BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We don't need a president - we should just vote on laws and bills our selves.

if we have a debate on the argument, Who would be debating? We can't just have 2 mobs yelling at each other. If we have individuals elected to debate, That would go directly against the premise of your debate. Regarding you point against what I said about people not being competent enough to know exactly what they would vote on, If what you said is true, Why would we even want a direct democracy anyways? You said that is what is going on right now, So why would we want more of it? There is never going to be one perfect candidate to make america great (no maga pun intended). What you said about giving people more of a vice then others, That still doesn't work. Why would we give the tiny minority just as much of a voice as the majority? That is like giving just as much of a voice to communists in our country compared to democrats/republicans. If more people vote one thing then don't, Than they will get that thing. It is how a democracy works. If we went with your plan, The votes would ALWAYS end up in an exact tie, Just because you want equal representation for all beliefs. If we had a direct democracy, The welfare of the society would be sidelined for the needs of the individual. Everyone would vote for what they themselves need, And not vote for what everyone needs. This is the exact reason we aren't a direct democracy, And instead a republic. It is also far, Far less work to have a republic with our population size then a direct democracy.
We don't need a president - we should just vote on laws and bills our selves.

Most people aren't competent enough to know what they are voting on would mean"? That's the same with the democracy we already have - only the people aren't analysing the problems individually but deciding upon a candidate that persuades them that they know what you want to happen, Even if some of what they say they will do doesn't agree with you - "as long as they put that giant wall up I don't care about the rest". Which is why I said we would have a debate on each topic to inform the voters on both sides of the argument hosted by respected journalists debated by citizens and scholars whose fields are relevant to the topic of the bill or law. My voting power scheme doesn't necessarily mean everyone won't have an equal vote on the topic, If we were to imagine voting orally - shouting 'nay' or 'yay' instead of casting ballots on a topic that would benefit a larger demographic of the country its almost a sure thing their voice would be the loudest because they are much more people. What the voting power scheme does is it levels out the volume such that, As a whole group the two demographics shouting would be about the same even if there are only 1000 members in one group compared to a million. The American elections last year were just a population count to see if there were more democrats or more republicans in the country, Where gerrymandering was the only variable that shifted state voting boarders to exclude voters of a particular group ensuring there were more democrats or more republicans in one state or the other. The electoral college vote its self is sort of the same as the scheme I'm proposing only its decided by how many congressmen bellong to each state.
We don't need a president - we should just vote on laws and bills our selves.

Your idea of 'one group of people's votes are worth more than the other, Because we need equal representation' goes completely against direct democracy. The whole point of democracy is that everyone's votes are equal, And that no one's votes are worth more than the next person. Regarding the debate on size, It isn't a matter of how many problems people are going to vote on, It's a matter of the size of the population. If we had a direct democracy, We would still vote on the same number of issues as today, Plus more that congress initially had the duty of voting on, Like bills and laws. Overall, I don't think most people are competent enough to know exactly what they are voting on would mean. That is the exact reason we have an electoral college, And we don't have a direct democracy now.
We don't need a president - we should just vote on laws and bills our selves.

Then to address the issue of demographic control, People that identify as part of a certain group must state so on the voting system and the weight of their vote will be adjusted in proportion to the population ratio of their demographic to the rest of the country ie. If the country was made up of two groups A and B but group A had 70% of the population then each member only gets a vote worth 0. 42 whereas members of group B have a vote worth 2. 33. But the value wouldn't be stagnant for every topic being debated, Because a country could have 50% Asian people but 70% Buddhists so deciding on the demographic to assign voting power to would have to depend on which people the Bill or law concerned - is it a matter which concerns religion, Gender, Education or ethnicity? That way your people get just as equal a say as the other no matter who is bigger. addressing the issue of the actual size of the population. Its not like everyone has 10 new problems a day with the way the country is run. Even focusing on just one issue a day for a month every 5 years we could get through at least 30 problems per term - Obama sponsored just over 140 bills in TWO terms and only 2 became law. Perhaps once this type of governance is implemented you start off with 1000 topics on the docket, It may take decades but eventually you will get through them, And all this wish washy its in its out business of making the law then the next president taking it away and so on will stop. deciding which topics should be put up on the docket for debate and voting shall be determined by majority nomination with the top 30 topics being debated and each citizen only gets to nominate 30 topics.
We don't need a president - we should just vote on laws and bills our selves.

what you are describing is a direct democracy, Instead of the constitutional republic we have nowadays. This will lead to even further political conflict, And further separation between the majorities and minorities. The minorities will end up having their ideas and votes suppressed. Therefore, Direct democracy tends to bring about unrest, Intolerance and injustice. Direct democracy lacks procedures, Promotes rigid uniformity. It restrains society, And causes despotism. Direct democracy is not practical, Its primary obstacle would be the problem of size. It is also related to human biological structure, I. E. Man is not capable of lending his complete attention to more than one speaker at a time. Thus, The agenda of any assembly on a bigger scale depends on its organizers to decide on a schedule, To assign speakers and regulate meetings. The bigger the assembly, The more privileges the organizers hold, The weaker the voices of ordinary participants, And the more limited their chances of playing an active part in politics.
We don't need a president - we should just vote on laws and bills our selves.

voting for a president has become a popularity contest with the winner being the person able to lie to the population the best. Instead of electing a candidate who says their going to make new laws you like - we should all just vote on the laws themselves and turn election year into a constitution review year, Instead of an election debate we debate on current or new laws and have the citizens vote on its implementation or removal.
God Exists

I personally believe in the Christian God, however, I will debate against the existence of God to broaden my perspective and strengthen my faith. Are we looking at the existence of God in light of science or moral values? Or both? Am I argueing against a specific God (like Christian) or just a god or higher power. 1. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus 2.The Bible has contradictions inside itself, see the geneology of Jesus in Mathew and Luke. The Bible must be false if it has any contradictions whatsoever because scripture is "God-Breathed", and if it is God-breathed it must be perfect. Contradictions are imperfections. 3. How can Jesus be both man and God? If the perfect man must be slaughtered to atone for the sins of the world then Jesus didn't fit the bill, because man can't do miracles outside of God- but Jesus is God, but Jesus is also man-Circular Reasoning. Man can't be 100% God and 100% Man. Geometric principle, Law of non-contradiction. 4. Why would God create imperfect beings and a chaotic world? Nothing imperfect can come from God, but the universe according to the Bible came from God. Sin must have indirectly come from God, making him little more than a higher power or supreme being instead of a flawless God.
Bullying is impossible to end.

Round 3 | Final Thoughts | by Eav | 5.11. Obviously a shame; I think with only a thousand characters to write, one could have taken the time. Anyway vote Con and/or read into my last thoughts on the topic. It's been a pleasure. Thought 2: Final Solution Removing a party from the community in which the violence occurred is certainly the last and most invasive action but a good way of solving the specific bullying problem for good. If the bullying is performed by a small group of people, excluding the leader or a leader figure sends a clear message and is putting the victim out of reach of the bully. If a group collectively showed hostile behaviour against a victim, removing one of the leaders might only resolve in stronger community forces and therefore it's best to find a new environment for the victim. This second option must be handled very sensitively because the victim should not feel like it is his fault and should not come without punishment for the bullies.
Bullying is impossible to end.

Round 2 | Additional Thoughts | by Eav | 2.11. It seems like my opponent has fled the scene. Which makes it of course difficult for me to decide whether I should put much effort in this argument. Still a few additional thoughts on the topic, should do the job. Thought 1: Interventions I already talked about Interventions and that they are a sensitive topic. Most strategies nowadays approach the topic with a third-party that is an authority to both bully and victim. Education World for example suggests the teachers {2}. Other than parents (that are only an authority to their own child), teachers have actual influence on the kids future which also gives them the ability to influence the kids influence. This pressure can force a behaviour change. Many of these intervention plans involve the final solution of removing the bully if he/ she is unwilling to stop the violence. Which is what I'll talk about next round. {2} http://www.educationworld.com...
Bullying is impossible to end.

Round 1 | Acceptance and Introduction | by Eav | 29.10. As I am not sure if that was Pro's actual argumentation I am very sorry if this was intended to be an acceptance only round and say a few words myself on the topic. Bullying and Bullies come in different shapes and shadows. They have different reasons to bully and different ways to do so. We can differ psychological and physical bullying which are both harmful but need to be addressed differently. A bully from a challenging home environment for example might stop if the cause of his/ her aggression is resolved. Interventions like this are difficult but not impossible (see also Reference 1). And concerning campaigns: The American Psychology Association (APA) featured in 2002 an article about Bullying-research {1} that lead to scientifically-based campaign that was funded by the Health Department, thus not commercial and focused on actual help. {1} http://www.apa.org...
Bullying is impossible to end.

Bullying is impossible to end. If you tell someone.. You're a 'Tattletale". They say "The best way to address bullying is to stop it before it starts." But how are kids going to do that if the bully is twice their size and can easily beat them the next day. Bullying campaigns are useless when all the organization cares about is making money and donating very little to the cause. Bullying is impossible to end.
Rematch: Transformer Showdown

Sun slash could beat Crocobot One way is that since my blue fire sword can slice through any metal, your armor would render useless, and you can't break my sword, because as I said, the hilt is made of diamond. Also, you never specified what type of material your teeth is made or of, I have to assume that they are also made of some sort of metal. And , like I said, my blue fire sword can slice through any metal. My plasma shut omens could also, if I threw it at the right angle, could slice all the teeth, or croc obits jaw, completely off. That is how Sunslash could beat Cocobot
Rematch: Transformer Showdown

I think Crocobot could beat Sunslash. For the points of: Sunslash's sword of fire seems to have the same strength as my buzz saw a potential tie can be made from hand to hand combat, but this is where I think my transformer wins, after many sword clashes my robot has the advantage of his built in lazy effectively damaging his enemy before he gets to him. Crocobots crocodile transformation. A chomp from his razor sharp teeth could leave Sunslashed sword disarmed if my first attempt of shooting Sunslash down failed. After a bite even Sunslashes armour will have no effect as Crocobot is spinning and Turing to painfully turn your transformer into scrap metal. You seemed to say your robot was tall, this will benefit me as it will be more easy for Crocobot to snap at a limb or even better his torso. I would like to see what you have to say.
Rematch: Transformer Showdown

Sunslash Sun slash is a yellow transformer that, even though he is slightly taller than Optimus, his stealth skills are legendary. His body is made of a layered titanium frame, lined with cultan( a very much fire resistant metal), kevlar( same material as bullet proof vests) and in some of his weaker parts, diamond coatings. He transforms into a school bus( why he's so big) and has a katana with a hilt of diamond and a blade of blue fire: the hottest type of fire that can slice through metal like butter. He also has plasma throwing stars. He is a strategist, weaving around opponents to figure out their battle stategy, so he can figure out the best possible way to beat them. He has never lost a fight. I believe he can beat Crocoman with ease.
Rematch: Transformer Showdown

I give to you : Crocobot He is crocobot because I couldn't think of another name, he is a auto bot. Robot transformation: Crocobot seems small compared to other transformers but really he isn't afraid of losing a fight, his front body is payed in armour to absorb many hits of lasers ect. On his left hand he is equipped with a built in laser and on his right a large buzz saw sharp enough to penetrate his opponents iron. He can run fast and is skilled at dodging very well despite his weight. His frontal armour is tat the front of Crocobot legs to head layer in thick iron. Crocodile Transformation: This is the super cool part of my transformer, he can transform into a crocodile. His mouth is layer out of millions of sharp teeth and his ability to death roll an opponent is very powerful. The death roll used by real crocodile and my transformer is when, the crocodile can bite a meal, it starts rolling around in the water with its prey effectively snapping all their bones and drowning it. In a transformer battle mine could rip many parts of your transformers limbs ect. Also crocodiles are lined with very thick scales on its back to defend against many hits such as he did as a robot.
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

Although I am a Christian, I am not going to allow my personal views on homosexuality reflect on my argument. Rather, I will simply use biblical evidence to support a thesis. While Jesus Christ himself may not have spoken out against homosexuality, the Bible does maintain a negative standing when it comes to the belief. Most Christians accept the Bible as fact, and all stated in the Bible, whether the words of Jesus Christ or not, should be accepted as true and righteous by all Christians. By using this statement, we can conclude that the beliefs of most Christians pertaining to homosexuality are directly derived from the entire Bible, not just verbatim quotes from the Messiah. Leviticus 20:13 states the following, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." (KJV). This verse directly reflects the negative views of the Bible towards homosexuals. However, the Bible also indirectly condemns homosexuality, not just directly. Consider Jude 1:7. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (KJV). Here, the Bible clearly disgraces on the many sexually immoral sins, one of which being sodomy. Sodomy is sexual intercourse pertaining to anal or oral sex; or essentially, anything outside of "PIV", or "penis in vagina". Therefore, if this practice is condemned, how can two homosexuals copulate righteously according to Christian doctrine? It is simply impossible.
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

As someone new to debate.org, I can already tell it has severe issues with glitching. Therefore, I apologize for my unfair and false accusation. I digress. To clear up what you have asked me to, fornication is simply sexual intercourse of any kind (whether sodomy or not) before marriage between heterosexuals or homosexuals. And again, most Christians who have negative views on fornication do not believe that marriage is just a "little piece of paper" as you called it. However, these Christians often believe that to be united in holy matrimony, the Bible in many cases mentions (of which I, for timesake, will leave out since you never once refuted any of the textual evidence I proposed) how marriage is a pact between two people to become one for eternity, an ultimate honor in the eyes of God. Just how important marriage can be to these Christians is stressed in this verse (yes, , "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled." (Hebrews 13:4). Again, I can't speak for all Christians. All I can tell you is what is in the Bible. And the Bible deems fornication as a sin, thus, should two heterosexuals in a monogamous relationship have sex, it is still fornication and sexually immoral. Now, do I believe that every fornicator is going to hell and is evil. Absolutely not. In fact, I could care less about what other people do. All you asked is from what do Christians gain this condemnation for homosexuals, and the true answer (whether you want to accept it or not) is from where all Christians derive their beliefs: the Bible. You ask a fair question about anal and oral sex. While the Bible does not explicitly mention the two, it is heavily implied in the story of Sodom and Gomorrha that the men of Sodom sought to anally gang-rape the angels God had sent to the town in the form of two men. If you never truly denied that the Bible speaks out against homosexuality how can you seriously question why Christians disagree with homosexuality, even though it is strictly mentioned in their very own holy book? You cannot possibly be that hypocritical. You created this entire debate asking where Christians derive their disapproval about homosexuality and then admit that their the Bible, the source of what is right and wrong for most Christian religious beliefs, speaks out against it. You just answered your own question in the form of my argument. On top of that, you decided to pose a new question about how the Bible "is filled with all kinds of stupid things". Let's finish the debate before opening up a new can of worms, shall we?
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

Sorry about the other post. This website was glitching up on me. the sexual immoral are the heterosexuals, see how they are separate from the homosexuals. So you need to clarify your definition of fornication. Is it two unmarried heterosexuals having sex? Or is it two unmarried heterosexuals having sex in a non-committed relationship. Because of it is the latter then a lot of christians have it wrong. They think that you need a little piece of paper to stop the ducking of two heterosexuals from being a sin. And many would condemn two heterosexuals in a committed monogamous relationship as being sexual immoral and fornicators. So please clear that up because many christians seem to be confused about that. Actually you need to show where the bible implies anything about heterosexuals blowjobs and doggy style type of sex being the cause. Because I can guarantee you that that isn't in there. Many christians claim that love everyone when they clearly are filled with hatred. Religion has always been used to justify atrocities, especially by those who don't understand the religion but sees it as a useful tool for their own personal agenda. I never denied that the bible speaks out against homosexuality. The bible is filled with all kinds of stupid things. Like the way it speaks out against heterosexuality.A279;
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

I will answer your question. Christians believe that having sex is fine as long as the couple are married. The bible doesn't say anything about how to have sex. It doesn't say that it should only be used for procreation. So if christians think that a marriage certificate can change the sin of heterosexuality into something nonsinfull, then they should be able to think the same for homosexuality. But since most of them don't it just proves that their homophobia isn't actually based on the bible.
jesus didn't mention homosexuality

I am struggling to find a piece of accurate information in your previous argument. First of all, Christians do not believe that all sex is permissible so long as the couple is married. The only sins that marriage creates immunity to is fornication, although adultery would then be possible. First Corinthians 4:8 clearly states "Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (ESV). Notice how not only does this verse directly condemn homosexuality, it also condemns sexual immorality separate from adultery and other forms of sinful intercourse. It looks like in Matthew 19:2, the Pharisees are asking you a question ; "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.'" Looks like you did not read that, did you? Most Christians do not view a marriage certificate can change anything, but rather, many Christians that marriage between a man and a woman is much more than a mere document, but rather, a unification of two people into one, physically, especially during sex. Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrha and come back and try to convince me that this story does not heavily imply the Bible's disapproval of homosexual, extra-marital, and non-missionary sex. Here is another question: why would so many Christians, many of which whose views are based on a religion whose primary foundation is love, would condemn a group of people for reasons outside of their holy doctrine? Again, I do not believe it is correct to do this, all I am arguing is that you cannot deny that the Bible itself speaks out against homosexuality, although I myself may not.