BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The superdelegate system is rigged and undemocratic

I disagree and here's why, the democratic party has the right to pick and choose whatever rule or procedure they want to ultimately get to a nominee, and that's the key word there 'nominee'. the parties have their rules in place for a reason, so that they can get to the 'best looking' democratic, republican.... whig? candidate to represent their respective parties. this gets to one of your other points about how independents cant vote in democratic primaries, this is because its the process that the democratic party has laid out to choose a nominee. now when the actual election day gets here then we may exercise our voting rights on that day. these primaries are contests set up by the respective parties thus they can have their super delegates to ensure that they pick the 'best looking' democratic candidate that best represents the parties agenda as well as the party primary voters choice.
The superdelegate system is rigged and undemocratic

Superdelegates are not "democratic" at all. We need to remove the superdelegate system because it takes away the voices of the American people. Most of these superdelegates are not ordinary American citizens, they are people with millions and millions of cash in their bank accounts. Why should they have a larger say in politics than we do? America was built as a democracy where people could vote for whomever they choose. Whoever wins the popular vote, would get the nomination. Now, that system has been ruined. First of all, independents are not allowed to vote in most primaries, and they take up about 42% of registered voters in America, so that's another disadvantage. Second of all, no citizen, regardless of income or reputation, should have more power over a democratic election than another. Why should millionaires have a vote that's worth more than thousands of people combined? Many of these rich superdelegates are not using their money to help the American people, while ordinary American citizens are struggling to pay the bills and put food on the table for their family of four. Why should we listen to them over people with real struggles? It's not fair that 714 people have more of a say in the election than most of the American population, which is about 330,000,000. 28% of Americans are registered as Democrats, which is about 92,400,000 people. One democratic superdelegate vote accounts for 129,411 average American votes. How in the world is this a democracy when the election system is rigged against the people?
The superdelegate system is rigged and undemocratic

okay so at least we're getting somewhere, we both agree that the parties have the legal right to include 'super delegates' in their nominating process. now, the constitution IS being upheld we're not losing out, our voices will be heard on the day that we have the right to be heard. this means that independents will be able to exercise their right to vote and can, if they held their own primaries, exclude or include whoever they want in their nomination process. then in November just like the constitution says we will all have the right to vote for whoever we want. The constitution also protects our right to free association and courts have upheld this right. "On October 1, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the Virginia mandatory open primary statute was unconstitutional as applied to the Republicans because it imposed a burden on their freedom to associate under the First Amendment" the thing here is that the parties have a right to freely associate if they want meaning no outsiders if they say so but if the state party officials choose so then in those states they do and many times states try to impose unconstitutional laws on the parties trying to dictate how the parties choose their nominees but the fact remains that each party has the right to choose whatever rule they want in their nomination process including super delegates and closed primaries and then we get to exercise our right to vote later down the line in November.
The superdelegate system is rigged and undemocratic

While they do have the right to pick and choose whatever rule or procedure they want to get the nominee, this is a democracy. The first words of the foundation of our government, The Constitution, are "We The People". A country is not a democracy unless every single person's vote is equal and no one's is any more or less important. I don't think that they are abiding to the ideals that our country was built upon. Everyone can have a say in who we want to lead our country. According to Merriam Webster, there are three definitions to the word democracy:"A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.""A country ruled by democracy.""An organization in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights." We may be promised a general election, but why should there be rules where SOME people can vote in primaries, not all of them? That's not fair. The only states that allow independents to vote in the primaries are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachussetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. That is 19 out of 50 states. Only 38% of states allow independents to vote in the primary! That's not a democracy. That is not equal rights, for sure. A democracy would be where everyone has an equal say in what they want for their government.
In general, religion is cute, cuddly, and nice to have around.

I think most would agree that religion is nice to have around, whether they are believers or not. Christianity, for example, keeps people positive by giving them the hope that they will go on living forever. Also, many of the 10 Commandments mirror existing laws and/or encourage positive behavior (i.e. do not steal, kill, lie, commit adultery, etc.). Most religious texts are full of useful wisdom and examples of how to live happily. Christ promoted kindness, tolerance and brotherly love, among other virtues. The same could be said of Buddha and Mohammad. I personally know many people who would not be nearly as happy without their religious beliefs. I believe the United States would be a much gloomier place today if the average person did not have his religion.
In general, religion is cute, cuddly, and nice to have around.

Alright my summary will be very brief indeed. My opponent completely drops my round 2 argument under the good and evils of religion labeled point 1. This point said quite clearly, "1. No proof, until my opponent brings me some kind of proof that the "good" teaching of some of these religions actually have an impact on society we cannot accept this point as evidence in this debate." To elaborate a little bit. There are many texts out there that teach good things, that say good things etc.... but this does not mean that all of them have a good effect on our society, are interpreted in the right way, or even are considered. Some people may live their lives exactly as if off the bible's word but this is a very small minority, and a minority that is clearly canceled out when the fact that religion has radicalized entire peoples and caused countless wars is considered. Cross apply my point about fire and brimstone preachers. Radicalized Christians who have taken the idea in a totally different way. Cross apply my point two that states good and evil is completely subjective, one religions good might be another religions evil. Look specifically to the example of this site and its many Islam debates to prove this point. In summary my opponent's last speech clarifies that many religions have good teachings. My point is simply that these teaching have little effect on society and can even be misconstrued. Finally my opponent argues that things religion have done in the past has no relevance now. Let me clarify, I'm not saying that you as voters should weigh the fact that religion has killed many people in the past. I am stating that religion, through empirical proof, kills people and is still killing people today. Saying that religion is nice just because its not committing a mass genocide at this point in time is like saying a murder is nice because at the moment he's only hurting people. =) Thank you.
In general, religion is cute, cuddly, and nice to have around.

Oh no. I never thought I'd have to be debating the meaning of "is." I gave you many reasons as to why religion is nice to have around today and explained that most encourages positive thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Look at my round-1 paragraph again. "Christianity, for example, keeps people positive by giving them the hope that they will go on living forever. Also, many of the 10 Commandments mirror existing laws and/or encourage positive behavior (i.e. do not steal, kill, lie, commit adultery, etc.). Most religious texts are full of useful wisdom and examples of how to live happily. Christ promoted kindness, tolerance and brotherly love, among other virtues. The same could be said of Buddha and Mohammad. I personally know many people who would not be nearly as happy without their religious beliefs. I believe the United States would be a much gloomier place today if the average person did not have his religion." "until my opponent brings me some kind of proof that the "good" teaching of some of these religions actually have an impact on society we cannot accept this point as evidence in this debate." See my opening argument again (do not kill, steal, etc.) "from here I will begin discussing the crusades" You did that in your previous argument and after I mentioned that I was aware of horrible campaigns of the past. Now you bring it up again. You brought nothing new to the table in your 2nd argument other than the weight of nuclear threat. That would require us to debate the merits of religion based on what MIGHT happen. Again, I'm talking about religion in our everyday lives-- today. I supported this claim in my previous remarks, and they went not only unchallenged, but unrecognized by you. My case still stands.
corgis are the best type of dog

Corgis are weak and stupid. I personally believe that German Shepherds are the best dog in the world because they can protect you unlike a weak little stupid dog like a Corgi. And a German Shepherd could kill a Corgi in two seconds with a huge chomp on the back of its neck. If I could I would use my small loan of one million dollars to buy a thousand German Shepherds. And you would have nothing.
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

During most of my waking hours, I am a very content person. I have a nice home--nothing fancy--but adequate heat, light and amenities. I have a woman who's put up with me for 23 years. I have a bit of debt, but nothing that's going to break my financial back. In other words, I'm already very close to having a one-man utopia. But I envision something larger. I see everyone walking around with the world's collective knowledge at their fingertips, that is, it's as close as the internet on the smartphone in their pocket. I see three-dee printers creating amazing products that never could have been assembled any other way. I see wealthy entrepreneurs creating some mind-blowing creations that promise to make life so much better for us, and ALL OF THESE THINGS are being done with only that 10 or 20% of their brains functioning, as you mentioned. So, Utopia, as I see it, is when no one is starving, homeless, or suffering unnecessarily. It's when everyone is living comfortably, whether they are employed or not. It will occur when we learn to control all the things that can be controlled. This is probably doable with 50% of our current brain capacity! One crucial factor in getting us to the objective, is teaching kids how to avoid making costly mistakes, like dropping out of school if they're not going to pursue further education on their own, having kids out of wedlock, having kids before they're ready to support them, and blowing their money on hair dye, piercings, tattoos, and other non-essentials. We need to redefine morality in a manner that is more in keeping with human nature, not as these dusty old contradictory Testaments recommend. If we do learn how to use 40% more of our brain, then yippee hurray... we can improve further faster, but if people can make ideal lives for themselves now on an individual basis, there's no reason why they couldn't group together and form a utopic society. Your notion that we are a virus is a terribly depressive bit of nonsense that demands refutation. If you REALLY thought that way and had the best interests of the planet in mind, then you would go around preaching to people the need to kill themselves, and when the second to last person on the planet offed themselves, you would follow suit. That is the opposite, most dystopian scenario I can think of. “Man is too dumb to live in harmony with the world and should therefore destroy himself.” That statement is anathema to me. You doubted the wisdom of creating A.I. as well… the robots might take over the world. I suppose some evil scientist could program mass destruction into the droids, or a military application goes awry, or something, but, as FDR would say, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.”
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

I have to admit that we have come to a point where we can agree on some things and that some truths are already in place, and as we both know now, many things will have to change, the part about what I said that we would have to transcend from a finite state to infinite (as we would need to fully learn new ways that the human body is unable to process naturally) as we both know, a human only uses around 10 to 15% of the brain capacity at any given time, if it does go above that it's definitely not above 20%. That is why I said that we would need to transcend the limitations of the Human Body which we are bound by, I will always stand by that. On that let's learn to Agree to disagree that some things are out of our control. As in wise of robots taking over from us, I will never cross that line, as I feel technology will mean the end of the Human Race as we know it today, and that compromises must be made that AI should never take over from man and that robots stick to what we alre, as you know with films like I Robot and Terminator, you can not rule out the possibility AI will turn against us, and as I have noticed with automation on too many occasions, that automation fails very frequently, and if automation is failing now, this gives the possibility of robots doing the same in the future, hence, why I say in our current state like you said utopia is around the corner, it can never be until we learn to use 100% of the brain, meaning no matter how hard you try, utopia will forever be around the corner (An Impossible Dream), now maybe you can understand why I said we would need to transcend from finite to infinite possibilities . Maybe in the distant future man will finally be able to use 100% of their brain, that is IF what is being said about a Red Dwarf hurtling towards Planet Earth is true, Then our finite existence will come to a grinding halt anyway, so, either way, you look at it the possibilty of man reaching utopia is an improbability, the way I see things man could end up killing itself before any red dwarf, meteorite or comet will hit planet earth. Online I did notice somewhere saying is MAN the greatest virus on Planet Earth. Oh, Just found out what I said before Oh is on this site under the Heading "Are Humans The Super Virus That Will Destroy Earth?". I will rest my case there.
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

s://s.yimg.com...; border="0" alt="Yahoo!" width="147" height="31" /> Help Note This link is not authorized by Yahoo!. Copyright © 2017 Oath Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service Unfortunately I couldn't read your link at all-sorry.Nevertheless, we ARE overhauling a good part of governmental positions... you've no doubt heard the term: Draining the Swamp! ;-)I couldn't agree more about electing scientists and naturalists, as well as naturists ! ;-)} Well, how about some mathematicians, and by that, I don't mean Krugmanite Keynesian economists. But good we agree on that point.We disagree, most vehemently, I might add, with this assertion: "using ideological ideas to say that utopia is even possible, mankind would need to transcend from a finite existence which we are all bound by, into a realm of infinite possibilities, which is beyond human understanding."Why should that be? Look, we are coming into the dawn of full automation. Bit by bit, more of society's dirty work is going to be handled by droids and drones. People will be free to follow other pursuits other than cranking out widgets at the factory. Fix-it droids will keep the labor droids running at 90+% efficiency. Monetary algorithms will preven wild market fluctuations. Urban farms will alleviate inner-city hunger. New, better, faster ways to solve problems will be invented. Increased surveillance (corporate, not necessarily Big Brother) will protect assets and reduce crime. As secular thought replaces religion, more meaningful social mores can be adopted. In other words, won't it be great when a mother nursing her baby is viewd with awe and tenderness instead of lewd and lascivious behavior. Won't it be great when I'm more offended that you didn't touch me, than you gave me an unwanted touch. Won't it be great as people learn to overcome whatever their biological circuitry says and actually choose WITHOUT SHAME to be gay, bi, straight, or flavor of the month.When you consider how long man wallowed in his superstitious state, and how fast we are advancing on every scientific front--Mars rovers, Higgs bosons, gravity waves, quantum computers, nuclear fusion, driverless cars, duct tape, wd-40... well, OK, you get the picture... but these advances HAVE to lead us toward a better future. Could someone eff it up? Yeah, but already we're seeing a great improvement as indictments for Hillary, Podesta, and the most corrupt among us become closer to a reality.There is SO MUCH that can be done WITHIN our bounds of human understanding, if we can just find the proper motivation. Man is understanding the consequences of his own actions more and more, but with every new problem come innovative thinking on how to solve said problems.I contend not that we COULD BE, but that we ARE as close to Utopia as we've ever been, and that every day seems to be another step in that direction.
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

I would agree with what some of it says about Man moving towards utopia, nirvana, or the promised land as some Christians would say. However, what is being implied would mean an overhaul of the entire governmental positions, and to elect people who have a full understanding of Science and Nature, and put an infrastructure in place with people who know about the true Laws, and not the pseudo laws which have been put in place over the last 45 years. And using ideological ideas to say that utopia is even possible, mankind would need to transcend from a finite existence which we are all bound by, into a realm of infinite possibilities, which is beyond human understanding. Take this Link as an example of Ideology:-https://r.search.yahoo.com...- Though I am unable to read it clearly all the way through, many aspects can easily be misconstrued, and that until we pass on from this life, finding a utopia without conflict is an improbability until modern politics is fully out of the equation, and manfully understands what the consequences of there own actions can bring,
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

I have to admit that in what you say, compromises can be made, and, yes, coming to the point of those undiscovered cures, we would need places of research to help manufacture them and distribute them to the people, and that providing people are willing to accept that technology does not have all the answers, but some do, Finding answers to the world's problems is the key to Progress in this age and that people are given access to this knowledge freely (not restricted like it is today), maybe man can find a Utopia where disease is finally eradicated, technology is only used to help synthsize the cures and to find ways for renewable energy, and not used for Biological Weapons. I am sure that the Internet could be used for the Improvement of man, this I feel would be in better hands with Scientists who are fully aware of all the positive aspects and benefits Natural Cures like the ginger I quoted and many other herbs and roots which exist, that man will finally be able to live a very healthy and constructive life. Plus man will need to stop destroying the natural habitat, and stop synthesizing artificial cures when the cultivating of plants can supply us with what we truly need, as I have found out myself through experimenting with different types of herbs (in its natural form). https://r.search.yahoo.com...- http://r.search.yahoo.com...- The Links above may give an idea of the differences certain herbs can make. And the possible diversity of the number of cures that can be found in nature itself. And that the answers to all our problems (except the ways certain humans think), that every ailment known (or most) can be cured with natural herbs of all kinds.
Mankind is slowly working its way toward Utopia

Well, I'm glad that I've at least swung you from "Man is a virus that needs to be eradicated..." to "Hey, my utopia is living out on the back 40 suckin' on a ginger root!" We're making progress! Others may feel that your way is the way to go so, if I'm ever elected Dictator of the World, I'll set aside some vast tracts of wilderness for the Outdoorsy Utopians, and large metropolitan indoor Utopian societies for the comfort of those who don't care for 20 below zero in a buffalo-hide tent. Your job will be to shepard your outdoorsy folks with sage advice on how to maintain equal hunting and gathering rights for all, and to steer people into living harmoniously with each other. Are you going to allow my indoorsy people to sell your outdoorsy people plastic lawn chairs, or are all your folks going to have to sit on stick furniture? Developing certain protocols like this will help us live in harmony. You want to capitalize on things like ginger root, but to do experiments on other as-yet unnamed and undiscovered roots, you'll want access to a research lab with beakers and flasks and bunsen burners. That takes civilized people with manufacturing knowledge. Or else you can ask grandma to chew on a new root and see if that cures her spots. It might, then again, it might kill her. It'd be better to have access to a laboratory, I think. We'll still want to monitor conditions statistically... making sure some areas aren't being overhunted while others are being left pristine. No matter what happens, I think we're in for an interesting future.