BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Orleans Saints beat the Redskins recently with heart and skill, not luck

This will be my first debate, so I would like to open by inviting whoever takes up the Con position to politely correct my protocol if necessary. First, I submit the following limiting parameter for the debate: The referees called the game in a completely impartial manner. No calls were made which were blatantly incorrect, therefore the outcome of any particular reviewed play is not admissible as evidence to attempt to disprove my position. Furthermore, it is assumed that any penalties committed were called. Thus, we will avoid the pitfall of debating "what ifs", which is immaterial. It is undeniable fact that the New Orleans Saints won. I am taking the position that they won by outplaying the Redskins and not through blind luck. To support my position I submit the following key statistics from the game, available from nfl.com ( http://www.nfl.com... ) : The Saints out-gained the redskins by 8 yards (463-455) The Saints Had possession of the ball for longer (35:06 - 31:23) The Saints were +2 in takeaways in this game: Saints lost 1 fumble and 1 int while taking 1 int and 3 fumbles from the Redskins. The Saints managed to win the game despite having 102 yards in penalties called as opposed to the Redskins' 15. In anticipation that my opponent will bring up the missed field goal by the Redskins as evidence that the Saints were allowed to "stay in the game" due to circumstances beyond their control, I will address this situation as follows: I will argue that a professional kicker should be able to make such an easy field goal most of the time, BUT could be expected to miss if he feels overly hurried by the opposing teams defense. If the Saints special teams unit had not been doing their job so well, it is highly likely that the Redskins' kicker would have made the shot easily. Furthermore, there is no evidence that if the field goal had been made the games outcome would have been determined either way. On the possession following the field goal the saints scored very quickly. They also had the last possession in regulation time with 28 seconds on the clock. While this isn't a lot of time to score, it is certainly possible, especially for the NFL's top rated offense. The Saints had touchdowns on 3 plays of over 30 yards, thus it had been proven that the Saints' receivers were capable of outplaying the Redskins' secondary if necessary. Finally I will point out that the Saints lost the coin toss going into overtime, which put them at a sever disadvantage due to the "sudden death" nature of NFL overtime rules. The Saints' defense stepped up and forced a fumble from the Redskins' offense, which set up the game winning field goal. The particular sequence of events during this game made for an exciting and close game, which many people feel the Redskins could have or even SHOULD have won. At the end of the day, the game was extremely close but it was the Saints who made the big plays when necessary and walked away with the "W".
The New Orleans Saints beat the Redskins recently with heart and skill, not luck

I too wish to extend thanks to my opponent, this was a rare break from politics to something where I am more comfortable. I will only address two main sections of my opponent's response, as I believe them to be the central factors in this debate. Firstly, the kick by Shaun Suisham which (fittingly) is what this debate seems to have centered around. The fact of the matter is that the Saints did not put any pressure on Suisham OR the holder on the kick in question. I will provide video evidence of my claim. I apologize for the crude language it contains but I could not find another video. http://www.youtube.com... As we can see, Suisham's kick is clearly in the air before the closest Saints defender even rounded the edge of the Redskins blocking formation. Also, the blocking in the center held the Saints' special teams well within acceptable limits, and that simply put, for no visible reason, the field goal was not made. Secondly, my opponent made the rather absurd claim that the field goal would not have iced the game. Now, there are many things I am prepared to accept. We're talking about the NFL, and insane things are part of the history of the league. But a two possession lead with less than 2 minutes remaining is something VERY few teams are able to come back from. Here's what would have had to happen for the Saints to actually mount a successful comeback if that field goal was MADE. Firstly, they would have to go probably something around 75 yards depending on the kick return. Now the way both defenses were playing, this is not ridiculous. But they would have to do it WITH NO TIME OUTS. They would have had to score some form of points. They would then have to recovery the onside kick, which is one of the more difficult things to do in pro football. The conversion rate is something like 10%. I wish I had a source, but I'm watching Sportscenter and Rick Reilly just gave me the statistic so I'm running with it. Then, they would have to have gone ANOTHER 60 or so yards AGAIN with no timeouts when the Redskins would SURELY be doing everything in their power to defend. The odds are so stacked against the Saints winning a 2 possession game with 1:52 seconds left that it's pretty much ridiculous to say that they would've had a shot to win. Ladies and gentlemen, the fact of the matter is that the Redskins DID outplay the Saints, and it was only through a missed field goal and a turnover that 99/100 will not happen again did the Saints come out on top. The Redskins made the plays, but the Saints got the breaks and that's the truth of the matter. I've enjoyed this debate immensely, and I sincerely believe everyone who watched the game knows the Saints were badly outplayed and apart from a few very bad breaks that went against Washington, it wasn't even close.
The trinity doctrine is fundamentally flawed.

I think you need to read my first argument again. I agree with everything you have stated so far. But you are missing my main point. Can you differentiate between God the Father and GOD? I don't think you can. Therefore, God is made up of 3 parts with one of the three parts being equal to himself. Look. GOD = GOD the Father + God the Son + God the holy spirit but GOD = God the Father because there is no difference between the two. Now on the other hand you can differentiate between Jesus and God. You can also differentiate between God and the Holy spirit. But there is no differentiation between God and God the Father. I have no problem with God having 3 parts. But I do have a problem with one of those 3 parts being God himself. I'm going to give you one more example. Lets say I split some object in 3 parts. One of those 3 parts cannot be equal to the original object. This is just logic. So again, the trinity doctrine is based on flawed logic.
The trinity doctrine is fundamentally flawed.

Simply put. God the Father=God the Son=Holy Spirit. All three make up God. IT seems confusing but in reality it is not. It is a perpetual state of existing as one being, whereas also existing as three. God just takes it upon himself to exist in three forms while still maintaining the status of existing as one being. Certain ideas like this cannot be perfectly understood by human beings, because God IS on another playing field where our worldly ideas are only relative to our world. He thinks and exists in another form of being.
The trinity doctrine is fundamentally flawed.

The trinity doctrine can be best summed up by the following expression: God = God the Father + God the Son + God the holy spirit (It's important to note that the trinity doctrine does state that there is only ONE God but made up of 3 "parts" for lack of a better word.) Now according to the Bible, God the Father is God. So therefore our expression would transform into: God = God + God the son + God the holy spirit Now assuming that there is ONE GOD which the bible clearly states, then according to the trinity, GOD is made up of 3 parts that consist of GOD himself, God the Son, and God the holy spirit. Tell me how in the world can God be included as one of the 3 parts that make up GOD. The logic here is fallacious. This exposes the inherent logical fallacy that we call the trinity.
Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.

The resolution is Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens.This is intended to be an LD debate. If you do not intend to debate it as if it were such a thing, or are unfamiliar with the technicalities and terminology of LD debate, please refrain from accepting. All types of case structures are acceptable. The round structure will break down like this:Round One: Neg presents debate, Aff posts caseRound Two: Neg case + rebuttals, Aff rebuttalsRound Three: Neg Rebuttals, Aff rebuttals. No new arguments may be used in the final round. Good luck to whomever accepts.
abortion

My opponent's first argument begins with an over-rationalization. She maintains that because killing is "wrong", therefore abortion is also "wrong". However, this assumption is wrong -- killing in it of itself is perfectly okay. From hunting, to fishing, to the zooplankton in our toothpastes, killing occurs all the time. What I believe my opponent was trying to say though, was that the forced termination of human life is "wrong". That it true, and I will not attempt to argue that point. However, a fetus is NOT a human being. Wiktionary, for instance, defines a human being as, "A human being, whether man, woman, or child; Of or belonging to the species Homo sapiens or its closest relatives. " There is no mention of fetuses anywhere in that definition. And in fact, if you can find a mainstream, unbiased source (from a dictionary, online dictionary, or otherwise) that defines humans to include fetuses, I will forfeit the sources vote. Furthermore, your conception of the word "killing" is also flawed. If we can assume that preventing life to become life is in fact killing, then every moment you are not engaging in the act of reproduction, you are killing potential life. That notion, however, is quite ridiculous; your idea of disallowing abortion is similarly outlandish. Therefore, the idea of "potential life" is neither equatable, nor comparable with actual life. But even if a fetus were a human being, its "rights" still would not trump the rights of the mother. Who are we to expect pregnant women to voluntarily donate their body and life support systems to something else? Who are we to force a mother to devote eighteen years to taking care of a child? That is both unreasonable, and, arguably, sexist. Therefore, my opponent's argument that abortions deprive the rights of future humans should be ignored. Besides, even if abortions were made illegal, women would still seek them, and this would be extremely dangerous. According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them. " When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics. Her third point is that some women will feel sad for having an abortion. .. um. .. so what? ! Feeling bad is not reason to disallow abortion. To bring unwanted children in this world. To force women to bear a child. That is absurd, and only an appeal to emotion. But above all, the fundamental reason darkprincess expresses her opinion this way in her oppening argument, is because she wants to inflict her morals upon the different people around her. (That is the basis to her second point. ) The government has absolutely no right to control the morals of its people, and above all, that is why you must allow abortions.
abortion

Abortion killing a living being that lives within the woman womb... does it not say in the bible as one of the ten commandments "thou shalt not murder."? On abortion aren't we doing just that very thing, Yes, we are. I come now to define my first key word Murder: deprive or take someone's life. Isn't that enough just to say this act of selfishness is wrong. Someone who wants a abortion is murdering a life, depriving a life of what it may have become. My second standing point is why would you have sex when you realized the risk of a pregnancy If you did not want such a thing then why did you not have sex with a condom, birth control or both for all I care. Because you made the mistake of having unprotected sexual relations between someone and you ended up pregnant you decide to kill because you don't want the responsibility, the burden of such a beautiful. My third standing point is what you would suffer if you had an abortion. Some say you can't get depressed over something like an aborted fetus, but aha your wrong. Some in the littlest time get attached knowing that they made the baby and that there was finally something in this world that would love them no matter what. Yes the realization of such a thing is pretty incredulous. Vote Con because every child should have a family. Thank you.
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

1. Mob vote would less extreme in a Democratic vote since everyone's vote is equal, One for one. Like I said, If people are in a certain area, Then it would be easy to win the electoral college, And in a way mob vote in the electoral college has already happened. Just look at the Blue Wall and Red Wall respectively, States apart of those walls will always firmly vote Democratic or Republican and rarely flip. While 2016 did see key flips that costed the Democrats the election, Those states are still considered Democratic Leaning. 2. You have yet to prove how the electoral college makes smaller states more equivalent to larger ones, All the electoral college does is make votes from small states useless. If you took California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, And New Jersey by just a margin of 1 vote, And everyone else in the states voted against you 100% along with DC, You would win with just 23% of the vote. Seems like the other states are pretty useless if you have positive polls in those states. Not to mention the argument that states that have fewer people for electoral votes is bogus, Please do explain why 4 electoral votes is more powerful than 55? Which one will bring me closer to 270, The smallest state or largest state in the union? 3. Sure, I'll explain more about Gerrymandering. When drafting districts, Sometimes people with their own intentions make them so that as many as their opponent's supporters are in in district but at little as possible to prevent a flip. This is the largest issue that can't be addressed by the Electoral College.
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

Mob rule in a popular vote would be way more common than an electoral college, Because people don't have to be at a certain location. It is meant to hear minority voices. If democrats, For instance, Win the election just because they got more votes, Then more democrats will come to the country. This could overthrow the constitutional republic in place. If the majority gets a dub, Then minority voices are not heard. "Next, I"d like to mention how the electoral college has failed to make smaller states more valuable by making larger states more powerful and smaller ones far weaker. " Well, Of course. If a state had a population of 500, 000 and another state had a pop. Of 3 million, The higher population should be represented by more votes. This system would be unfair because it is actually making the more populated places more equivalent to the smaller populated ones. Actually, The some of the smaller ones are more powerful than bigger ones. For example, Wyoming has 3 electors, Or 1 for every 135k people. California has 55 electors, Or one for every 411k people. This is therefore making Wyoming more powerful than California, But the difference between delegate votes is so minute anyway. For your final paragraph, I am kinda confused. What do you mean about drawing districts and spreading opponents numbers? Can you please explain this in a more simplistic way? Thanks.
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

First of all I"d like to mention how my opponent has stated that the electoral college was made to protect from "mob rule". There is no fear of a mob because there is no mob to fear of. If anything, The electoral college makes rule by mob even more advantageous since you could get away with winning just 30 percent of the popular vote but still becoming president. If a mob of people were to vote for a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Etc. , And voted in the right states, They could sway an election, Though in both this would be hard in practice with an electoral based system and even harder with a democratic based system. Next, I"d like to mention how the electoral college has failed to make smaller states more valuable by making larger states more powerful and smaller ones far weaker. In the electoral college, Winning the state of Rhode Island would be no big deal, It"s just 4 electoral votes, But if I won California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and the other big electoral states, I would be eccentric. Those states are the states needed to win the electoral college, Plus a few more. If more than 70% of the nation could vote against you, Along with more than half of the states of the US vote against you, And you can still win, There is a huge issue that would be troubling to address. And finally, Another issue of the electoral college is that there is the extremely problematic Gerrymandering, The process of drawing districts by spreading out your opponents numbers thin to prevent them from having an impact, Going back to the previous issue stated. This move is very problematic as it prevents a fair and honest election, And makes elections a partisan business, Defeating the purpose of electing officials by the people, And instead making the people in power who draft districts the people who decide elections. This process is actually worse than one with mob rule, As corruption and greed can get in the way of something that should be a fair and honest practice. Using a democratic process would solve all issues stated above and would not make the mob a threat (If anything, The electoral college could actually boost mobs if they are in the right spots at the right time). Fair and honest elections are the way to go, As that is a crucial part of true Republicanism, Where the people elect politicians to represent them. The electoral college is a broken and unfair system that needs to be removed. The longer it stays, The more un-democratic and un-republican practices continue to harm the United States.
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

1. Al Gore lost by 537 votes after an intense recount process. Bush had a gain of 5 electoral votes by the end of the election. If Gore had won just ONE small state, He would have won the election. Small population and states do matter. What the electoral college does is makes minorities more powerful than a large group overpowering you. Popular vote would make minorities(i. E. Farmers in Wyoming) an equal vote to larger groups voting(like democrats for ex. ). What the electoral college does is makes smaller states and minorities more powerful by a) making electors based on population size, Which I already explained that Wyoming has more electors based on population than California, A swarm for liberals(protecting the minorities in Wyoming), And b) having 2 senators, Which make two electors regardless of population, Therefore making smaller populations equal to larger ones in that sense. 4. Yes, Swing states change which is a good thing. You have to win small states, As well. Swing states are important because they can go either way, And have more electors because the population size is bigger. If Hillary had won four small states that ranged in electors from 7-10, She would have won the election. 5. In the 2016 election, There were 7 faithless electors. 5 were caught leaving only 2 electors, Which would not have changed the outcome of the election. I agree that it is a problem, And it should be addressed. I assume with all the technology today it could easily be prevented, But I guess it hasn't yet. 6. Congress would decide a tie, One vote per state, To break a tie. The states are almost even, Slightly to the right if republicans controlled a few of the "either way" states. The problem with a democratic vote in a tiebreaker is that there could be many fake votes and uncounted votes. Many republicans believe Trump would have won the popular vote since they believe many votes were skewed for Hillary. 8. True Third parties never win in America, Everyone votes either left or right. Bernie Sanders ran for the democrats, Didn't e? He is a socialist. America has been a constitutional-republic by design. If we were to become a democracy, It could go one way every time eventually to the point where one party controls the nation, Leading to a possible abuse of power and not a fair system to protect other voices and minorities voices. How would you like it if it only took majority vote to pass crucial decisions and legislation? Then the leading party could vote for their political purposes and it would not be good.
A Presidential Election Based on a Popular Vote Would Be Absurd

1. At least the votes of every person is accounted for versus in the electoral college were 100% of the electoral vote goes to the winner despite winning by 1 vote. The closest we have had to this happening as far as I can remember was in the election of 2000. If the oversees ballots were not accounted for in Florida (They were late but were required to be accounted for), Al Gore would had won with just 60 Votes and take all of it's Electoral Votes. 4. Swing states can change out of no where is the reason why they are so important and make smaller states become worthless not to mention become dangerous. These states are the states that you have to get in order to win the White House with confidence. It's hard to win without them as they are the largest states by electoral count. 5. Faithless electors are electors that vote for someone who wasn't the person that won the state's votes. If Al Gore had just 4 faithless electors beside him for example, He would had won the presidency. This is a huge issue that should be addressed, A states electoral votes should still go to the winner. 6. Ties may be rare, But they are still a possibility. In elections, Extremely close votes are bad enough as they make the winner give up or compromise policies that they were hard-line on, And in a Democratic Vote and the Electoral college this is a possibility. But what differs Democratic vote from the electoral college is that ties are near impossible. You'd have to be really unlucky to get an exact tie. In the Electoral college this is a possibility that may have yet to have taken place but is still fathomable. And like I said, The vote gets tossed to the house where states with equal representatives are screwed if 1 person doesn't cross the line and their votes are nullified. 8. Third Parties would win more if the Electoral college was removed, Just look at the United Kingdom for Example. It's not just The Conservatives and Labours (The Republican and Democratic Parties of the UK) in their House of Commons (The House of Representatives In The UK) but also the Liberal Democrats (Or Liberal Dems), Sinn F"in, Democratic Unionist (Despite the name they are actually extremely right wing), Plaid Cymru, Scottish National Party, Etc. Here in the US its Republicans, Democrats, And 2 Independents, Both of which I can name, Angus King and Bernie Sanders. Now tell me that isn't an issue. 9. Unless the candidate is extremely moderate, Usually votes are only taken by one side. That random dude from Utah was more moderate compared to Trump and Hillary, But still a conservative. This stole the more conservative vote from Hillary by a large margin as they could vote for someone who found Trump too bitter to swallow but at least wasn't as bad as Hillary.