BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Professional Athletes Are Overpaid

I thank the Con for posting this debate. I will adhere to my opponents definition for professional athletes. Before i begin i would like to offer a pre-case observation on the term "Overpaid" in the context of the resolution. OB: There is many ways one can go in terms of summarizing this term but i will define overpaid as "Making a certain amount of money which exceeds how much you need for basic living cost" i.e Food, shelter, and clothing, and minimal entertainment. Since my opponent states that we will be addressing athletes in the NHL, NBA, and MLB. Arguments about Lacross, tennis, and NFL or any other sports league are non topical and should be disregarded. The lowest paid athletes in the mentioned leagues make around $750,000 annually. However the average teacher salary in America is around $50,000 annually. Both of these professions take immense work whether it be mental or physical. But the average athlete gets paid more than 10 times the average teachers salary. $750,000 a year is enough for 7 families to live off of. Including food, shelter, clothing and even a good health insurance policy for each family. However $50,000 can barely support a married couple alone. Since the burden of proof is simply affirming or refuting whether athletes are overpaid, i meet my burden of proof by reading my pre-case observation alone. I now give it to the con.
Present arguments that show what's wrong with cohabitation

PLEASE READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY: "Pro" position means that I will be questioning your arguments for why a man(boyfriend) living with a woman(girlfriend) together in a sexual relationship is wrong. We'll go over one argument at a time. There's already been confusion about this because it's read with a conventional mindset. Think outside the box and realize that this discussion is formatted by me, Therefore it's subjected to me and my terms. That includes how I wish to use words and their definitions to the words. Any questions please comment or send a message BEFORE accepting the challenge.
Should North Korea shut up about nuking America

Thank you for such insights You said:o start my argument ill state why is the reason that North Korea hates America. The leader of North Korea are scared of the power of the western country USA they saw what happened in Vietnam also know as the Nam war which in 2000000 Vietnamese people did wille a few thousand Americans did they saw how America boomed Japan after Pearl Harbor etc after this they brain washed their people into hating America through the media etc my second pound is that it matter if its the North Koreans or Americans who died it still sad. *Does it matter if they hate America? Your providing such information without references;how can I believe you? Your providing much information without defending my case earlier. Since I have neglected your case saying another case is futile. *I don't have to pose any case by now since my case is still not thrashed. Maybe you should defend my case first,to prove that I'm wrong. Again thank you for such insights :)
Should North Korea shut up about nuking America

To start my argument ill state why is the reason that North Korea hates America. The leader of North Korea are scared of the power of the western country USA they saw what happened in Vietnam also know as the Nam war which in 2000000 Vietnamese people did wille a few thousand Americans did they saw how America boomed Japan after Pearl Harbor etc after this they brain washed their people into hating America through the media etc my second pound is that it matter if its the North Koreans or Americans who died it still sad
Should North Korea shut up about nuking America

First I would like to say that my opponent has diverted from the topic and it would be sad that millions of people prematurely died thanks to a push of a button my second point I'm going to state is that North Korea has been a country that's been endangering people and other nations it is a country ruled by dictatorship one that hates a lot of countries and shows that it would mess with one of the three strongest countries in the world USA and china would not help North Korea show by how they told them of earlier on.
Should North Korea shut up about nuking America

colege or you mean college? it should be most not moast. . and probably not probavly. . :D You said you want to clarify if this deed is done by the country,Yes it is. This is the proofs:http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://gma.yahoo.com... http://youtu.be... Dying is just normal to us,why would you worry such things.Why won't you just read books or maybe you can just correct your mispelled words,try learning new languages probably it would help you than being stress about those things.Are you afraid?You don't trust your country? Even Barack Obama never said thy words you said.He just warned North Korea not give them a plea which is "please stop". This is the proof: http://youtu.be... You said most probably it would start a world war.Why? You can't even spell a word right,how could you persuade me.Support your paradigms Mr.XldlegaZ.Won't you have any basis or explanation or you just want to give an idea that comes out through your mind? :)
Women have no right to commit paternity fraud

Hello, brothers. This is a simple debate. Feminists believe that women have got the right to commit paternity fraud. According to Melanie McDonagh, she says that DNA tests violate a woman's right to choose who the daddy is and that a woman has the right to commit paternity fraud. Feminist groups have gotten DNA tests banned in France, Germany, and Australia. If a man dares to find out the paternity of his "child", he is jailed and fined. These women and their governments think that women have a right to force any man of their choice to pay for their children. They believe that women have the right to commit paternity fraud. Brothers, this is a travesty of justice. Do you believe that women have the right to commit paternity fraud? Step up, brothers, and fight me if you dare.
Gay Marriage

I apologize to my opponent for my absence. I began this debate for one reason. To understand the controversy. I posted my arguments and was met with an obsolete definition of marriage, an argument about procreation and nonsense about child care. You made it clear that you think homosexuality is a choice. With that mindset there is no debate! The fact remains that this will be a frustrating topic to discuss because I have never seen an argument that comes close to denying homosexuals marriage. Every debate I have started on this topic spiraled into nowhere because my opponent has yet to help me understand why discrimination and oppression is a good thing! My opponent was so worried about this debate remaining civil, yet my ability to be polite on this subject is diminishing. I warned my opponent to leave procreation out of this. As soon as I saw that argument I wanted to explode with disappointment, I thought it would be better to just turn the other cheek but i'm tired of being polite! I have a strong urge to put a stop to bullying in any form. Apparently in this case.. The bully wins! BTW I want my opponent to do research as if he was pro gay marriage. No really. Use the same resources you used to find statistics on homosexual adoption, child human trafficking (aka foster care) and countries that allow gay marriage. Every statistic I have been given on this subject is completely contradictory! You can find evidence that gays are horribly people who want to eat children. While finding information that homosexuals actually make better parents that heterosexuals.
Jinnah was a greater leader then Gandhi.

Jinnah was the Ambassador for hindu muslim unity.But when he see that Muslims were ignored by congress(Gandhi) he started to fight for Muslim but non vilontly.He always said muslims to be peaceful.That is why he never went to jail.Gandhi on the other hand talking of peace on one hand provoked muslims to protest against british so that british favour hindus.After this instance muslims started following Jinnah.So jinnah was agreater leader.
Jinnah was a greater leader then Gandhi.

Gandhi did not provoke Hindus and Muslims to protest, he spoke of peace and they misinterpreted it. Gandhi was a greater leader than Jinnah because Gandhi's philosophy of peace, freedom, and civil liberties has expanded around the world and has influenced mass amounts of people, even into modern day, where Jinnah was only exclusively the leader of Afghanistan. A great leader influences people to do good, better themselves, and do what's right. Gandhi has done this on a large scale.
Jinnah was a greater leader then Gandhi.

just because he played in the hands of British it doesnot make him a big leader.Look what he did to Muslims and minorities when he won election in 1937.He had a strange cunning policy of Talking of peace and doing Harm to muslims.He forced muslims to Migrate to Afghanistan just to weaken them.Jinnah Asked Muslims to be peaceful.Whereas Gandhi provoked hindus and muslims to protest.This was why Jinnah was given the Name of Hindu-Muslim unity ambassador.
Jinnah was a greater leader then Gandhi.

Gandhi was a far greater leader not only in India, but he has influenced the world, and has become a household name. Gandhi has led India to independence and influenced social movements of civil liberties, non- violence and freedom not only in India, but around the world. A great leader is someone who influences mass amounts of people to do good and plunges themselves into benevolence that reaches even the most distant crowds. Gandhi's philosophy encompasses a vision of liberty for the world.
The Australian Flag Should change

The Australians have their own culture, as do Hawaiians, New Zealanders, and other people of the British Commonwealth. Just because there is a Union Jack on their flag, that doesn't imply that they're still British colonies, just that they have remnants of British culture. Hawaii is an American state, but they acknowledge that they were once a British territory, as Australia was, and they'd like to recognize their history as such. You act as if Australia has its own separate culture from all other foreign nations. In case you were wondering, all cultures are mixtures of one another, just in different proportions. Would you say that Americans are leeching off the British because we have lawns in front of our houses, which is a British idea? If you didn't want to have foreign culture in Australia, you would have to stop writing in English, too, because the English language originates from Great Britain.
The Australian Flag Should change

I accept. Australia is part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, a league of countries that recognize the British monarch as a (distant) secular ruler within their state government, which essentially means that although they are former territories of the British Empire, they still pay some sort of homage to the Crown; since the King/Queen has no actual clout within the civil governments of the British Commonwealth, the flags are used to represent their partial loyalty to the Crown by having the trademark Union flag in the top-left corner. This is why the British Virgin Islands, New Zealand, Bermuda, Fiji, and the Hawaii state flag have a Union Jack in their flag, because at some point they were subject to British influence. In the case of Australia, it was used as a prison island for British criminals when prisons became full. These prisoners, while deserted, were still British citizens, which is why Australia has and will continue to have a Union Jack on their flag. If Australia wanted to remove it from their flag, they would essentially have to leave the Commonwealth of Nations, which I highly doubt would be plausible since Great Britain and the United States are the two largest trading partners that Australia has.
It seems that mainstream media favors the democrats and the Obama camp. this election.

I will make this short and sweet,.. In summary, the "con" presents the following points: 1) Events outside the media's control made differences in coverage necessary. 2) The DNC presented a more compelling and newsworthy storyline than the RNC, which led to more coverage. 3) Negative stories regarding Palin's personal life are the responsibility of the media to report. They should have been foreseen by the Republicans who may or may not have vetted Palin. 4) My opponents assertions regarding an experience with a pollster seem unrealistic. 5) Parties, not networks, are often responsible for convention content .... I will defend my points. 1) Events outside of medias control such as the hurricane may have cut into the AMOUNT of coverage but the not the content of the coverage as it relates to the reporting of the republican nominees. ie; hurricane Gustov had nothing to do with the Ann Curry special sit down with Michelle Obama discussing how she fell in love with Obama, nor did it have anything to do with Merridith O'Brian's sit down with Guilliani in which she repeatedly insisted that McCain made a hasty decision, both NBC interviews which aired during the respective parties convention coverage during the morning hours. And since when is Dr. Phil a news reporter? 2)Why? Equal coverage, equal and balanced "newsworthyness." 3)Agreed, I feel the media can report all this,... but lets give equal scrutiny to the Obama campaign. 4)Unrealistic? It happened to me,.. I was there, it really happened. "Why would a pollster intentionally bias a respondent to a poll in an effort to achieve an inaccurate result? It seems the legitimacy of this individual could be dubious at best." >My thoughts exactly! Perhaps,.. I dont know, the results he wanted would cast a favorable light on Obama,... NOOO, surely a pollster nor a news reporter could have personal agendas. "Those videos, however, are often the production of the campaigns themselves and are shown in the convention hall on CCTV. " - Ann Curry of NBC narrated these pieces. Not only that,.. but the network can pick and choose what gets aired, it should be the responsibilty of the news to provide equal, fair, and balanced news.
Superman vs. Batman

That's a ludicrous statement to make. Batman has no weakness? Batman has thousand of weakness compared to Superman's three vulnerabilities. Batman has a weakness to age, aids, cancer, the measles for gods sake. Internal bleeding from a gun, too much heat, not enough heat, et cetera. Bruce Wayne is merely human and has thousands upon thousands of weaknesses. Superman could easily use any disease or weakness humans have, which of course are many, amongst Batmna only having a radiated element to his whim. On that note, it is described in countless is DC comics of how superman can absorb so much solar radiation that kryptonite wouldn't have the undesired effects that it once might've had.
The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

My opponent doesn't respond to most of my arguments and doesn't describe anything in his sources. I'll rebut a few things he says real quick and then restate my case in the last round. {{{ Adding candidates alters the outcome now }}} This is only true if you add a candidate who gets the most votes. Under IRV, you can add a candidate who has very little support, but who splits the vote count of the *most* popular candidate enough so that this candidate loses and is eliminated before the last "round" of voting. For example, candidate A could have 60% of the vote to candidate B's 40% in a head-to-head matchup. But if enough candidates run that are similar to candidate A in ideology, candidate B advances to the finals, but candidate A was eliminated early on, allowing candidate B to beat a weaker opponent. Candidate B could even have his friends run with similar political platforms to candidate A in order to have him eliminated early. {{{ Is Hand-Counting the Votes under IRV feasible? }}} As to hand counting votes vs. machine tallying, there has yet to be a reported incident of hacking. The machines are a closed system, which is nearly impossible to hack. In contrast, my opponent drops all my arguments as to why having openly partisan election officials hand-counting ballots - with little to no oversight - is a bad idea. {{{ Voting 3rd Party }}} My opponent claims that IRV is easier to understand. This makes no sense. The current system is whoever you vote for gets your vote: vote for the candidate you want. Under IRV, there are scenarios where you are HURTING your candidates chances by voting for him. This system is far more complicated. In addition, 3rd Parties don't suddenly win under IRV, as seen in the UK. But even if they did, my opponent drops all my arguments about having more than 2 parties under a presidential system of government is BAD. {{{ Awarding Electors Proportionately }}} My opponent claims that no states do this. He is wrong, quite simply. Nebraska and Maine currently award electors proportionally instead of winner-take-all, and many other states are considering moving towards proportional awarding of electors. [1] My opponent still doesn't respond to the argument that awarding electors proportionally solves many of the problems with winner-take-all, without the baggage of IRV (overcomplicating the system, allowing the majority candidate to lose, strategic voting, additional candidates altering the outcome, etc). [1] http://www.archives.gov...
The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.
The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

I apologize if I sound like a broken record here, but I don't think my opponent understood exactly what I was getting at. I'll try to go back over my opponent's points once more. 1. I don't think you fully understand the system. I say this not to be condescending, but because you said "If you leave the box blank, that's equivalent to ranking the candidate last." That is NOT the same thing. If you rank the candidate last, then you're voting for a candidate that you don't want. But if you leave it blank, then none of your votes can go to the candidate(s) that you don't agree with. 2. This problem isn't at all specific to IRV. There are many fake candidates today. So that aspect of it may not change, and maybe never will. But your attack has nothing to do specifically with IRV. 3. The FPTP system does NOT better uphold "democratic values". Looking at your example, in the current FPTP system, that would still happen. If most prefer John to David, but for whatever reason a large number of John supporters vote for Peter, then David would win. Ex. (in the FPTP system): Let's say the numbers pre-Peter are John 54% David 46% Now, if you add in Peter, the numbers (using your same logic) would be Peter 40% John 14% David 46% You see, under our current FPTP system in your hypothetical, David still wins because he has the largest percent. The whole contention of "upholding democracy" isn't true. You act like FPTP can't be susceptible to fake candidates or splitting the vote. So again, your point isn't specific to IRV. 4. This also has nothing to do with IRV. If 3rd party candidates had a good chance at winning (i.e. Ross Perot), then they would be invited at debates. Instead of only hearing Democrats and Republicans at the debates, they would invite everyone who has a good chance. Besides, even today in the FPTP system, uninformed voters can completely alter the outcome of an election 5. I'll prove that we can afford such a system. Even though I again don't think this contention is specific to IRV, I'll prove that there's a way we can count the ballots quicker and cheaper than today's system. Let's look at Maryland as an example. In the status quo, millions of dollars are spent by stats every year to buy the e-voting machines and to maintain. Electronic voting machines cost an average of $23.40 per registered voter. About half is because of the machines they replace every few years, and half is to maintain the machines (unloading the machines in, keeping them in an air conditioned room). Hand counting ballots costs an average of $3.20 per registered voter. (Sources down below). Not only would it be affordable, it would help us save a lot of money. IRV is more democratic than FPTP voting, because under FPTP voting you can win with less than 50%. IRV goes until a candidate gets more than 50%. Sources: http://www.wired.com... http://noleakybuckets.org... http://elections.gmu.edu...