BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

I would like to point out that once again you failed to answer any of my arguments. Because you have failed to answer them, you have conceded them and forfeited this debate. Once again, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF CONGRESS IS BAD. I've already explained to you why that them killing themselves would NOT be the best option and that even if it was TEMPORARILY it would not have any effect in the long run. If you didn't see this, please refer back to my 2nd and 3rd round arguments. Thank you for posting your argument this round. I was happy to debate this although, (in a joking tone) your dictionary is a little wierd.
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

Well here's the budget. $3.4 tril. Just do the math. That's ten thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in the U.S. 2005 Median Household income: $44,473 http://www.census.gov... Say thirty thou after taxes. So for a family of four this budget will cost them their entire income plus another $5527. OK the war. http://www.war-times.org... http://www.veteransforpeace.org... http://www.forpeace.net... http://www.antiwar.com... http://www.iwpr.net... After just over six years of war approaching a hundred thousand civilian deaths http://www.iraqbodycount.org... 4278 military dead 700 per year Active-duty suicides now exceed combat casualties. http://ptsdcombat.blogspot.com... For every dead there are a hundred so emotionally traumatized they cannot function in society. We have no idea how to treat this condition. They cannot hold a job but there aren't any anyway so that's no problem. This pool is growing at the rate of roughly 70,000 per year, say about 427,000 right now. Say 854,000 in another six years y = 260 of them also committed suicide last year, about .06%. So if w = number of years of war, y = 43w and total suicides = 43w(w + 1)/2 You do the math.
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

My opponent has ignored all my resolutions and arguments from the previous rounds and so has conceded them. < > That's not what "best" means. If something is better than option A, than option A is not the best option. If you wanted it to mean "anything better than what they are doing now" then you should have made the resolution "A Better Thing Congress Can Do Now is Adjourn" or something of the like. < > Your arguments ARE irrelevant to the resolution. I understand that you and many others (including myself) believe that Congress is not doing a lot of good things right now. However, to claim that the best option is for them to committ suicide you would have to PROVE that there are no better options. I have already given a couple situations that are much better on the whole. < > If you believe that then you have already conceded and lost. < > So you want to talk about the current legislation? Well, if I'm understanding you correctly then you should go talk about it in the forums. You're trying to spread this debate into something it's not. The debate is talking about Congress killing themselves, not what Congress is trying to pass. My opponent has completely ignored all my arguments and has gone on a rant about irrelvancy. He refused my earlier reasons for the irrelevancy of his posted arguments but still went on about it in this round. I would like to ask that my opponent actually answers my arguments in the following rounds. Good luck.
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

By "best" I mean "anything better than what they are doing now." Speaking generally now, and not about anyone in particular, when your opponent is ignoring your arguments, saying they are irrelevant, it is your job to make them relevant. You have to first address the irrelevance issue. Contnuing to provide data or arguments which are arguably irrelevant is arguably irrelevant. Why are your arguments relevant and your opponent's not? You have to establish this by value. You have to prove that your approach has more value than your opponent's. The best way to spell out in detail the value of your approach is to establish criteria for approaches. If you are going to select an approach, what would give it value? What values are you upholding? What criteria would support those values and how, and how would your approach meet those criteria, and your opponent's not? In the same way the primmary issue is debated, the relevance issue must be debated. It is not sufficient to cry "irrelevant" because then you sound exactly like your opponent and who wants that? You have to establish that your approach is superior because your values are superior. And that's not enough, since your opponent will also have a similar argument. You have to attack his values. Again, I am not simply proposing this as a remedy for the present situation, but rather as a matter of concern to all. If we can solve the problem of mutual irrelevance we have opened up doors that are now closed to us. I am proposing a general approach to better communication that could be profitably adopted by all. In the present case, for example, is debating whether Congress killing all lobbyists, for example, before committing mass suicide would be preferable to simply committing mass suicide more productive than analysing proposed legislation? That is the question before us. My criteria for selecting an approach are that I would like it to be informative and stimulating. It should inform about pending legislation, and stimulate discussion thereabout. These criteria support the values of better government by promoting an infomed citizenry that takes an interest in its government. My opponent's approach does not, and in fact has negative value. In a classroom it would be called disruptive. There are people who follow debates for some reason. Anyone following this debate might reasonable expect to learn something about Congress. Now we have to spend time dealing with a disruptive student, taking away from the stimulating discussion about Congress. My opponent could be simulated with a computer. His approach is nonproductive at best. It should be discouraged.
Islam honors the last true muslim to leave islam

My opponent argues that there is no honour in killing the last Muslim, yet the resolution pertains to proving "Islam honors the last true muslim to leave islam". It is possible that what my opponent writes is true (yet he uses no sources to verify his words) *and* the resolution remains unproven -- even if there is no honour in killing the last Muslim, this does not prove that "Islam honors the last true muslim to leave islam". In other words, my opponent has failed to link what he writes to the resolution, thus it remains unproven. Since the resolution remains unproven, Con wins by default.
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

1. Why don't we keep our current system of state issues being controlled by the states, instead of 5 small councils. 2. You are encroaching on the political freedom of voting for anyone who did not graduate from high school, such as anyone with a GED. Because by definition, a GED is not a high school diploma. 3. & New Point 1: My opponent contradicts there self here. If the 70 are merely an opinion, and the country does all the voting, but the people don't deal with small issues, then who does? Also, how do we have a good and not easily corruptible method of determining which issues the people vote on? New Point 2: Look I am not going to argue the gun vs people killing people. But I agree gun safety is an issue. What I am saying is you are arguing over current government institutions and saying we must uphold them, which proves our current government and institutions work! New Point 3: I have already addressed this twice, I have listed numerous things our government does well and refuted the handful of examples you have brought up, therefore I am holding my end of the agreement. My New System: Agreed, but this once again proves that there isn't a better system then our current one. Judicial Cherokee Argument: I am not completely familiar with this one case where the judicial check failed, but can you provide any other glaring errors or do you just have this one example. Every system will fail occasionally, we are human. Legislative: Your new 70 will still be a legislative branch, and yes shouldn't legislation benefit constituents? If it only benefits congress we can have a presidential veto, which you are against and think needs to be changed, but once again proves this is a good thing and our current system should remain in place. Recall elections and congress investigations do deal with corruption. Executive: He does not have too much power, just because you don't agree with Obama's policies does not mean you need a complete new government. It is beneficial to have a one-person section to lead our government and act as a figurehead in international relations. Without this nothing would get done. We are NOT DEBATING OBAMA or how great/terrible of a president he is. New Things to Add to Good Things in our Current Government: Live Constitution, Multiple Political Parties, Mostly Free Market, Checks & Balances, Diplomats, Funding for Education, Infrastructure, Military, and more! I return the compliment and gratitude for this excellent debate. I think we both are looking out for the benefit of our country!
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

1. I did indeed state that we are one nation, I agree that our nation is too large to be governed by one council, maybe a council of five in each state to report to the 70 2. I am merely stating that a person should have a high school diploma before they can vote, not tampering with people's rights. besides, it is not like we have much say in the government now. 3. I have stated that the 70 would, as far as voting goes, be no more than an opinion, guidance if you will. The people of the country would do all the voting. new point 1: I did not say that the people would vote over the small things, that is what the 70 is for, the 70 would have power to make some large decisions alone, would also be able to propose different large decisions that they don't have the power to make. new point 2: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Gun violence is an issue, tighter security in many public areas could solve that. and I never stated that there wouldn't be a new bill of rights new point 3: my opponent has still failed to comply with his end of the agreement my new system: I agree that we should stop talking about that, forgive me, I went in a wrong direction As well I apoligise, When I said government,what I meant was "congress" if what my opponent meant by that was the three branches of government starting with judicial: when the Cherokee Indians won their battle the judicial branch had no power to enforce it. When the whole second amendment thing was going on, the judicial branch was alright with it by ignoring the second amendment and saying that when it was written, that our forefathers were talking about muskets. Legislative: there are many cases in which someone in power sets a law in motion from which there is personal gain to be had. there is no longer a need for this branch. There is also no way of dealing with corruption Executive: The president has too much power, And don't get me started with obama, well, this would be a good start: . http://www.frontpagemag.com... continuing with Executive: The president has been tried throughout history, but never actually been removed because of the influence he has on this country.
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

1. Our nation is too large to be treated as one nation, for example Montana is a complete different setting from Florida, therefore there are regions. 2. Exactly you are still tampering with people's political freedoms. 3. People are going to have different opinions, so if you only have one group deciding everything without letting people voice their opinions, that isn't fair or a true representation. 4. You have only provided these examples, so I am not ignoring any faults that you have mentioned. Secondly, by proving all your faults to be not true I am proving the whole government doesn't need to be scrapped. New Point 1: We have a representation system so your say is electing all of our officials. If we had to vote in every decision, nothing would get done and it wold cost exorbitant amounts to do so. So in the case of prosecuting officials, it can't be done by the public in large settings, such as the federal government. It has to be done in congress or the judicial system as it is in our government. New Point 2: You claim that right now the 2nd Amendment is being trampled on, but the bill of rights is part of our government. Completely re-developing our government eliminates the bill of rights, so you can't use that as an argument for something we should protect. The Supreme Court can repeal any legislation that prevents you from bearing arms as part of the checks and balances. In addition, no law has banned weapons, they have just made them safer for the general public in a effort to decrease gun violence. New Point 3: I am, quote "Burden of proof for failure lies mainly on pro." I can't argue over things, because I believe our government should mainly stay intact. We have a system for changing laws, for electing officials, for keeping our rights, for prosecuting criminals, term limits, social programs, important governmental agencies, and so much more that is good. This is the government, if you wanna re-design our entire government, you must prove the vast majority is bad. So unless you can prove the bulk of the programs/abilities listed are bad, you have not proved your case. Your New System: First of all we are mainly arguing over the current system, but I want to prove your proposal is worse in the long run. One, how are these people run decisions going to be handled, you have to have someone running them. That someone is the government and has to be, there is no other way. Plus, as I pointed out making the people vote will cost a lot monetarily and time wise. With current polling numbers, we wouldn't even get a good representation of the populous anyways, and with increased elections it would decrease further. We can't just try our political officials randomly, everyone would any politician they don't like. Your proposing an oligarchy not democracy, so if you believe in democracy your proposal fails. In addition, what happens to rest of government, because if this is your only change, you are only modifying Congress, not the entire US government.
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

1 there is no need for regions, this is after all, one country 2 I said with at least high school education, I never said that it had to be on policies, it could be on wisdom, choices, or even what choices would be good, this test would require studying, and it's not like our political freedom really counts as it stands. Basic information should be free, if high school has already been failed, then the country would pay for any education after year 4. If high school was failed, then we would be trusting part of the future to someone who didn't pass high-school. You were right, I never stated why 2 was needed, 2 is nessecary to make sure our voters know at least something about the country, these tests could be taken as many times as needed, and studying supplies would be provided. 3 Mark 3:35 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand." a group of 70 or so people to oversee that the people are not making stupid laws. there is no need to have a divided government, if we all stood as one, we would be stronger, people could still have their opinions and act as they please, so long as it does not get in the way of justice. my opponent is ignoring many important faults and calling them "small examples" my opponent also stated "1. Both sides must prove a majority of the government needs to be scrapped, not just a few small examples." he has failed to do this, failed to state that a majority needs to be scrapped at all. New point 1. The average person has no power in the government for things such as punishing the wrongdoings of any one official, no power to do that at all really, as it stands, the people have no say in the government aside from electing small officials. New point 2. the bill of rights is currently being trampled on, for example the second amendment, the people should have the power to defend their rights, currently, it's up to the people in congress to decide if we will be their slaves or not, guess what power hungry humans will choose. New point 3 my opponent needs to carry out his end of the deal this group of 70 people that I earlier proposed would have some power and would not be able to give themselves more, whereas the current government can, (patriot act) the people could grant temporary extra power to the government, these government officials would A. not be payed and B have few powers such as the 70 controlling the army, not one man. the people would easily be able to review any one of the 70 and have them tried a court room with a lawyer chosen by the court.
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

My opponents points so far: 1. Electoral College 2. Voting Restrictions 3. Veto Power for President is Bad 4. President is too Powerful As my opponent and I agreed, he has main burden of prove and I will mainly rebut his points. 1. Electoral College The electoral college is a system that was originally developed as a method for easy counting of votes and to give every state a fair say. The electoral college ensures that every region retains a certain amount of voting power and ability to put forward its voice. This way smaller regions that have different needs are not completely drowned out by larger regions of America, but the larger regions still retain a larger portion of the vote. In most cases the electoral college still follows the majority and electoral voters do not sway from what their state's voters decide at the polls. 2. Voting Restrictions My opponent's plan for restricting voting to people without a high school education and to only those who can pass certain, not specified tests is a breach of political freedom. Every based on our constitution and founding ideals and principles deserves a voice, and preventing less conventionally educated people or people who fail certain tests debilitates the lower classes and promotes class separation and inequality. We do not know the circumstances of every individual who failed high school anyways. Plus my opponent never allows people with GED's to be allowed to vote as well. The Pro case never gives you an impact on why this is needed or proves it is needed anyways. 3. Veto Power is Bad & 4. President is too Powerful My opponent is concerned with the power of individual segments of the government, i.e. the president, yet is asking to strike down some valuable checks and balances. Our government does have systems in place such as the three separate divisions of government to ensure one section does not get too powerful, and taking away presidential vetoes topples that system. This system also keeps the president in check. In conclusion, my opponent offers few points that hold muster and is talking about smaller reforms in all of his arguments. The case we are arguing is complete overhaul of the entire government. In my framework I stated "Both sides must prove a majority of the government needs to be scrapped, not just a few small examples." So far I have proved the government is for the majority in good standing, whereas my opponent has picked out a few examples, many of which I have refuted.
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

Rule 4: Don't make personal attacks Rule 5: ignore spelling errors Good luck to you too. My argument lies in that our system has failed to adapt to the times as it went by, and that it has partially failed. As my opponent has stated in the comments "mainly electoral college" is not what I am going for, but it is however, a part of my argument. Beginning with the electoral college, the president is not elected based on the people's votes, but on the 538 votes that really matter. We the people of the United States have very little power whatsoever in the government. We can elect certain people into power who's votes ultimately can ACTUALLY decide the president. The electoral college is also flawed in that in order to win, a candidate must receive 270 votes to win, it would have been wiser to elect based on majority, even with an electoral college. The electoral college isn't even necessary anymore. For someone to vote, they should have at least a high-school education, and should have to pass certain tests to have their vote actually count. Democracy was and still is a good idea, however, it went in the wrong direction. The process of making a law involves several tedious steps that are unnecessary and sometimes pointless with the president's veto, and overriding the president's veto is hard and requires two thirds of the vote, not half. Repealing a law often evolves creating a new one, restrictions in this country can't be removed without adding a new one. There SHOULD be review of laws every so often, which only removes laws. The president has too much power, the largest mistake any country has ever made is choosing one man/woman to have a huge influence in government. The president controls the armies, that alone is enough power to corrupt anyone. For example: the Indian removal act, with the Cherokee Indians were forced to leave even after they had won in the courts, because Andrew Jackson simply wouldn't let them stay. I could go on for hours, but I don't want to waste your time.
America's government was built for a different time and no longer works

Hello, I am taking the side that the American government does not need to "scrapped and rebuilt." I would like to clear up a few things before this debate starts: 1. Both sides must prove a majority of the government needs to be scrapped, not just a few small examples. 2. Burden of proof for failure lies mainly on pro. 3. We are arguing over the topic of scrapping ALL of America's government, as stated by my opponent, and completely rebuilding. Since, there seems to be no argument, and my opponent even agreed in comments before I accepted the argument that it is quote "All of the American government," we will use this as our framework. I am looking forward to a friendly, but evidence based debate. I will use my 2nd round to mainly lay out my arguments and use remaining rounds to cross-examine my opponents case, answer and clarify questions about my arguments, as well as sum up the arguments and impacts given. Good luck.
Jahar is innocent. Whoever debates this watch this one hour long documentary.

I. The BOP has not been filledI considered my opponents time on this site would of taught her what a debate looks like. This is not it. The opposition has not provided even a slight resemblance to having argued, and her BOP is 100% negated. If Pro is unwilling to engage in a serious debate, then all points should be forfeited to me.Sorry audience, but me and my opponent have different ideas on what constitutes a debate, and the responcibility of holding a BOP. Perhaps this debate can serve as a lesson to my opponent, and maybe she will not make the same mistake in the future.
Jahar is innocent. Whoever debates this watch this one hour long documentary.

Ok. If it gets messed up we can debate it in the comment section. People at the marathon where the bombs went off say that they were told "it's a drill stay calm" also with all the bomb sniffing dogs that were at the marathon I find it hard to believe that those dogs didn't sniff the bomb. Remember the bag that contained the bomb matched the bags that the navy seal guys were carrying.