BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
term limits

I guess this round will be for rebuttals. "why do you want to have an eleite set of rulers who are able to be legislators for 70years.?"If the people want to have a legislator in office for 70 years (which some have approached that mark), who are the minority to deny them that? America is a representative democracy. We elect our legislators. If the majority like their policies, they stay in office. "their job is to represent the public, how can they do so when the public has very slim chance of ever becomeing in that position?"Do their qualifications wane with experience? More experienced politicans can actually better serve the people because they now how to work the system, which new politicians can't do so well.Here is an excrept from an article that explains this point: "In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it.."[1]I've said this before, but, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway. Not having term limits ensures that politicians always stay on their toes. "do you want obama to be a senator for 70years?"No, but that's not for me to decide. That's for the people to decide. It is a democracy after all."w/o term limits, people like obama will be in ruleing positions for a long time and its hard to get them out w/o term limits."Is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, I already made the experience argument. "do you work for or are you a member of, or did you get paid by, gov or do your friends of family work for or are members of, or got paid by gov?"That's not really relevant.do you plan on becomeing dictator of the us?Yet again, not relevant. No, I do not want to beome dictator. It's not only unconstitutional, but since this is a democracy, it would be impossible (I hope...). I hope this answers all your questions. The ball is still in your court. Sources[1]: http://www.perkel.com...
Omnipotence is impossible

The second definition of “omnipotent,” which comes from the Oxford English Dictionary, uses the example “an omnipotent sovereign” to describe an expression where “omnipotence” could be colloquially used to mean “having great power and influence.” Of course, this is not the definition usually employed by philosophers and theologians. I urge you, regardless of your position, to find objections to the points I have presented, if only for the purpose of acting as a devil's advocate, in order to pose questions or issues that other people might raise. So far, my case stands and my points remain unaddressed.
Omnipotence is impossible

This is my first debate here at Debate.org. Since I could be unfamiliar with some of the debating procedures that take place in this community, I hope that both my opponent and the community at large will guide me through the process, and correct me on any errors I might make in the process. The debate I propose will be structured as follows: Round 1. Acceptance (Pro)Round 2. Constructive (Pro) + Constructive (Con)Round 3. First Rebuttal (Pro) + Constructive (Con)Round 4. Second Rebuttal (Pro) + Constructive (Con)The resolution of this debate is at follows: Resolution: Be it resolved that omnipotence is impossible. My opponent (Pro) will be arguing for the resolution, and I (Con) will be arguing against it. There are 4 rounds in this debate, structured as described above, I now invite my opponent to begin his Constructive speech.
Dont vote for John Huntsman, GOP primary 2012

My complaints against Romney are the exact ones Obama would bring against him in a national election. You may say that's life. That's how a free market works. But, when the theme of the election is going to be unemployment Romney's past deals of buying, chopping up, firing all the employees, and selling businesses is not going to be good for his image. Obama will paint Romney as someone who made his fortune off of other people's economic hardship. So what are his chances like with an unemployment rate of 8.5%? 1&9) Romney, in a speech, wishes his state "Were More Like Utah." He felt Utah was run better. Furthermore, that still doesn't change the fact Utah had the number 1 job growth during Huntsman's governorship, he caused a boom in the state's economy. Far exceeding the growth Romney and Perry had in their respective states. 3) First of all, the economy is what allow the military to stay operational. You need money to run it. Second, China will be the next superpower should we not have a leader who has direct experience with the Chinese government? 6) He was Ambassador to China, Trade Ambassador, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Deputy US Trade Representative, CEO, and governor. He still has more experience than the other contenders. 7) No, I was stating a fact, a leader does not have to be dedicated. If they are not dedicated they will not be a good leader. If they are they will be a better leader. 8) So basically, it was PR for a presidential campaign that would occur years later? Yea, right. And where did I say the companies he was selling were dead? In many of his dealings he sells companies that are doing well in order to make a large profit. (Someone gives money for x amount of time after x amount of time they want their money back). Furthermore, this elitist attitude you speak of is just being blunt. Not a bad quality for a leader. Better than smooth-talking your way to the conclusion someones an idiot.
Dont vote for John Huntsman, GOP primary 2012

Alright time for me to begin...I thank my opponent for their opening arguments. I have a few reasons why Jon Huntsman is the best man for the job so to speak. 1. He is the only candidate in the GOP with executive experience as he was ambassador to China, he was the HEAD of this mission. Executive experience is important it shows they know how to lead, and they can hold up under stresses and command. 2. He has demonstrated ability to work with both parties effectively as governor of Utah and ambassador to China 3. The United States' relationship with China will become important in the coming years. Huntsman is the only GOP candidate with first hand experience of China's culture and the only one who can speak their language. It will be easier to deal with the Chinese on equal footing this way. It is being respectful to speak their language. Respect is key. 4. Huntsman has enormous appeal to young conservative voters and independent voters. He is the only Republican candidate, because he is the most moderate, who has a chance to win key swing votes and as a result states. 5. According to the New York Times, Huntsman has the best chance at winning against Obama. Obviously shouldn't the person who is the GOP candidate be the one who has the best chance at winning? http://www.nytimes.com... 6. Jon Huntsmen is the most qualified. He was the US Trade Ambassador under President Bush, the Ambassador to China, as well as the CEO of his families company. As Trade Ambassador he helped to negotiate dozens of free trade contracts with Asian and African nations. 7. His commitment to service, to the United States, rises above partisan lines (something which is direly NEEDED today). He worked under Bush and Obama and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be ambassador in 2009, Huntsman had members of both parties support. 8. Huntsman is not as elitist as people think. As ambassador, Huntsman REFUSED to ride in his motorcade instead choosing to ride bicycle and interact with the Chinese people, not the elitist you think. He worked closely with business owners in the United States to try and facilitate growth. 9. As governor of Utah, he cut taxes by 400 million dollars, caused Utah to later keep its AAA Bond rating, and during the recession Utah was ranking number 1 for job creation and was named the best managed state by the Pew Center.
Dont vote for John Huntsman, GOP primary 2012

Prefferable if you accapt this debate you will be an actual Jon Hunstman supporter but since those people are so rare (a reason he will not win) I will probably have to do with just an opponent who argue as if he were one of his supporters. I believe I can make a logical case that one should not vote for Huntsman no matter what end of the conservative political spectrum you come from.
The 'Problem of Evil' never succeeds (Attempt 1), Pt. 2

I appreciate my opponent's response, and will also abide by his wish to avoid discussion of Rowe's argument. It is somewhat surprising that he will simply focus on his sole criticism of my argument's form, but nonetheless if he is compelled to believe it is strong enough then so be it. Subsequently, my rebuttal won't be too long given the fact that there isn't much to write again - I'll try to be as clear as possible in a different manner. He claims that my argument "affirms the non-existence of God within one of its premises," which if correct I do agree to be fallacious reasoning. However, what reason do we have to believe I committed such a deed? To abide by your wishes, upon examining step 5 of your analysis, your crucial error is in your glossing over the concept "gratuitous evil". The primary goal of my argument is to demonstrate that there are some evils which are PROBABLY gratuitous. If you have trouble conceiving of this type of objection then again, let me direct you to my intuitive analogy again, which I hope you respond to: P1. In hypothesis H1, the existence of pyramids are attributed to concealed alien effort. P2. The case of humans being the actual creators of the pyramids is probably true. .: H1 is probably not true. By definition, the existence of aliens who would create pyramids on Earth is LOGICALLY INCOMPATIBLE with the existence of human beings who would create pyramids on Earth since this argument assumes only one race can create the pyramids. Either the aliens did it or humans did. However, this argument (and indeed countless other ones) has no problem being fallacious since it's arguing for the probable existence of such humans EVEN THOUGH they are logically possible. Take an even easier example: is it not possible for Hitler to have ruled the world even though the current state of affairs is not so? There is no reason to believe that these both can't be logical possibilities - just simply not in the same modal world at the same time in the same way. My argument is not making the bold claim that evil and Got are logically incompatible. Rather, I'm making the more modest claim that the evidence of evil, or at least certain evils, counts as evidence against God's existence. I attempt to move from the step that there can gratuitous evil to the claim that gratuitous evil exists in this world (if paired with the Christian god) thus generating internal evidence against his supposed existence.
Mass Deportation Policies undermine American Labor

Alright well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls of all ages, this seems like a rather timely issue for us to discuss. The first round wil not be part of the debate persay, but it will be the time when I'll define the resolution and provide a standard for judging today's debate. I hope that my opponent will consider my definitions and standard fair, if so, Con can accept my said definitions and standards. If not, then Con is certainly free to explain why the definition/standard isn't fair --although I do hope we don't have a topicality argument. And now for the definitions: Mass -- involving large numbers of people. For instance, around 3 million people were deported under Obama, and DACA currently protects around 700,000 youth from being deported. Deportation -- policies of governments, and in this case, a policy of the United States Government to transport undocumented workers to their countries of origin. Undermine -- damage or weaken (someone or something), especially gradually or insidiously. [1]American -- American NationalsLabor-- in this case labor has less to do with the act of working and more to do with the ability of people to both find employment and to bargain for better compensation. Standard for judging the debate: Whichever side can prove greater net benefits to the nonsupporvisory work force of the United States has met the standard for judging today's debate. nonsupporvisory -- "Nonsupervisory" means that the position being advertised does not have supervisory duties [2][1] define undermine[2] define non supervisoryA note on addressing the economic issue: Although I personally feel that mass deportations are extremely inhumane, I also think that the most persuasive way to oppose these deportations is to point out how they don't only harm the people who get deported, but also, to a different degree, (most) of the people who favor deportation. That being said, debate isn't necessarily about how one feels anyhow.
Mass Deportation Policies undermine American Labor

I should start off by saying this debate is solely about how deportation will affect the jobs of American citizens, and any arguments that revolve around the morality or rationality of deporting illegal immigrants are irrelevant (in this debate, but definetly not in real life!). This is quite a sensitive issue on which many people will have strong opinions but I trust voters will vote for the whoever delivers a better case on this specific issue. (And no extra credit on that path to citizenship, sorry :/ )Also, seeing as the Trump deportation situation will almost definitely happen my arguments will assume this is the case throughout the debate..First there are some holes in Pro's argument that I'll address:"Contention 1: The bargaining power of workers to get higher wages/ benefits is positively effected by increased rates of unionization, and lower rates of unemployment."Unions have brought up wages and working conditions, and will always continue to do so. Pro assumes that taking away illegals would make the Unions less powerful which just isn't true. Undocumented workers can't become a member of an organisation because there names would go on record. If you think about the mindset of these people, the reason they risked detention to get across the border wasn't so they could start fights with their employers. And if they did, their influence would be zero- if they demanded more or threatened strikes or disobedience their employer could simply dangle the fact that they are criminals under American law over their heads. Illegal workers don't take part in union activity, and if they did they wouldn't be much use. Besides, it would definetly not be in their interests to do so."Contention 2: Fear of deportation leads to lower wages for the undocumented and in turn, for American nationals" This one confused me (although that might have something to do with the fact that I've been on a plane since 3 in the morning). From what I understand Pro is when Unions rage the wage floor it has a knock-on effect to all employees. Like I said in the previous paragraph, illegal immigrants don't participate in Union activity. Therefore wage growth and Union progress won't be hampered by deportation.I hate to break out Trump rhetoric but when Mexico sends it's people over the border, they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs, etcetera. Like it or not, illegal immigrants are criminals (hence the name). The US doesn't owe anything to people who aren't her citizens, especially people who have broken the law to get there, regardless of their situation. America grants around 50,000. citizenships to Mexicans every year, which, to state the obvious, is a lot of people. That's all I've got to say for now. Deporting illegal immigrants will not undermine American labour.
Tattoos allowed in the Workplace

Joe summers a psychiatric says that his sleeve tattoos put his patients at ease when talking and at times it can be helpful (Christopher muther). Mae legassey, who works in the medical field says that having a tattoo is an ice breaker between her and her clients. If a person is truly a good worker and knows exactly what they are doing and working on in their field, a tattoo is the least of their worries. Tattooes can always be covered up by sleeves or make up if needed.
Tattoos allowed in the Workplace

If a person has a tattoo it is illegal not to hire them because of a tattoo. Having a tattoo presents a more modern age image. (Sharda Dashad). Considering the unemployment levels a industry or job isn't going to not hire someone because of a tattoo, they are going to pick the ones who show the most talent. Having an employee who has a tattoo may appear relaxed, fun or easy to talk too.
Abortion

Women are given the freedom of choice,thus they choose if they would like to abort a child or not. Although the U.S Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, A fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is fully dependent on its mother,unlike born human beings.Even if a fetus was alive the "right to life" does not imply the right to use another persons body. If the mother knows she cannot provide for the child, then she should be able to have an abortion. If the woman was to keep the child, it may feel unwanted, and be abused. Giving birth is dangerous too: In the United States pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause for death of women between the ages of 20 through 34. Source:https://www.law.cornell.edu...... Abortions are one of the safest procedures done in medicine, when preformed by trained professionals of course. According to the NCBI "The risk of death by child birth is 14 times higher than that of abortion". Humans are given the freedom of choice. Abortion is also legal, so women should be allowed to have an abortion if they would like. If the child is born with a disability and will live a short,painful death, then the mother should be able to make the choice if they want to keep the child. Saying that the woman who has aborted her child will go through subsequent depression, is in fact an opinion. In summary, - a "right to life" doesn't imply a right to use someone else's body to sustain a life. - Women do not have the "responsibility" to have children. -Banning abortion violates a woman's right to control her own body. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
Abortion

Fetuses feel pain during the abortion procedure. Maureen Condic, PhD, Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, explains that the "most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex," is developed by eight weeks gestation, and adds that "There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester."Abortions cause psychological damage. A 2008 peer-reviewed study published in the Scandinavian Journal of Public Health found that "Young adult women who undergo... abortion may be at increased risk for subsequent depression." It wouldn't have to survive on its own it could be taken into a foster home, their the workers would provide for the child. That way the mother wouldn't have to take the risk which could cause a lot of issues in the future.A peer-reviewed 2005 study published in BMC Medicine found that women who underwent an abortion had "significantly higher" anxiety scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale up to five years after the pregnancy termination. A women also getting an abortion done won't only get physically hurt but also mentallyIt often leads to unwanted memories, which can result into great stress and depression. Some women experience a feeling of guilt, which lasts for their whole lifetime. In short, abortion can turn out to be a lifetime worth of burdenAccording to the best record based study of deaths following pregnancy and abortion, a 1997 government funded study in Finland, women who abort are approximately four times more likely to die in the following year than women who carry their pregnancies to term. In addition, women who carry to term are only half as likely to die as women who were not pregnant.http://abortion.procon.org...
Abortion

Although the U.S Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, A fetus cannot survive on it's own, it is fully dependent on its mother,unlike born human beings.Even if a fetus was alive the "right to life" does not imply the right to use another persons body without consent. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs,even if doing so would save someone else's life. Also, the "right to life" does not imply a right to live by threatening another persons life. Child birth is always a threat to the mother, she can die from child birth. Sources: https://www.law.cornell.edu... When preformed by trained professionals, abortions are one of the safest procedures in medicine, with the death rate of less than .01 percent. According to NCBI "The risk of death of death associated with child birth is 14 times higher than that of abortion". Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Abortion

The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution provides that no person should be "deprived of life" without recourse to the due process of the law. More than 57 million unborn children have been killed, that is more than the entire population of Spain, 155 babies per hour and about 1 every 24 seconds. Abortion has a lot of risk to such as Heavy or persistent bleeding. Infection or sepsis,Damage to the cervix,Scarring of the uterine lining,Perforation of the uterus,Damage to other organs and even death one million teenagers in America t become pregnant each year. Of those one million 78% are unintended. Of all the teenage women that become pregnant 35% choose to have an abortion rather than bear a child. This indicates a problem in the amount of sexual activity with teens, and ultimately the decision made once they find out they are pregnant. Abortion is murder the killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Abortion

Abortion gives women the right to do as they please. And see fit with their own body. Women are given the freedom of choice, to do what they would like. Humans are endowed to life,liberty and pursuit of happiness as stated in The Declaration of Independence. These rights are our "unalienable rights", and they are protected by the Government. Abortion is also legal. There are no laws the prohibit Abortion in some states. So if it is not Illegal then we should be able to do as we please. Sources: http://www.archives.gov... You are asserting that giving birth is the "responsible" choice in the event of a pregnancy but that your opinion. If the woman knows that she will not be able to provide for the child,or the child will be born with a disability that will affect the child throughout it's whole life, then she should be able to abort if needed. Also if the child will have a short,miserable life, then the mother should be able to choose if she will keep the child or not.