. God knew of every harm humanity would endure, yet created us anyway.
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

This is untrue. Even if I fail to prove that God is not omniscient and omnibenevolent, that does not mean he is. To use an analogy: we are debating whether or not I can fly without aid. I say I can fly. You say I can't. You don't disprove my ability to fly. I don't win just because of that - I only win if I prove I can fly. By the same token, I only win if I disprove God's omnipotence and benevolence. If we both fail our tasks, the voters should vote 'tied'. Under the standards my opponent has set up, omnibenevolence should be defined as the complete or infinite desire to do good to others; unlimited goodwill or charitableness. CON CASE I shall show that it is impossible for the Christian God to be omniscient and omnibenevolent at the same time. First, numerous Bible verses point to his immorality. In these lines, God authorizes and commits slaughter. Deuteronomy 20:10-14 - "As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." 1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a**(donkey)." 1 Sam 6:19 - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." Even if we don't look to the above passages, it is impossible for God to be omniscient and omnibenevolent given his past actions. Let us assume that God is omnisicient. If God has unlimited knowledge, he knows exactly what humans are going to do before they do it. He knew Eve would eat the Fruit before she did. He knew he would have to flood the earth before humans grew wicked. He knows that every murderer would kill someone before they even act. Because he is omniscient, he knew all this before he even created Creation itself. Here we have a problem. If God knew of every single sin that humans would commit even before he created humans, why create us in the first place? By creating humans, knowing exactly who would be damned, God effectively damned those people. Hell is described as the ultimate torture and punishment. God knew who would have to suffer hell, but created those people anyway - sending them to eternal damnation. With that, I'll open the floor out for Pro.
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

I will accept the definition of omniscient, but reject the one of omnibenevolence. As cleared by my opponent, I will bring my own definition. (You did not look under "reference" on dictionary.com) http://dictionary.reference.com... Omni- a combining form meaning "all," used in the formation of compound words: omnifarious; omnipotence; omniscient. Benevolence –noun 1.desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness: to be filled with benevolence toward one's fellow creatures. I will allow my opponent to open. He must prove that God is not all-knowing and is not with unlimited desire to do good. If he fails to do so, then I have won the debate. Good luck. ==SOURCES== http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...-
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

Alright, I'll open this up to Pro to make the first argument. If you'd like me to argue first, just post in the comments, and I can put up my side. Please, let's not get semantical. Definitions: Omniscient (www.dictionary.com): having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. Omnibenevolence (my own): always making the ethical, or morally correct, decision. To clarify 'morally correct', a decision will be considered immoral if it causes harm. If you have a better definition of omnibenevolence (I couldn't find it in a dictionary. It's also coming up on spellcheck), please post it.
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

Obviously, my opponent is very certain that God is neither omnibenevolent nor omniscient. (If he believes in a God at all) Although it is hard to understand completely, God is both of these things. The debate mainly comes down to God's will, and human free will. God desires to be with us, He said that in His Word. He created us so that He could be with us. Being with Him is the greatest sense of comfort that one can know. He was being benevolent by creating us, and allowing us to be with Him. My opponent challenges God's benevolence: "But if he desires people to hurt each other, then he doesn't always desire good. Therefore he is not omnibenevolent." He certainly does not desire for us to hurt each other. He does desire justice, and sometimes the means are less than ideal. We messed things up, which then required God's intervention. Had God forced us to do His will, everything would have been perfect, with no need for bloodshed. As has been stated though, God does not need robots to love Him. His DESIRE to do good, or omnibenevolence, is still unshaken. Therefore, I still urge an affirmative ballot. Thank you.
The Christian God is Omniscient and Omnibenevolent

Omnibenevolence: the complete or infinite desire to do good to others; unlimited goodwill or charitableness. Please pay close attention to the whole definition while voting. I'll examine Pro's arguments, and move on to voting issues. PRO CASE A being with unlimited charitableness or goodwill, or omnibenevolence, cannot sanction malevolence without losing omnibenevolence. But if he desires people to hurt each other, then he doesn't always desire good. Therefore he is not omnibenevolent. Pro never shows proof that God is omnibenevolent. Again, Pro never gives evidence that God is omniscient. The idea of choice is irrelevant. If God id omniscient, he knew every sin everybody would commit before they did. He then created people, knowing how they would sin and send themselves to hell. By not changing these people before they were born, he is sending thousands of people to the ultimate punishment. If you knew that someone was going to snap, take a gun, and murder hundreds of people, do you attempt to stop them, or do you let them make a free choice? Then did God create humans to satisfy his own needs? He created humans who don't love him so that those who do would be special? If God created humans merely for his own satisfaction, accepting the fact that some would suffer the ultimate punishment, he is not omnibenevolent. In this case, humans are merely a means to an end. I never concede God's omniscience. I show in my argument that if God is omniscient he cannot also be omnibenevolent. Voting Issues 1) Pro never gives reason that God is omniscient and omnibenevolent. He fails to meet his burden, so at the very least votes should go to 'tied'. 2) God sanctions slaughter in the Bible. A good with infinite goodwill should not hold ill will against some people. By ordering the slaughter of innocents. He is showing these people ill will, not goodwill. This is not omnibenevolence. 3) Creating humans was definitely not benevolent. Again, let us assume that God is omniscient. Let's pretend that he creates a man by the name of Joe Smith. Joe Smith will eventually become a serial killer, go to jail, and end up in Hell. Before he even created Adam and Eve, God knew what Joe would do. Even though he had this foreknowledge, God allowed Joe to kill many people and go to Hell. An omnibenevolent God wouldn't create people who would go to Hell - a truly omnibenevolent God would prevent this from happening. Please don't allow Pro to make any new arguments in round 4. He's had 3 full rounds to provide proof of God's omnibenevolence and omniscience. He has failed to do so, making the assumption that both are true. I can't rebut any new arguments he brings up. Thank you, and vote Con! The Bible