BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Every law that is passed by congress should require a 2/3 vote.

Initial Talking Points: Democratic and Republican parties have become more polarized in recent history. It has been a common trend for a political party to dominate the House of Representatives or the Senate, and quickly pass laws simply because they occupy a majority of the seats in the House or the Senate. This creates some issues. 1. A 2/3 vote presents a more accurate representation of what society really wants. Any Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote, why shouldn't the same concept be applied to passing all laws? 2. The constant flip flopping between parties holding the majority in the Senate or House creates an environment of uncertainty for businesses. Businesses may become more hesitant to grow or invest money as new laws/regulations may have a negative impact on business. 3. It is not uncommon for a political party to completely repeal a previous parties law implementation. 4. This concept would actually encourage law makers to work together. Republicans would have to convince Democrats and vice versa. When both parties work together in this manner, the United States could see some positive results. Both parties will have to find a common ground. 5. Society constantly changes, therefore we need a constant to ensure that a government body does not change to quickly. A 2/3 vote should be required to pass a law, and a 2/3 vote should be required to repeal it. Once again, it is important that this country has a sense of stability. The cooperation between the political parties can also unite the people in this country more. Do any of you also notice the rift that is growing between the Republican and Democratic party? A 2/3 vote carries numerous benefits, and it would a more practical concept.
College/University and formal tertiary education is not necessary

The government may appear to be benevolent with what they provide but seem to be inconvenient to me when receiving money from the public whether it's educational or tax related. Tax rates are too high and student loans appear to be unattractive. I came across an article explaining how graduates from high school that received the highest ranks and A+ grades are applying for jobs instead of university courses. They apply at places such as accounting and law firms among many more respectable jobs and are accepted. They receive work experience and training which will broaden their skill-set and will be able to mention these on their resume. Training, experience and education seems to be more favourable to the employer than a University Degree. Universities seem like a government scam for money. With the internet available many can gain knowledge easily so where does that leave University? Some organisation that provides you with a paper called a 'degree' that says you paid for your course, passed your exams and sat through your lectures? Knowledge can be learned online and the sense of 'community' that university provides can also be arranged on the internet so why not just have an exam for a job instead of a degree? why not have an exam to show a company that you are eligible for a position, and that you have the available skills? also what are your views on social democracy?
Infinity Is Not a Real Number

Returning to the definition of a real number, a real number is defined as "...a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line." The set of real numbers, along with the binary operation of addition, form a group called the reals. The reals obey certain axioms. Other rules can be deduced from those axioms. I will prove that if x and y are positive numbers, x+y is greater than both x and y.[1]I will do this by contradiction - suppose that if x and y were positive real numbers, the x+y was not greater than both x or y. By one of the order axioms, x+y is also positive, or (x+y)>0. Suppose that x is greater than x+y (substituting y makes no difference). Then (x+y)<x, implying y<0, which is a contradiction, since y was defined to as a positive number. Therefore, by contradiction, if x and y are positive real numbers, then x+y is greater than both x and y.[2]Using this, take the case of 1 and infinity. 1 is obviously positive and infinity is defined as positive. 1+infinity=infinity, but infinity is not greater than infinity. Therefore, either 1 or infinity is not a real number. 1 is defined to be a real number, so infinity must not be a real number.Therefore, infinity is not a real number.Sources[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk...;(see The Axioms - II The Order Axioms - (b))
Infinity Is Not a Real Number

This debate will probably mark the end of my use of math debates. It's an old one I challenged someone to a while back, but they never accepted it. This debate is open to anyone, and lacks a formal structure. The first round will be for acceptance, and there'll be two rounds of debate. I will not define infinity itself, as any definition will confer an unfair advantage to one debater, but I will define what a real number is. A real number is a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line.[1]Sources [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
18 joining army

BOP Con has the BOP Adulthood If you are 18, you are an adult, capable of making your own decisions; that includes enlistment. Why should the military turn an adult away, when they are willing to fight to defend their country? It is not our place to tell adults what they can and cannot do with their lives; especially when their choice is to defend their country. Demographics Only 20.1% of the military are between the ages of 18 and 21. In the Army it is only 18.3%; in the Navy it is 18.6%; in the Air Force it is 14.4%; in the Coast Guard it is 12.2%. The Marines are the only ones with a decent number of young soldiers; 36.9% of their forces aged 18-21, which is still a minority. The average age of a marine is 25; the average age in both the Navy and Army is 29; the average age in both the air force and coast guard is 30. While military personnel between the ages of 18 and 21 are in the minority, it would severely weaken our military if we were to lose those personnel. In addition, most of the older military personnel were at one time in the 18-21 age range; if the age was increased, they would have less military experience. http://www.statisticbrain.com... Founding fathers The founders believed that every citizen should defend their country. The founders believed a standing army was dangerous to the people’s liberty, and they believed our primary defense should be the militia. The militia act of 1792 required that every adult white male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be organized into a local militia. http://www.constitution.org... The militia act of 1862 later made it possible for black adults to join the militia as well. http://www.history.umd.edu... The founders believed that once you become and adult, it was your duty to defend your country.
Porn is immoral

A lot of the times, stigma revolving around pornography influences the decision in these polls. The reality is, though, Cultural Relativism is based on the actions in that community, not necessarily the thoughts. With an overwhelming majority admitting to watching porn, clearly it is acceptable on some level and therefore subjectively moral.Furthermore, the only point you have made to support your side of this debate is that porn comes from a greek word meaning sexually immoral. Irrelevant, etymology of a word and origins don't determine neither 1) morality or 2) the actual meaning of the word. This is because words adapt over time.You cannot bring any new points in the last round supporting your case, therefore, on this point alone I ought to win todays round. Even if you buy his arguments against my case, he has not sufficiently proven or supported his own.
Porn is immoral

My sole contention is going to base itself off of Cultural Relatavism which is defined as "the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture."[1] http://www.princeton.edu... Morality definition: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.[2 ]http://www.merriam-webster.com...Morality is subjective based on the culture, therefore we should base todays round on what is morally considered acceptable for that country. Porn is an equal exchange of services that if done traditionally, does not harm anyone on either side of the exchange. "75% of Danish men and 1/3 of Danish women watch porn according to a 2014 survey by the women’s magazine Q.Masturbating, “sexual inspiration”, and killing time were the reasons given to use pornography.The Local DK, 10-31-14" "A University of Sydney, Australia, study found that:70% of Australian men view porn online (the article quotes that some surveys show the number as high as 90%). The average first exposure to porn is age 11.80% of 15 to 17 year olds have had multiple exposures to hard core porn. Newcastle Herald, September 12, 2014"We see consistently throughout modern societies, porn is something that is being used by the majority of citizens. A majority following for that culture means it is considered to moral for that society. I'll give a hypothetical, slavery is frowned upon in current societies, therefore it is considered immoral for our societies standards, however, if a society generally accepts slavery as something that is acceptable, then it would be considered moral for that society to empose it.A non-hypothetical would be the Aztecs in the 1400s. When Europeans landed in the New World in 1492 they witnessed the human sacrifices that occurred in these areas and then imposed their morality unto them by determining that these people must be evil, because they had a ritual of killing people for the gods. However, to them it was considered moral because it was acceptable for their society. This is a very good example of cultural relavism.Porn is similar to this, as it is generally accepted and used as a means to enjoy onself.Back to you Pro
Changing the name of roblox to dead because we are getting rid of it forever

I believe that we don't need to get rid of Roblox. Why should we need to get rid of Roblox in the first place? Some believe it to be 'stupid' and I respect you and the others opinions. However, just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it needs to be completely banned or anything. Plenty of kids absolutely love it, and I personally think it is a fun game. I also wonder what good it would do to get rid of this game. I don't completely understand why it is so stupid. It is a game made for kids (I'm not saying only children can play it though) and it is made to 'power imagination'. I believe that too many video games are hazardous to a child's health, but Roblox itself doesn't turn kids brains to mush any more than other games do. I would like to know if you have tried the game yourself, and why you personally don't like it and believe that it should be banned in the next round. Thank You!
Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting...

I'll concede that Lynn's parenting influenced the lives of her children. Megan91509 will try to make it seem that she has won this debate just because of this. There is no question that things would be different if Lynn had made different choices. However, I believe that the media will also shape their lives as well. Everyone shapes the life of Britney Spears. She has to go through emotional stress because of people like you. While I am not an advocate of her actions...I certainly wouldn't judge her for them. She was put in a very unique situation that NONE of you can relate to. Megan also states that pre-teens will be affected by the actions of Britney Spears. This is true to some extent. But I argue that Britney has hit such a low that nobody could possibly see her as a role model. As far as Jamie Lynn is concerned...she actually is a role model. That argument was conceded by Megan. That was evidence that I provided...and Megan ignored it. I would also like to point out that Nietzsche has not been refuted and still stands. You can look back on my other rounds to see how that works in this debate. I hope some of you will look at it. Look here when voting: Although Megan has made some good points...lets look to the topic. "Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting..." Some of you may look at this and vote before looking to my arguments. That would be a big mistake. I have turned all of the arguments against megan that she has brought up. I will maintain the fact that the actions of Britney Spears sets an example of what not to do for everyone. Jamie Lynn has already learned from this and takes full responsibility just as megan would like her to. However, Megan did not refute this...in fact...she completely ignored it. I would ask all of you to look at the real cause of the status quo. You may find that all of us have something to do with the Britney Spears we have come to know today. The media coverage and resentment towards Britney Spears and her family is something that none of us can really even imagine. However, I think I can say that maybe everyone is a little "better" for it.
Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting...

Well said, but the whole point of this argument was to point out the fact that the Spears sisters are screwed up because of how they were raised. You strengthened that part of my argument when you said: "You speak about your friend who has "parents [that] are irresponsible people" and that made sense. I'm not going to argue that one's parents have a significant impact on someone's life. However, I will argue that Lynn Spears' choices aren't made for you, your friends, or anyone else except for her own daughters." Never did I state that Lynn Spear's choices are made for me or anyone besides Britney and Jamie Lynn. I just feel like some parents these days aren't living up to the standards they should and that is ruining youths. Lynn Spears to me is a perfect example. She saw the grotesque amount of money Britney made in early childhood, which undoubtedly fueled her desire to keep Britney famous and Jamie Lynn, too. Her irresponsible decisions ruined her daughters. Another important point you mentioned: "People say… "I'm not going to be like Britney" and that is fair and decent." Yes, I am sure many people say this try to live their life by this. Then you must consider the younger naive people that see them as these really cool famous people that can do whatever they want. The intelligent mature people can recognize the error in the Spears' ways, but I have little faith in the Hollywood-obsessed naive pre-teens. Overall, the family sets a bad example for people everywhere and there is no arguing that.
Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting...

So let me get this right…you aren't saying that you are abstinent but you will say that you take responsibility for your actions. "I'm so proud of her for stepping up and being courageous and taking responsibility for her choices, and I believe she's being a good role model – a good role model in that situation, to choose to have the baby, and I am supportive of her in that situation." -Lisa Whelchel of The Facts of Life, Jamie Lynn's pregnancy I guess we aren't talking about Jamie Lynn here because she has obviously taken responsibility for her actions. Lots of people have unplanned pregnancies. You also say that they key problem is bad parenting. You speak about your friend who has "parents [that] are irresponsible people" and that made sense. I'm not going to argue that one's parents have a significant impact on someone's life. However, I will argue that Lynn Spears' choices aren't made for you, your friends, or anyone else except for her own daughters. If they are multi-millionaires…they are going to live like multi-millionaires. For some reason I get the feeling you resent that… "…but if they didn't make millions off their Spears' family overrated talents, she would be having a tougher time with life" Undoubtedly true…but hopeful on your behalf Once again…I will say that only way that Lynn Spears has affected your life is by making you more of the person you want to be. The fact that you even made this topic proves my point. Otherwise you would not add to the gross amount media coverage of the Spears sisters. Britney Spears has opened the eyes of many people in the United States. People say… "I'm not going to be like Britney" and that is fair and decent. However, another point of mine is that nobody can be like Britney. None of you have ever known what it is like to start as a child phenom, grow up in that era and become who Britney is today. None of you can claim that you would have had better judgment. I think that the majority of Americans have heard of Britney Spears from the media and if they don't know much…they do know that they don't want to be like her. Also, I would like to expand on my Nietzsche argument. You have still not shown me how you avoid this. The actions of the Spears sisters are inherent conditions of life under the spotlight…it just seems like you can't handle it.
Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting...

Well, I would like to congratulate you on finding no flaws in the parenting of these two girls. In actuality I have no "resentment" towards the media or a problem with 16 year olds who have sex. Actually, nowhere in my first passage did I ever state I was abstinent; I just merely stated I accept responsibility for my actions, and the repercussions my actions yield. I personally, just think it is a bad idea to put these girls on the news and the covers of magazines with their stories, because inevitably many young girls see it as an okay thing for them to do. I am not telling 16 year olds or anyone they can't have sex, if they are emotionally ready for that. Somehow, I can't help but think with a more guided childhood they could have salvaged a life of normalcy. Sadly, I have a close friend who is 2 months younger than I, and she just gave birth to a daughter, who she has decided to keep. I have no problem with her or what she's done, but the fact of the matter is, her parents are irresponsible people. They don't care about what she is doing or who she with, or when she'll be back. Jamie Lynn's mom was aware that her daughter and her daughters much older 19 year old boyfriend were living in the same house. She did nothing and had no problem with this as a parent. I ask you, is that a responsible thing for a parent to do? Is it? I don't know if you have kids or plan on having kids, but it is a parent's job to create a healthy and safe environment for their children. The fact of the matter is Lynn Spears (the mother) is not a responsible parent. I see no way; you can justify her actions as a mother. She failed as a mother. No, it might not be the end of the world for Jamie Lynn, but if they didn't make millions off their Spears' family overrated talents, she would be having a tougher time with life. My friend who just had the baby is having trouble finishing school, working to support her baby, and finding the father of her baby who is in hiding because he has a warrant out for his arrest for statutory rape, because he is over 18. Jamie Lynn Spear's is showing young girls how easy it is to get pregnant at 16 and still have a decent quality of life.
Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting...

Hello Megan, I would first like to congratulate your abstinence from the actions of the Spears sisters... However, I'm finding it hard to see the personal damages done to you or anyone else. You say that "there is too much media hype about Jamie Lynn's pregnancy" but you give no justification as to why there is too much. Maybe there is too much media hype...but why is that a problem? *Eventually I will turn this argument against you...saying that this media attention in fact helps you become the "moral" person or whatever you claim to want to be. The fact that you see this in the media makes you resent it more. If you would like to speak on that...fine...we can debate that. My main point that I would like to make in this debate is your Ressentiment. Although you may not notice it, you seem to have the Socratic ideal embedded into your thoughts. While completely embracing the Apollonian elements of life, you seem to completely ignore the Dionysian elements that make the universe whole. Who are you to tell someone that they can't have sex when they are 16? There Mother doesn't have to be that person either. This is a classic case of what Friedrich Nietzsche terms Ressentiment and this will be my key point in this debate. The negation of life itself cannot help you win a debate. On a side note, I will argue birth control to be an ineffective means of achieving your ideal. Thanks.
Britney Spears is screwed up and Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant because of poor parenting...

Firstly there is too much media hype about Jamie Lynn's pregnancy. Yes, she's screwed up just like her sister, and yes that may be fascinating for metaphorical "rubber neckers," but the fact of the matter is, everyone saw it coming. Personally, considering that the Spears' sisters were formally regarded as role models to young girls, the media should not be shoving this story down every ones throat. Too many, children look up to these girls that they the media should not even be reporting this, many naive young children will only glorify their lifestyle in their own minds. Back to the original point though, I realize that Britney being an adult, and Jamie Lynn being 16 means they should have full responsibility of their own actions. I myself am 16, yet I understand the consequences and repercussions of my actions. They should too, but no one can possibly say better parenting would not have changed the outcome of these girls. Their parents, namely their mom, have shoved both of them into the Hollywood spotlight at a very young age. Seems like she did this more for herself, like she was trying to live through her children. Well, she is obviously an unfit mother and people like her need to discover the wonders of birth control, as do her daughters.
choc. milk in schools

Chocolate milk contains more sugar and calories than regular milk, and in today's day and age there is an overwhelming percentage of kids struggling with obesity. A lot of people prefer the taste of white milk to chocolate milk, so any argument about flavor can be left out of it. If a kid won't drink milk otherwise and a parent is concerned about a calcium deficit, they can easily supplement with vitamins. My opponent has not shown that kids who drink chocolate milk are better at pull ups. It seems absurd to say a kid drinking chocolate milk can do more pull-ups than one drinking white milk. There are also a lot of vegans who are great athletes, so milk seems to not have any effect on athletic ability or energy.