BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In the United States, Public Policy decisions should be made via a Public Referendum

I don't think you can say that the people lobbying for one side or another during the Brexit referendum weren't held accountable. The day after the vote there was a mob of angry Brits out in front of Boris Johnsons house and he was on the winning side of the vote but it didn't seem like he was escaping accountability from the people who disagreed with him. David Cameron had to resign from his job in disgrace because the referendum so he didn't avoid accountability. So it's not about accountability so much as it's about courage. It's that no one had the courage to actually leave the EU or no one had the courage to legalize marijuana in the state of Colorado. But the people wanted it and the referendum was an effective tool in delivering the will of the people. My opponent says the evidence shows that the will of the Scottish people was to remain. But the evidence doesn't show that. The evidence shows that only 62% of Scots wanted to remain. He is not counting the other 38% that wanted to leave which combined with the other English, Irish, Welsh people that wanted to leave made up the majority. So you can't say the Scots voices were drowned out. They were heard just as much as everyone else's, just as much as the Scots who wanted to leave. It just so happened more voices wanted to leave. Referendums are a valuble tool for democracy. Look at the current situation in congress. They are setting records for being some of the least productive years in the history of the congress. They can barely keep themselves from shutting down. Polls show a vast majority of Americans are in favor of certain laws. Like for example universal background checks. But too many of our elected officials lack the courage to stand up to the NRA. A referendum would put the power back in the people's hands when elected officials fail to do their jobs. A referendum is the purest form of democracy. A vote against referendum is a vote against democracy. http://www.bloomberg.com... http://www.pewresearch.org...
Resolved: In the United States, Public Policy decisions should be made via a Public Referendum

The affirmative makes a couple of fatal flaws in his last round. Let's start by addressing them all.First, my oppenet only makes one argument for the affirmation. He says that referendums are needed for when the government does not have the courage to act. Recognize that this helps my side because of what I tell you in contention 2. Referendums to make policies are a sign of a government that doesn't want responsibility for its actions. Politicians can just say " The people decided this policy, so I have no accountability if it back fires", even if they where massive lobbyists for said policy. At that point, all offense goes to the neg.Than my opponent misinterprets both of my arguments. First he says that "every vote counts equally". The problem with that is two fold. First, the evidence shows you that the will of the Scottish people was to remain a member of the EU. But because England is more populated, an entire country was forced into a policy against its will. But secondly, look to the argument I make about states. In national voting, only the big states get any attention, meaning the issues that pertain to the smaller states are more likely to be undermined or ignored.Secondly he writes off my second contention by making a giant assumption that I disagreed with Brexit. I didn't ever state that. My advocacy is that referendums should never be used to make diocesans because of the reasons I outline. My stance on the result of Brexit doesn't matter, because my stance is against the existence of such referendums. Thus, I negate.
Resolved: In the United States, Public Policy decisions should be made via a Public Referendum

Minorities don't vote as a monolith. You said 62% voted remain that means 38% voted to leave. Everyone's vote counted equally and at the end of the day leave won. The rest of your argument seems to be against David Cameron and Brexit. Just because you disagree with the results of one referendum doesn't mean we shouldn't have referendums. When politicians don't have the courage to carry out the will of the people a referendum is necessary. Unless you don't think the government should carry out the will of the people I don't know how you would argue against a referendum.
The M16 is better then the AK-47

Now since my opponent has forfeited the last round I will add a new contention. The M16 is made using newer and more advanced technology compared to the AK-47. It is a sense a much better version of the AK-47. It's accurate, better at long range and carries a better ammunition. The AK-47 is much outdated compared to the M16. Also the M16 works perfectly fine if treated properly which most US troops do treat their M16 with proper handle and care. Therefore the M16 is clearly a better firearm compared to the AK-47.
The M16 is better then the AK-47

To help clarify the round this debate may only talk about the original M-16s and AK-47's not any upgraded versions such as the M-4 or AK-74. Now I will move onto my contentions. My first contention is that the AK-47 is a bulky, inaccurate piece of metal. After a couple hundred yards you wouldn't expect to hit much. The caliber of the bullet is larger, than the M-16 thus causing a larger recoil. This makes the gun widely inaccurate and only serves its purpose close. You might as well get a firearm that can at least shoot its target. The AK-47's recoil is described as a rabbit kicking your shoulder. Shooting fully-automatic without strongly holding the gun, will cause it to run out of control, wasting precious ammo. The M-16 however is much more accurate and has a farther range. You can shoot accurately which is much better considering you wouldn't want to waste hundreds of bullets. The AK is also bulky. It's made of metal and most versions are made of a rougher, harder metal. Compared to the M-16 made in America, the AK is made all over the world ranging in materials. My 2nd contention is that the M-16 has a better ammunition. Since we're talking about the AK-47 not the AK-74, it uses the big 7.62 round, while the M-16 has the light 5.56. Although the 7.62 is stronger, it doesn't matter if you kill the person or not. In today's combat, all you need to do is injure the person to a point where they don't pose a threat, which the 5.56 round perfectly does. Also the 5.56 is much, much lighter. You can carry nearly twice as much ammunition of a 5.56 compared to the AK's round. You can carry more ammo for the same weight, which can help save your life. Even the makers of the AK-47 switched to the 5.56 round in the AK-74 because they realized how much better this bullet was. My third and final contention is that without the M-16 there would be no America, with the AK we have insurgents. In the Vietnam war the M-16 served its purpose, although encountering some problems early on. Without this amazing rifle, the war might have never been won. With the AK-47, it is considered as the "bad guys gun" because many terrorists and insurgents run the rifle. Now, why do insurgents use IEDs? Because in 50+ yards fight with US troops, they were getting slaughtered. Their rifles wouldn't hit the troops, while the US soldiers with their accurate M-16s could easily target and hit them. With IEDs, the insurgents had to do no work, and just let vehicles run over the IEDs. The AK-47 in general is a good rifle but compared to the M-16 it is nowhere close.
The M16 is better then the AK-47

In this final concluding debate, I will present to my readers why the Pro won this debate. Let me make this clear. My opponent has said nothing on why the AK is better nor has he rebuttaled any of my contentions. In fact my opponent has barely said anything at all. I would like to go over some final points and convince my audience why I have won. The M-16 is a true masterpiece, made and built in good ol' America. It carries a light 5.56 round which is very light, yet powerful enough to knock out an enemy. It's accuracy is far better than the AK and has become the standard infantry rifle for US troops. While the AK-47 has become an icon for the "bad guys" gun referring to terrorists using the weapon. Thanks to the M-16 we have a strong America and thanks to the AK-47 you have terrorists, and extremists. Therefore the M-16 is clearly a better weapon and the Pro has won this debate.
State Standardized Tests

None of that has to to with the debate topic. Unless you're saying that standardized tests are useless because absolute knowledge is unobtainable. That's kinda silly though. The goal of education and science are to create models of what seems to be reality, not to understand reality exactly. Absolute knowledge is unnecessary. Rockets and computers and heart surgery work just fine without absolute knowledge. But in order to become an astronaut or computer scientist or heart surgeon, a person needs to demonstrate that he possesses the required knowledge and is capable of obtaining more. Furthermore, because not everyone can be an astronaut or computer scientist or heart surgeon, there needs to be a means by which to compare people so that the most capable people are rewarded for their achievement. That's why standardized tests are necessary.
State Standardized Tests

Yes, your right, gravity is factual. It does exist. However, it may be true that triangles have three sides, but what is a four-sided triangle? I bet you can't answer that because you think it doesn't exist. In reality, a four-sided triangle is a quadrilateral. You just don't know it in that form. It's just like the other day when I was in school in math class. Someone said that a pentagon was a 5-agon and that undefined was actually spelled undefigned (un-de-fig-ned). Yes, your right, in reality these things don't exist because you don't know them in that way. But, what if they did? What I'm getting at is why did at some point in human history did we call an apple an apple and not a pear? I guess my initial question is "why did we give certain names to certain objects?" And FYI: You don't have to pull out the points and rename your points with rebuttals. That is just awkward and annoying. Again just my opinion.
State Standardized Tests

Let it be noted that Con has avoided all my points in round 1 and has also dropped his opening argument from round 1. Concerning his new argument...---Point 1: There are no facts.Rebuttal 1: This is demonstratably false. There are facts. The effects of gravitation are factual; they are not opinion. If Con does not believe that gravitation is factual, he can test his claim by jumping off a building. If the attraction of masses is nothing more than opinion, he will suffer no harm.Another example of a fact is that triangles have three sides. If this were simply an opinion, it would be possible to draw a triangle that does not have three sides.By similar reasoning, it can be demonstrated that certain other things are true regardless of individual opinion.Con also uses tautological example, citing the proportion of water on the earth's surface. He claims that because we do not know exactly how much water there is, we don't know anything at all. This is absurd and off topic.. The goal of science is to describe what appears to be reality, not to identify exactly what it is. Nothing in science is exact, but that has not prevent us from technological developments.Point 2: Humans make mistakes.Rebuttal 2: They do. That does not mean everything they've done is wrong. My computer works just fine.
State Standardized Tests

Something you may not understand "countzander" is that this so called "life form" that we call "humans" is someone's opinion. Life is full of them, there are no facts. Let me repeat that, "there are 'NO' facts". To acquire a better understanding let's say that, Student A says that 75% of the earth is covered with water and Student B says that 25% of the Earth is covered with land. While you might be saying to yourself this is TRUE, it actually is not. We really have no clue what the exact measurements of the Earth are. There is such a thing called "human errors". "And, boy! humans have made a whole lot of them." Everything we have today is a mistake, but you know what, if we didn't have it, how would we live?
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

[Defintiion - Reliable] http://dictionary.reference.com... -That may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc. [Definition - Predictive] http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. Of or pertaining to prediction: losing one's predictive power. 2. Used or useful for predicting or foretelling the future: to look for predictive signs among the stars. [Definition - Model] http://dictionary.reference.com... -A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories. Since this debate topic is more detailed and focused, I will leave the 1st Round for any questions or additional rules my opponent may seek. Otherwise, I ask of him to give up the 1st Round, and we'll debate normally for the last 3 rounds.
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

Beginning Notes: I am happy to hear that my opponent will allow me the luxury of using the term Neo-Darwinism. "Despite the usage of Neo-Darwinism being incorrect on my opponent's part." Indeed it may be incorrect from its original usage, but you will find Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are quite fond of using it.(1) "and propose a different synthesis/ tenets that will more effectively account for evolution." With due respect, and for the sake of clarity, it should be noted that in this debate I am under no obligation to present an alternative. Neo-Darwinism must stand or fall on its own merits. It is a basic illogical fallacy to assume the truth of something merely because of one's ignorance of an alternative. Introduction: I am a skeptic of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The Neo-Darwinian theory looks much like a historical model (though even here it falters). It is not a reliably predictive model in that it does not supply convincing answers for relatively easy questions. According to information gathered from Douglas Theobald's, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, It could, in theory – given the rate of darwins observed in the laboratory - only take as little as 20 years to forcibly evolve a species of mouse into a species of elephant. However, after constant refinement and plenty of time, evolution still appears to be a mere revision of the historical model rather than foundation for a predictive one. If TheSkeptic is so assured of ND's predictive capabilities, why does he not find out what the fastest species-to-species evolution is and inform us when it is he can make evolutionary history by accurately predicting new species. The problem is these sorts of tests have already been done with fast-breeding creatures like fruit flies. Unfortunately, all that was got from such tests were mutated fruit flies. There was no expansion of the gene pool - no new genes or new traits. Evolutionists don't seem to understand that most of what they call successful "predictions" of past events are not empirically testable predictions, they are merely the confirmation of inferences. This leads me to some questions and contentions: 1. Do you understand the difference between a historical model and a predictive model? 2. Where is your evidence that Neo-Darwinism is a reliably predictive model? 3. The boast of evolutionary science is that it is self-correcting; this is also an honest admission that it can be wrong at any given point. Given this admission, how can we trust that it is reliable? 4. Neo-Darwinism is not capable of standing up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. If you disagree, please supply evidence where Neo-Darwinism was used as an accurate and reliable predictive model. 5. If evolution can forcibly produce an elephant from a mouse in a matter of 20 years, why has there been no such results in the over 150 years it has had to prove itself? I look forward to my opponents response and evidence. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

Despite the usage of Neo-Darwinisim being incorrect on my opponent's part, I will follow along. From now on, The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis will be referred to as "ND". Since ND is really just a synthesis of several biological ideas, I assume my opponent will attack the merit of the ideas it is based on. Or rather, he may take the rarely walked road, and tackle some tenets of ND. -That natural selection is the main mechanism for change in evolution. -Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. -All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists. [1] There are other tenets, but these are couple of the major ones. I will let my opponent either attack evolution, such as speciation, fossils, or other basis of evidence it has; or perhaps he will attack the ND synthesis, and propose a different synthesis/ tenets that will more effectively account for evolution. ---References--- 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Naturalism provides a more plausible explanation for objective morality than God.

First, I would like to say, it is a pleasure to debate DakotaKrafick once again. Judging from our last debate I know that he is a formidable opponent. I accept my opponents definitions, though I suspect allot of contention will rest on what "right and wrong" really mean. To further clarify, it is presupposed that naturalism and God are the two only possible explanations for morality, thus if naturalism is found to be unreliable in explaining objective morality than God is the only other possible answer, unless God is also found to be unreliable and vice-versa. Good luck to my opponent.
Naturalism provides a more plausible explanation for objective morality than God.

For the purposes of this debate, objective morality is assumed to exist (my opponent and I agree they do). I will be arguing objective morality is more plausibly explained through naturalism. Phantom will be arguing that objective morality is more plausibly explained through God. Morality: the field concerned with the distinctions between good and bad behavior. Objective: not dependent on human opinion. If something is objectively morally good, then it is morally good no matter how many people disagree. Subjective: dependent on human opinion. If something is subjectively morally good, then it is only morally good by certain people's standards.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ

"I. The Bible is a reliable and accurate document."I don't agree. None of the four Gospels were written when Jesus of Nazerth was alive. None of the Gospel authors were at the Crucifixion. Exaggeration and misinformation was inenvitable because the first Gospel written after Jesus' death which was fifty years or more after his death. Therefore it leads one to wonder how many people were alive at that point to claim that they saw Jesus' death?"II. Jesus exists as a historical figure."Agreed."I. That Jesus was crucified and that he died."I agree that he was crucified. However I am not so sure he was dead when he was taken down from the cross."II. That he was buried in a tomb and that later, the tomb was found empty."Not quite sure. See my response to point "I.""III. That friends and enemies claimed to have seen him afterwards."Not quite sure. See my response to point "I."
Resurrection of Jesus Christ

First, there are some facts that need to be established before any real arguments are made. I. The Bible is a reliable and accurate document. II. Jesus exists as a historical figure. The next historical facts that encompass Jesus" resurrection are: I. That Jesus was crucified and that he died. II. That he was buried in a tomb and that later, the tomb was found empty. III. That friends and enemies claimed to have seen him afterwards. Using these basic facts, I plan to defend the authenticity of the resurrection and these facts. This round will be used to determine whether my opponent agrees with the information set out here, as to make the other rounds solely on what needs to be debated.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ

i accept Pro's challenge. I would like to thank Pro for hosting this debate. I as Con will be arguing against the resolution which is the "Resurrection of Jesus Christ" was a historical fact. I assume Pro has the Burden of Proof because he is trying to prove the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I am an Agnostic when it comes to questions about gods and god. I am a nihilist when it comes to morality. I will await for my opponent's arguments. I apologize if my arguments get a bit convoluted. I might still be recovering from a fever.
Resurrection of Jesus Christ

In this debate, I will try to prove the Resurrection of Jesus using historical fact and believability errors to disprove any other theories that attempts to explain the six minimal facts. Also, I would appreciate it if my opponent will explain what his religious beliefs are as to make it easier for the readers and me to understand where my opponent is coming from as far as his/her arguments. Thanks to whoever accepts this debate. I am really looking forward to this, and I hope the readers will enjoy.
(In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show.

Hmm...interesting, because I can't exactly disagree with you, but this is because you have played on my grammar. Technically, you are correct, we do affect which rotten people get to run and end up in office. I think it that I made it reasonably clear, though, that what I meant was we do not affect what happens in our nation by our votes. Whichever person we put in office is going to do the same as the rest, (since it's late, and there is no real argument being made, I will not restate my previous assertions in this round). Whatever rotten banana we pick is going to keep passing the same kind of legislations and creating the same types of clusterf...well you know the military term used. Anyhow, could we at least try to make round 3 a debate, or is this impossible? This website seems to be quite a fail.
(In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show.

You seem to be missing two factors: 1. Primaries. 2. Write-ins. The former is how votes pick WHICH rotten bananas are on the ballot. The second allows you to ignore even that. Individual votes still have infinitesimal effects, but the elections nevertheless are not for show-- they do, in fact, determine who gets in office. The fact that voters so far generally don't write in much and don't pick unrotted bananas is merely an indictment of the majority thereof, not a demonstration that elections are somehow inherently mendacious. As for campaign spending-- that can do nothing but ask for votes. The votes are still the controlling factor.