BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US Should Abolish the Electoral Collage

I believe that the Electoral college should be replaced with the popular vote instead. First off, there is uneven voting power based on where you live. According to FairVote.org, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College(1). So, with the electoral collage, we are putting into place that some peoples vote is more important than others. The second flaw with the electoral collage is that there have been instances in which the winner of the popular vote did not win the presidency. Also from FairVote, As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a president to be elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. Andrew Jackson and Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876 respectively, only to see someone else walk into the White House. So because of these two flaws, we should get rid of the Electoral Collage. (1)http://www.fairvote.org...
Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

I would like this to be a reasonable debate. Pro assumes the case of Albert Snyder, and Con will assume the Westboro case. Primarily, this scopes the right to privacy and to grieve vs. the constitutional amendment to protest under the First Amendment. The only rule is that you can not use the Supreme Court ruling as evidence in the debate. Good luck in the debate, Con. =Opening Statement= In a nation ravenged by war, it is universally beholden as truth that the lives given to protect another in our military are sacred and consecreated. "We have come to dedicate a portion of (this) field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives so that a nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract." (Abraham Lincolin, Gettysburg Address) The story is one of sorrow. A young Marine, Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, gave his life for our country's survival. On the beginning of a quiet day of his funeral, with his parents, friends and family grieving at his memory and ultimate sacrifice, cries rang through the air. Let it be known that on that solemn day, there was a protest held at his funeral, with claims "Thank God for dead soldiers." and "Praise God for dead soldiers/Thank God for 9/11!" What I say is not an exaggeration, though I wish it was. According to wphtv.com "The group said soldiers deserve to die for fighting for a country that tolerates homosexuality." =Contentions= 1. The right to protest should not overlap a right to privacy and to grieve. The goal of the church was to demonstrate him and his death, not as an honored sacrifice, but as a dishonorable attempt to protect an undeserving country. They held this protest immediately outside, and at the same time, as the funeral process. This was to intentially and maliciously damage the memory of this soldier. He will be dead forever, yet they chose his burial time, the peak time of his death, to dishonor him. 2. It was the intention of the church to damage the memory of this soldier and harm his family and friends. At the loss of their only son, the family grieved as best as they could with the cries that his death was deserved barraging them. I would like the audience to imagine the incident, close your eyes for a moment if you will and really envision it. Someone you love, dead, dying to defend the rights of people. Meanwhile, people exercise the rights Snyder died for to dishonor his memory and sacrifice. =Conclusion= I stand firm that the protest should have been carried out at a different time or a different place at the time of the funeral, so it would not lap over the right to grieve. What they did was reprehensible, and it was their intention to harm and is so their claim that he deserved to die because he defends a country that is "tolerant" of homosexuals. 1. http://www.kake.com...... 2. http://www.whptv.com......
Snyder vs. Wesboro Baptist Church

Pro, in a debate, the only things that the judges can consider are the arguments that the debaters put forward. Judges are supposed to base their decisions on the arguments presented to them. This is why your assertion that there is a right to privacy is not an argument – you didn't prove it. Where is your evidence? The constitutional amendments you cite state that there are other rights, but they obviously don't list them. Throughout this debate you have not ever presented a case for your claim that the right to privacy exists or is of equal importance to our way of life as the freedom of speech. Your statements don't qualify as evidence – who are you to speak to the topic? You did not present yourself as a legal expert or a privacy expert, so your assertions are not evidence. The same thing applies also to your statements regarding the right to grieve. Is there such a thing? I honestly don't know, it's not a concept I've ever heard spelled out. We can make assumptions, but without evidence to support your conclusions, these assertions are meaningless. The pro has clearly failed to present a coherent case in favor of the right to privacy or the right to grieve. This leaves the only grounds for debate the Con's arguments regarding the freedom of speech. I have shown conclusively that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech such as that engaged in by the WBC. Using the Pro's own evidence against him, I've demonstrated that the weight of precedent is in favor of the protection of the speech in question. The Pro has thoroughly failed to negate any of my contentions. Based on evidence and logic, rather than emotional appeals, this debate has clearly been won by the Con. I urge you to vote Con. Thank you.
The Power of words and its effects

My opponent claims that technical issues forced him to forfeit round three. As a courtesy, I will note that he offered an argument in the comments section. He referenced the power a one word sign, "DANGER", that "has the authority of warning an observing individual". However, the sign itself has no "Authority". It can merely warn. It cannot enforce. It cannot physically prevent. Traffic cops and parking tickets exist and are needed because people ignore signs every day, all over the world. Police often hide near one word "STOP" signs because drivers routinely ignore them . The same violating drivers normally comply, however, when they hear the "spoken" words "Pull Over", made powerful by armed police over a loudspeaker Unfortunately for Pro, he has once again used a bad example. Even the design of most "Stop" signs and "Danger" signs actually refute his position. They are traditionally painted red, because the words alone are commonly thought to be not bold enough or powerful enough to grab one's attention. In closing, my opponent has been unable to present any examples of a words that, on their own, impose "power". My opening assertion still stands essentially unchallenged, so I will simply repeat it: Words themselves are not powerful. Words merely have the "potential" to be powerful. Power comes from the speaker or the writer, though the "choice" of words. Context, audience and timing all factor into how impactful or powerful the "use" of a word can be. Words can not organize or utter themselves.
The Power of words and its effects

Thanks Pro. It seems you have already conceded. The cons I listed are indeed considerable, and far outweigh the sole example you provided in round two to support your own position. You agreed with one of my points in particular, and offered no rebuttal to the others. Unfortunately for you the sole example you chose to support your own position, was in fact further support of the mine(the Cons). In your example you referenced the response of a person "hearing" an "utterance". An utterance is a "Spoken Word", which is a far different thing than the mere existence of a word. If you consider the reaction of a child hearing a classmate yell "stop" compared the reaction of a child hearing a teacher or a parent yelling "stop", I'm sure you'd recognize that the power is not in the word itself, but "who" spoke it.
The Power of words and its effects

Based on foundational teachings and beliefs within the religious mindset and a few secular mind, it is adapted and believed that the power of life and death lies within the tongue. We all know that based on how an argument, statement or just about any vocal/ audible means of communication has an influential or intimidating effect on its audience weather direct or in directly. It has an effect on an individual consciously or subconsciously that will cause that individual to react to that media transmitted or the transmitter relatively. This issue has now being thrown out for the views of others concerning this topic to be expressed openly and justified based on their faith on this issue. WELCOME ALL?
Atheists do not need a god to be moral.

Ooh, a forfeit. This is interesting. I think we should finish with the debate and have our closing arguments for our final round. So, all of you voters, I would like to thank you for reading our arguments and I hope you vote for whoever you think deserved to win, and I hope you see that a belief in a god, yes, any god (which is why I did not capitalize god), is not required in order to have a sense of right and wrong. I bring the closing to Cailean.
Atheists do not need a god to be moral.

Con said: Just because a leader isn't moral, that doesn't mean that the cause is immoral. Also, that passage from The Bible is not necessarily correct. These stories may have been exaggerated through the years. Don't forget: most Christians follow the Bible word for word. Con said: I also wish to put forward that the worst dictators have been athiest. Hitler, Ghaddafi, etc etc 2 things: atheist*: spelling and grammar matter here. Second, Neither of them were atheists, that is a common thought. Adolf Hitler was very Christian and believed it was God's will that he was killing millions. Gaddafi was a Muslim, according to some research I have just done. Don't believe me? He used arguments in the Quran: http://jpfinn7.wordpress.com... Con said: By definition moral is "descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward...such as a religion". Morals were first created by God and defined in The Bible and without it, there is no incentive for an athiest to be moral. I guess we disagree on the definition of morals. Here's my result: 1. A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. 2. A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. https://www.google.ca... You also bring up the argument that religion is a code of conduct, but that is false. It gives one, but religion is not needed. Also, atheists can still practice religion, but not believe in God, which is the whole of this debate. I await your response.
Atheists do not need a god to be moral.

Prop argument: god is not a requirement for morals, because morals are all personalMy argument: By definition moral is "descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward...such as a religion". Morals were first created by God and defined in The Bible and without it, there is no incentive for an athiest to be moral. Prop argument: My argument: Just because a leader isn't moral, that doesn't mean that the cause is immoral. Also, that passage from The Bible is not necessarily correct. These stories may have been exaggerated through the years.I also wish to put forward that the worst dictators have been athiest. Hitler, Ghaddafi, etc etc
Atheists do not need a god to be moral.

My first point is that a god is not a requirement for morals, because morals are all personal. Morals vary between people, and if a god were to teach all of these morals, everyone of that faith would think the same on topics like gay rights, wars, etc. My next point is that the Judeo-Christian god is not all that moral in and of itself, yet the majority of followers (mind you, not all of them) of these two faiths have morals. For example: 2 Kings 2:23-24 "2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. " In the given example, God smites children for making fun of someone. That definitely does not deserve death, but rather discipline. -=Sources=- . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... -> Bible quote 2 Kings 2:23-24
Atheists do not need a god to be moral.

Dear Opponent, This will be 4 rounds, the first one being an introduction and a greeting. I will be arguing that the topic in question is indeed true. We will have 72 hours to argue, and the voting period is five days. The arguments are limited to 8,000 characters. I look forward to our debate, and at the same time, my first debate on debate.org. Thank you, you may now present yourself. Edit: Time for a clarification: When I refer to being moral, I am saying that you commit good deeds of your own accord and having a sense of right and wrong. When I say atheists do not need a god to be moral, I am giving the argument that a belief in a god is not required for morals. Thanks to the comments for the advice. I'm sorry, but I am not very skilled at debating nor am I experienced in this field.
Should kids eat candy

PRO's only argument is that kids "need sugar to stay alive. " But what PRO fails to acknowledge is that our bodies convert nutrients from foods that we eat into glucose - i. e. , sugar - which is what powers us through the day. By no means is the artificial, incontrovertibly unhealthy components of candy necessary for survival, nor does PRO provide evidence to that effect. What he is referring to - the type of sugar in candy - is ADDED sugar, such as high fructose corn syrup, which contains *no* essential nutrients [. http://authoritynutrition.com...]. In fact, candy is terrible health-wise for the following reasons: I. Too much sugar is unhealthy "Too much sugar of any type in your diet can lead to dental cavities, weight gain and overall poor nutrition, especially if the sugary foods are taking the place of foods containing nutrients and vitamins. The American Heart Association says that women and men should consume no more than 100 to 150 calories per day from sugar, respectively. Sugar contains 4 calories per gram. If a candy bar contains over 25 grams of sugar, this is an entire day's worth for a woman. Although, as the American Diabetes Association explains, it is a myth that eating too much sugar causes diabetes, overindulging in sugary foods can definitely raise your blood sugar levels if you already have diabetes; higher blood glucose levels can lead to more diabetic complications. " [. http://www.livestrong.com...] Therefore, the impacts are cavities, weight gain, poor nutrition, and possible diabetic complications. II. Candy contains saturated fat, which is also harmful "Saturated fat plays a major role in the development of high cholesterol, says Medline Plus. High cholesterol can lead to high blood pressure, heart disease and stroke. Each gram of fat contains 9 calories, and calories from saturated fat should make up no more than 10 percent of your total calories. For example, if your regular caloric intake is 1,500 calories, you should consume no more than 150 calories from fat, or just under 17 g of saturated fat, each day. Since one candy bar can contain 11 or more grams of saturated fat, this might put you over your daily allotment when combined with other foods containing saturated fat, such as dairy products, meat, butter and certain oils. " [. http://www.livestrong.com...] Therefore, the impacts are high cholesterol and the possibility of heart disease and stroke, both of which can induce death. III. Added sugar is harmful The added sugar found in candy can induce addiction, cancer, liver, obesity (where "each daily serving of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with a whopping 60% increased risk of obesity"), metabolic complications, and even insulin resistance - which is also a problem because a poor diiet can induce diabetes [. http://authoritynutrition.com...].For
The concept of "Zero" proves that nothing can actually be treated as something!

"Zero" is a number that can have other numbers applied to it through operators to result in a non-zero number. My opponent will be arguing that nothing cannot always be treated this way.An operator can be the following and more: + , - , x, /, ^. I'm defining a non-zero number as a positive or negative rational number (rational numbers are fractions). I urge my challenger to be creative in this debate but to consult logic and established on this subject. It's intended to be a learning experience for both us!Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines zero as:(1) a. The arithmetical symbol 0 denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.b. The number between all negative numbers and all positive numbers.c. A value of an independent variable that makes a function (Y; which can consist of multiple operators, constants and variables) equal to zero [1].Remember that the challenger must show that the concept of nothing cannot always be treated as the concept of zero.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The concept of "Zero" proves that nothing can actually be treated as something!

Often, people tend to think of nothing as void of anything; a condition where absolutely nothing exist. But quantum mechanics doesn't treat empty space as genuinely empty - but a condition where something does exist, but in a completely neutral form! The concept of "zero" has merit here. The physicist Paul Dirac showed that "empty space" could be treated as consisting of a bunch of tightly-packed electrons with negative charge. He proposed that when a little electron was knocked-out of its place, a little hole of positive charge was left behind. However, as long as the negatively-charged electron was secure in its place (not knocked-loose), the negative and positive charges would cancel out, resulting in a charge of "zero" for space. His idea would later be verified with the discovery of the positively-charged positron, demonstrating that physical space could be treated as an idealized condition of "zero", flanked by virtual particles that pop into existence consisting of charges with positive and negative rational magnitudes (examples: -4, -2.8, +1, +9.5).But zero can be applied to other problems as well. Let's say we have a fruit basket without any fruit. It contains no fruit! Now add 2 oranges to the basket (0 + 2 ) and we now have a fruit basket with 2 fruits in it! In a variety of ways, genuine nothing can be treated as zero of something.My position is that nothing can be treated as a physical manifestation of "zero", but that it can materialize into "something" when the zero-condition becomes unbalanced.Con will take the position that nothing cannot be treated as zero (or cannot always be treated as zero). He will provide arguments to support his position and to criticize mine.ROUND 1 is for acceptance only. (Serious debaters only.)
A nation with only one political party functions better than one with two.

1. Republicans do have a set of principles that guide them. This is what makes them republican. Not my opinion. 2. Though the US is not a Christian nation, it is made up of predominately Christians, especially in certain regions of the country. 3. I could use the Bible to prove my point about gays, but I am sure that you do not want to hear it. I will simply say that my opinion differs. 4. My issue is not about a war between the two nations, I am simply trying to make this debate about the two nations benefiting politically and socially, particularly socially. 5. By stating that they agree with most people, I am not saying that everyone will be the same. I am stating that most people would agree on many issues with slight discrepancies. For example, one person may be completely pro life but another may be pro life except for rape cases. Both are pro life, one is just conditional. 6. Cutting back on bipartisanship is a good thing. Or at least it is not as bad as keeping it. You are saying that it is better for disagreeing parties to reach a stalemate because none can agree, then to all just agree and get something done. 7. The final point that you are providing is me saying that instead of continuing on a path of increasing separation, we could the republican nation on a path to better agree(one major strategy of persuasion is agreement with opposition, Republicans can better agree with other republicans who are their opposition. This means that the republican being persuaded is more likely to switch.). The same goes for the democrats. I will save my remaining points for my closing arguments.