BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Britain Should Change Its Voting System To Proportional Representation

In almost all countries with PR systems they tend towards coalition government, this is because it is virtually impossible to gain over 50% of the vote in a European democracy and indeed this has not happened in Britain since 1931. Due to the political situation in Britain and the total lack of ability for the two main parties to cooperate this will likely give increased power to minority political parties, particularly the DUP, LD, UKIP, PC, GP and SNP. None of these parties are supported by anything like the majority of British people and this will likely result in both unpopular and unrepresentative governments. Furthermore there would likely be the problem of minority parties not wanting to work with the main ruling parties (the Liberal Democrats for instance have ruled out coalitions for at least the near future and for many of the nationalist parties there is a good chance that they would want either too much out of a coalition for the main party to be able to enter into coalition with them. This political polarisation and inability to work with the minor parties could lead to a situation where either unrepresentative big tent parties form (see Lebanon) or there are constant problems with forming a coalition as has been seen in Belgium. Furthermore there is the problem of a lack of regional representation under PR where under our current system each constituency is represented in parliament in a PR system we would likely seem an increase in politicians from just a very small number of highly political influential regions or regions where political parties have their base, particularly London and the South East. In addition this could mean that regions without significant political influence could see less governmental assistance to deal with their problems as they cannot directly put massive pressure on one or two elected officials. Furthermore this would lead to a lack of significant representation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and this could result in increased nationalism within these regions In reality however broken our current system is it is likely better than the possible problems caused by PR. However there are plenty of other potential alternatives to both FPTP and PR, the most reasonable to implement one would be AMS as seem in Scotland which provides a degree of PR to mitigate the worst effects of FPTP while also maintaining regional representation and preventing the necessity for coalition governments (although they would likely still increase in frequency).
Britain Should Change Its Voting System To Proportional Representation

My first argument is simply that the British voting system of first past the post is extremely unrepresentative of the views of the British people. For instance in the 2015 General Election the UK independence party got 12.6% of the vote. However they only received 1 out of 650 members of parliament. On the other hand the Scottish National Party got 4.6% of the vote yet they received 56 out of 650 members of parliament. There are dozens more examples like this where the opinions of the people are not represented in parliament. Also in many constituencies most of the electors in that constituency did not vote for the elected representative. For instance in the constituency of Stirling only 37% of voters were supported the conservative candidate but he was still elected. This is a problem because so many constituents wont get their chosen representative. Furthermore areas of the UK such as Scotland and Wales are over represented in parliament because they have smaller constituencies. For instance the average English constituency is 72,400 whilst the average welsh constituency is 56,800. That means that there are more MP's representing Wales than there are of England. Now I will set out the positive case for proportional representation. Proportional representation is a system where the number of members of parliament each party receives is proportional to the number of votes they received. So if the Labour party received 36% of the vote they would get 36% of the members of parliament. Its a very simple method and its is used in some form by over 90 countries around the globe including, Brazil, Germany, Spain, Australia (senate only) and many others. This system allows the parliament to be elected according to the exact wishes of the people. I now await my opponent response.
Should the Education system change so more students with Special Needs can attend to Regular ED

First off, Special eddies not having a same education as regular education is a consequence, not a choice. There are issues with this situation:Issue I:Lack of resourceSupporting details:Another large issue is the lack of resources enabling individuals with special needs to receive an education in the developing world. As a consequence, 98 percent of children with special needs in developing countries do not have access to education.I just hope this will help your question mate.Issue II:"Physical ED -Music -Field Trips -Lunch -Workshops -Other Current Events"In some schools, that depends. As known as, every special needs child does eat lunch with others or will be in their rooms. However, special needs children will have a chance to go on field trips, either with the kids or in a separate bus. However, things like music, art, Pyhcial ED, workshops, and other current events are optional. The teacher has the right to make that decision if that is allowed.P.S. I'm from the UK (but I live in the US).
Chance Gravity (my own idea)

of current, there are 16, arguably 17 fundamental particles, none of which can be considered more "basic" than the others, as they are, by definition, fundamental. These include the six quarks (up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom), the six leptons (electron, muon, tao, and their neutrinos), and the four (likely five within a year or so) bosons (photon, gluon, W and Z and likely the Higgs boson, awaiting further verification from CERN). Each of these particles is distinct and fundamental" really ? knowing that time after time the simplest answer in physics is usually the correct one you believe that all of these particles are the fundamental particles.. I think they they are still complicated structures made from something more fundamental. once the atom was thought to be the smallest anything could be. you said that my theory meant that light could travel faster than the speed of light if gravity bent the points it could land on thus causing the gaps between to be larger. this is exactly what I meant and it would not make light travel any faster. because it would cover the same amount of points in the same time but it would cover more distance. my theory then basically splits space into two layers "pixels" that can be turned on or off. and the fabric that they sit on which slightly depending on the state of the pixels attached to it.
Chance Gravity (my own idea)

I have read about most of what you wrote about and your argument was very strong, except in parts where a theory was used to prove a theory could not be. Like me saying everything you just said can not be true because my uncle said god did it. I will now go into a little greater detail about my theory but still very unmathmatic because I have a c in GCSE math. I think that the most basic of fundamental particles is a simple single state piece of energy that can be still, move in any direction that there is an open space or be somewhere else at random for the time it takes the particle to jump into its next space which always depends on the impulse imparted onto it. I think these particles decide on which space to next move to for the combined reasons of. 1.which spaces are taken. 2. Can I give some of my momentum to move a particle in time for me to take his place. 3. Direction and speed I last traveled at. 4. After other things all considered it's chance I could go against them all. If this was true all other structures known and unknown must be built from these simple building blocks and I think this'd is possible even after reading your earlier evidence. You mentioned that a particles positions cannot be known exactly, and I realise that I am cutting very much to the point with my arguments. In my greater detail I say that for part of the time the particles are not known but somewhere else as they decide where to next move. You said that a particle an disappear completely, this could happen if a particle was deciding where to next be and every possible place became taken, the chances would be minute though. You said that under magnetic forces a particle can have a bend both to the right and left at the same time and when it is observed it chooses. This could be explained by the particles having both the options of right and left available before they choose. Any known characters tic of any particle can be explained by the functions of these simple particles and I would like you to name one that you think I would have trouble simply explaining. I would appreciate it if you explained it as non mathematically as possible for me though. Finally I read about particles being in communication over infinitely large spaces a while ago and even that fits with my theory when you think they may not be different but just the same particle in its two homes in space.
Chance Gravity (my own idea)

I would like to see how someone interested in physics will react to my theory, I am not a physicist or even good at Mathematics but I do like to try and put a theory to certain events. My theory is that space time is made up of set points where matter can be like pixels on a TV with gaps in between. When an object travels though space every one of its smallest particles jumps from dot to dot registering by chance, but as its moving forward there are points its more likely to move to but it may choose another its chance. Gravity comes in when a large or fast object takes up allot of points and causes the points to bend out , this means that as a particle fly s by our moon it starts to register on the points bent around it. The particle is attracted because if you draw a set of dots in an arch on paper and and start to join them to make a line travelling to the next logical point you will curve in towards the inside of the curves. the same happens as the particle attempts to make its way though space. The speed of a travelling particle effects the chance that it will turn from its current path so speed effects chance, maybe because speed effects gravity. Finally time slows for you the faster you go or the stronger the gravity you are effected by. I think this is because if you hit a set of curved dots and had to jump from one to another and another person hit a set completely straight and unaffected by gravity, he would hit points with very little gap between then whereas the man inside the gravitational field would make large leaps from point to point sometimes meaning that even though he is travelling further he is in existence for less time making him age slower. The speed of light is simply the fastest it is possible to jump from one point to another.
Human Cloning

Many people think of cloning as a huge ethical and moral problem. I on the other hand, think of it as a may for the future. This is why I have started the debate. My opponent will be debating against human cloning. My arguments for the first round are:1. A Great Advance In Science Cloning is about as far as anyone has ever gone in biological science. But for many years now, great advances have been cut down because Human Cloning has never been legalised. For example, it is know that certain genes are different in some people, which increases there chance of having cancer. Until Human Cloning is allowed, and scientists are allowed to 'play around' and experiment with DNA, it is highly possible we will never find a cure to cancer.2. 'Perfect Humans'This is the side of Human Cloning that creates the biggest polemic. But is it really a bad thing? Think of the legendary clones from Star Wars. If we took the DNA from the strongest man, and created an army of these, it would completely revolutionise modern society. But why just do this with strength? Cloning the most intelligent people to work on big scientific problems. Or maybe more basic even. Cloning women that are fertile for longer, so that more women can make more babies for longer. Although for some this could seem Unethical, I find it perfectly brilliant. It could change the whole idea of evolution!3. 'Bringing back the dead'Everyone has experienced the loss of a close one, and have wanted to find a way to bring him or her back. Cloning makes this possible. Say you had a son, the perfect son, that dies in a car crash at the age of 6. Why not bring him back, relive the life of the first son, but without the mistakes. Imagine being able to bring back the biggest of people from history. Einstein, Newton, . .. Imagine the new things they could discover with today's discoveries. Cloning has many aspects that make it almost to ignore it.
Human Cloning

Our society is not yet prepared to accept human cloning. Before we allow research into human cloning we need to develop in the following areas: Legal - Researchers need legal protection from lawsuits and criminal charges. Legal status of any cloned individuals needs to be clarified. Political - Governments need to clarify who is responsible to support cloned individuals. Guidelines on appropriate use of clones (organ donors or full citizenship) are needed. Scientific / Technical - Techniques need to be improved - currently the success rate is 0% Techniques must be improved on lower animals first. (for moral and ethical legal & political reasons) Death rates are over 99% Of those that live, lifespans are short, medical problems are common. On top of all these objective and measurable problems with human cloning there are even more subjective issues on which good and wise people may differ in opinion. 1. Is a technical failure murder? (a person dies because of our actions or mistakes) 2. Is the suffering we cause in the course of our experiments immoral? 3. Do we have the right to "play God"? 4. Do we have the ability to "play God successfully"? 5. Ethical issues - (Who gets to "play God"?) 6. The list of moral, ethical and social issues seems endless. In all We are not ready for human cloning.
Human Cloning

Pro states 4 reasons (below) we should allow research on human cloning. 1. A Great Advance In Science 2. 'Perfect Humans' 3. 'Bringing back the dead' 4. To help couples struggling with infertility. In each case my opposition to human cloning is that WE ARE NOT READY TO ALLOW HUMAN CLONING In the absence of PRO's last round, I want to focus on point 4 >> 4. To help couples struggling with infertility. My contention is that WE ARE NOT READY TO ALLOW HUMAN CLONING Picture a couple who has struggled with infertility or the loss of a child. Tis couple has probably spent way too much time, money and worry on doctors. In their desperation they are likely to grasp at any possibility that offers some hope. I do not want to deny them that hope WE ARE NOT READY TO ALLOW HUMAN CLONING If they become donors and experimental lab rats in this type of experiment their chances of success are exceptionally low. Do we want to put them through the trauma of deformed, short life span children with such a low probability of success? Remember Dolly the sheep? She was the 1 of 277 who lived. Her life was cut short by cancer after 4 years. The normal life span of those sheep would be 7-12 years. Dolly was in poor health most of her short life. WE ARE NOT READY TO ALLOW HUMAN CLONING
mcdonalds is better than kfc

I would just like to share a few observations from pro's round one argument: 1: My opponent forgot to capitalize KFC and McDonalds, and created a run-off sentence. Therefore, he has not used correct grammar. Here's what his opening round argument should look like: "The first round is for acceptance. I believe McDonalds is better than KFC. 2: No definitions were provided. I look forward to pro's round 2 argument.
Creationism is more believable compared to Evolution

I'd like to start out with definitions. All definitions are from . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Atheism -Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Creationism - The belief that the universe and living orgaisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution - The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. So, first of all. I'd like to point out to my opponent that atheism and evolution are two different things. Evolution explains how humans became the way we are, and atheism is simply a rejection of the idea of god, nothing else. I would like my opponent to clarify in the next round whether or not he's debating against atheism, or evolution. But since the title suggests this is a debate between creationism and evolution, I'll provide arguments for the evolution standpoint. Evolution is fact. In science fact is, as described by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent,"Evolution has been observed before, such as day flying moths. At first they had light skin, and there were a few dark skinned moths, at first light skinned moths had a better chance at surviving and reproducing because they were calouflaged against the nearby trees, which made it harder for birds to see them. But when factories were built, it caused pollution, and the nearby trees turned to black. Now the dark skinned moths camouflaged against the trees, and the light skinned moths stood out, causing more of them to be eaten by birds. More dark skinned moths reproduced and they became the majority. Now there rae controls against polution, and the light skinned moths have the advantage, and are more common than dark skinned moths. Evolution has been explained and observed to the point where it's impossible to deny it, unless of course you don't understand it. There is no evidence for the events in the Bible, nor have they been observed. They are not even theoretically possible.
Creationism is more believable compared to Evolution

According to Pro's narrow scope of "evolution" pertaining to only "living organisms " during the history of the earth," and with Con's belief in the existence of a God. This debate has nothing to do with proving the existence of a God. And with that said, Con is a Athiest who believes God set off the Big Bang (Creation) but has since remained indifferent to the universe, as God's Laws of Nature is the instructions, or program, defining the evolutionary process of the universe both inanimate and animate. From the Laws of Nature, the handwriting of God, there exist a common design, not random or chaotic, found throughout the universe and is elegantly described by the Constructal Law. http://www.amazon.com...... http://www.youtube.com...... Con's alignment with Creationism runs closest to "Theistic Evolution." http://ncse.com...... Pro's definition of "Creationism" also includes the phrase "...as in the biblical account..." In reference to the Bible---man's written scriptures. For atheists and those of us of faith, including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all ("72 virgins" upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.). And in saying that, "the biblical account" is a scripture for interpretation. In the Book of Genesis, Con simply interprets that God created the universe and everything in it. Finally Con's definition of "Creationism" ended with the phrase "...rather than by processes such as evolution." Con's definition of "evolution" is simply incomplete, it only includes the animate ("process by which different kinds of living organisms") and left out the evolution of the inanimate. Inanimate evolution is a prerequisite for life. How could you have life without the elements of the Periodic Table? Those elements did not exist at the Big Bang, therefore they too had to evolve. Pro's definition of "evolution" also restricts it to the "history of the earth." According the God's handwriting (the Laws of Nature), evolution is throughout the universe. Life is a way for nature to see and experience itself. Humans are part of life, part of nature. All what humans do are confined within the matrix of the Laws of Nature, there are no exceptions. In this universe it would seem the "blue" pill is life, where the "red" pill is death (https://www.youtube.com......). Humans are also confined to the "Natural Selection" process as in wars, disease, natural disasters (when the next meteorite hits the earth), etc. One may argue humans could interfere with the "Natural Selection" process. Since humanity is part of nature, the event of human interference is therefore, part of the "Natural Selection" process.
Creationism is more believable compared to Evolution

I'd like to start by saying atheism and evolution AREN'T the same thing. Many people believe in god and also believe in evolution. A good example of this is THE POPE. Sources of this - http://www.npr.org...http://www.washingtonpost.com...http://www.cnet.com...http://www.religionnews.com...So, I think this settles that you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. Moving on.My opponent is trying to say that microevolution is not evidence of evolution. But I'd like to point out that evolution takes place over a very long time. And these small changes will eventually lead into a different stage in development. And I'd also like to point out that this is a legitimate example, especially when put up against the non existant proof of god, and creationism.A good example of macroevolution is the evolutionary path of humans. We developed from the Australopithecus, it had smaller molars, and a 50% larger brain capacity than its predecessor. Homo habilis later developed into Homo erectus. More small changes occurred, Homo erectus had a cranial capacity that was great than that of Homo habilis, and the frontal lobe of the brain was not as sloped. They were slender, with long arms and legs, and stood up straight.Small changes like these are what led up to Homo sapiens. All of these small changes gave these species an advantage over the other ones, and they were more likely to survive and reproduce. You can’t say that Homo sapiens and Australopithecus are still the same species.You can see how microevolution is small changes over time. But over a longer period of time, these changes become so drastic and the result is so different than the original species, that the resulting product becomes a new species on it's own.My opponent is trying to prove that creationism is more credible than evolution, I encourage them to try and provide evidence for creationism, which they have not done.
Creationism is more believable compared to Evolution

Atheism and Evolution are indeed connected. Atheism -Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.Creationism - The belief that the universe and living orgaisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.People who support evolution completetly deny the fact that a god created the universe. Therefore, you cannot support Evolution without being Atheist.Con mentions thats light skin moths are an example of evolution, even though that is an example of microevolution.Con says Evolution has been explained and observed to the point where it's impossible to deny it, but fails to provide any legitimate examples.In the next round, I encourage Con to provide examples that are not examples of microevolution.