BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We do not need the State to help us live our lives.

Since this is a pretty long subject, I don't want to spend too much time talking about the structure of the debate and I would like to start it right away. As a summary, I begin by posting my first argument and my opponent will answer right away. To define the State, I am talking about the legalized monopoly that is currently and conventionally divided into three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. The State is the land monopoly that controls more or less the individuals living within artificially-drawn borders. The principle of government is intimly intertwined with the State. The intent of this debate is to argue for or against the need of a government in society. I am of the position that no government is needed whatsoever. I believe that every government function cold be provided on the free market with a wider range of choice. Whether we are talking about education, health care, the court system or police, a free market system could be much more efficient than a centralized government monopoly. So I hereby challenge any opponent to offer me a single function where government is needed.
We do not need the State to help us live our lives.

My opponent has FF his last round. This leaves points mentioned before unrefuted. As I have pointed out many times in this debate, there are just too many complications and problems with a country containing an established government switching over to being entirely privatized. My opponent's last round contained many unsubstantiated claims - he did not provide the evidence to really back up his arguments in the last round. This weakened his refutations, and then the last round was FF by my opponent. I have pointed out many potential problems with my opponent's scenario of a government-free country, and because my opponent failed to really refute these in the end, my arguments stand, and you must Vote Con.
Geniocracy

Thanks for a quick response, time for the final round. Some of the rebuttals that my opponent has put forward relate to the difficulty of testing and ensuring that citizens get a fair go despite their back ground. The issue of testing is a given one in this debate and to be fair to the Pro stance, one I would prefer not to push as they have some other fundamental issues to deal with. In the below link/reference (sorry having difficulty cutting and pasting into the document) http://rationalwiki.org... It graphically shows the relative intelligence of the electorate. As can be seen by this representation, the greater proportion of the electorate under a geniocracy is only marginally more intelligent than the mean. Yes the electables are cleverer, but they are still voted in by reasonably ordinary folk, and the blinding intelligence of the electables has a very good chance of being offset by social ineptitude. CRYSTALIZATION OF POINTS A geniocratic system is not a good one in theory because: It disenfranchises the majority of the population giving them no political power. People without a voice tend to use something else to compensate " and it is often not that pretty. Those that have voting rights are only marginally more intelligent than the mean The most "intelligent" individuals in a country will not necessarily have the skill set to be effective leaders. Geniocracy legislatively centralises power to a minority, further accentuating the privilege that they have been afforded from being gifted as intelligent. I AM WINNING BECAUSE My opponent has not been able to articulate how under a geniocracy the voiceless majority will be able to be subdued, placated or cajoled into giving up their electoral rights. Systems of government that rely on a minority deciding what is best for all, without allowing input from all individuals have littered our history with failure. Once again my opponent has not adequately addressed this issue and considered this a silly point designed to derail the debate when it is actually central to why geniocracy is not a good theory. My opponent has conceded that despite limiting the voting rights of the population, a very intelligent yet incompetent leader could still be brought into power in a geniocracy. If genius"s are so clever and are supposed to exclusively make the best decisions in government, they should also be able to do so without the need for a legislative hand out or a structure that poorly negates the effect of media bias. Do we really want to implement a system of government devised by an individual who from his account picked up the idea from a race of advanced space aliens? Geniocracy is only marginally less silly than its stated source, and it is definitely not a good theory. Vote Con " because what else have you got to do on New Years Eve? Thanks Lexus for a fun debate!!
Geniocracy

This is going to be a debate on [RESOLVED: GENIOCRACY IS A GOOD POLITICAL SYSTEM, IN THEORY]. I will be standing in pro, which means that I will be saying that geniocracy is a good political system, and my opponent will be the opposite. Burden of Proof is on both of us, I have to prove that it is a good political system, and my opponent has to prove that it isn't.Here is how the rounds are going to go:Round 1: Pro offers definitions and outlines basic debate structure, Con accepts/rejects definitions and creates a constructive case.Round 2: Pro creates a constructive case and refutes some of con's case, con refutes pro's caseRound 3: Pro answers some refutations brought by con/crystalizes points/tells the judge why to vote for them, con crystalizes points they made/answers some refutations/tells judges why to vote for them.DEFINITIONS: Geniocracy: Rule by the intelligent[1] "In Theory": with regard to fundamentals although not concerning details; "in principle" [2] "Political System": A political system is a system of politics and government. It is usually compared to the legal system, economic system, cultural system, and other social systems. [3] SOURCES: (I would like it if you used MLA citations, but it's not necessary or anything)[1]: LrSullivan. "Geniocracy." Collins Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Dec. 2014.[2]:"In Theory."The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.[3]:"Political System."Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2014.
girlfriend vs wife

Interesting... It's been a while...Moving straight on to my arguments. I'm going to keep my arguments nice and short, due to lack of time. Argument 1: Having a Wife= True Love. Love= Happiness.If you truly loved that specific person, you would end marrying (or proposing to) her. Once you marry her, she becomes your wife. If you truly love her, you would most likely (certainly) feel happiness in your life. Argument 2: Girlfriend means a friend who is a female. (Definitions CANNOT Be Changed.)According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a girlfriend is a female friend. Of course, your beloved ones are clearly important than your friends. You would most likely feel happiness when you're around with your loved ones. Refutation: Not needed. My opponent provided 0 arguments that support his/her stance. Thus, I strongly believe that you would experience more "happiness" with wives.
girlfriend vs wife

My opponent argument is the fact that boyfriends and girlfriends break ups are more likely to happen than divorces which is inaccurate look online on TV everywhere and if you look at the facts you will see what I mean when your married you moved in together everything is joined together the number 1 cause of divorce is mainly finances which only become a problem when your married obviously because two different people coming together as a couple they separate people who is enjoying life together when your married you become one which means that everything is binding therefore cause you lose your original identity which caused conflict and lead to divorce anyone who is married knows that once you get married your relationship become much more difficult furthermore you relationship got a better chance of survival and moving on Elsewhere on the comment on the definition don't change a definition just like everything else in the 21st century evolve change as things change and evolve your intellect exspand As I concluded this by saying when your in 2015 you go based on the updated version not the outdated version.
girlfriend vs wife

Moving straight on to my refutations. First of all, I'd like to explain how opinionated my opponent's arguments are. My opponent falsely assumes that most marriages lead to divorces. This isn't true; there SHOULD BE more cases of breakups between couples (girlfriend and boyfriend). My opponent's arguments are heavily based on false arguments, and therefore I believe that there is no need for me to suggest evidence against his side. As for the definition, you cannot change the definitions in the middle of the debate. You should've mentioned the definitions during your first speech. Since I was the one to suggest the definitions first, we must follow that definition throughout the whole debate. (Please work on your grammar... It's making it hard for me to understand...) For all the reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you.
I think that barry bonds should be stripped off his all time homerun record

I don't know how you are so convinced that Barry Bonds intentionally took steroids. He already had a huge contract. Why would he all of the sudden want to do a risky act that could put him in jail and kick him out of the MLB? Barry has a very good work ethic, and, I believe, he worked out for how big he is now. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason that Barry Bonds should lose his legally won record, because he did NOT use steroids.
I think that barry bonds should be stripped off his all time homerun record

Barry bonds was skinny in the beggining years of his carrer and yes he was a good rookie he bulked up extremely from a twig to a giant. He used steriods to help him cheat not play but cheat. Anyone can take perfomence enhancers and do good but the ones like babe who did it with meer talent are the players who should get records. For example sammy sosa used a cork in his bat and got suspended from the game and what is the diffrence from bulking up your body or making your bat lighter. Using steriods is a way to cheat and what example is it setting to younger stars who think they cant to good unless they take steriods. Steriods are a plain cheat and anyone who cheats is never a true champion so barry bonds shouldnt get the honor of being the champion of all time homeruns
god is probably benevolent

God is not benevolent? I strongly beg to differ. For the purposes of being objective, let us not limit ourselves to any religion, but let's talk about what we probably know about God. As we all know, God created us humans, but let us not forget that he has created all living things and created the universe, sustainable enough for us to live. Not only that, being the intelligent creator that he is, he certainly have ignored us as humans. In fact, he made us so amazing that we are the kings in the animal kingdom. He provided us with a brain so that we would be able to think and create. he gave us the ability to see, so that we would be able to appreciate the beauty of our loved ones. He gave us hearing, so that we can admire the sounds of nature and everything around us. Not only that, he provided us with animals, water and everything that we need to survive. God, or the intelligent creator is definitely benevolent. I personally think that God, if there is one, has cared for humans more than any other living thing on this earth. Look at us when we kill animals for food, we do it to survive. When we clear trees, the trees did not retaliate and allowed us to continue our Eco-unfriendly deeds. Therefore, I feel that God is benevolent to us humans and he has provided us with everything that is needed to survive on this earth. it is the insatiable need of humans that we probably feel that God is not benevolent. P.S thank you so much for coming up with this debate, I hope that through this debate we would be able to come up with insightful and interesting points! I am really interested in this topic, never really thought about it!:D I'm new here, so just thought I join a debate! Your move
This House Favors A Republic Over A Democracy!

Greeting! :)The motion before the House is that this House supports a Republic over a Democracy. The Spirit of the motion is whether there are indeed some inanlienable rights or whether the majority is an absolute authority. I will be arguing the former. I think it is worthy to clarify the difference between a Republic and a State. A Republic is an autonomous state where there are elected leaders, however there are present some inalienable rights which no majority may take from their people. A Democracy gives the final power to the elected people to even remove any rights of people. An example of a Republic is the United States of America.First round for acceptance only. Shared burden of proof.
Nonsense Poetry Battle!

The last three rounds will be for nonsense verse. Rules:- Must be in nonsense verse. - Definition of nonsense verse: humorous or whimsical verse that features absurd characters and actions and often contains evocative but meaningless nonce words. (Taken from merriam-webster. com)- Poems can be as long as you want, as long as they do not exceed 5k characters. - Titles are not needed for your poems, but you can have one if you want. - Nonsense words do not need to be used (example: Bandersnatch, galumphing, quangle, crumpetty)- Voters will decide the winner. - They must be your own original poems or I will bite you. 8DGreat examples of nonsense verse can be found by looking up poems by Lewis Carroll's and Edward Lear's nonsense verse poems. A somewhat familiar nonsense verse poem is 'Hey diddle, diddle'. Nonsense verse does not mean it should be a random jumble of words that make no sense (Though, they can be a random jumble of words that do sound grammatically correct while still making no sense) nor random numbers (91028732). I hope someone decides to take up my challenge! There will be four rounds, three of which are for the poems. The time limit for each round is 72 hours, and the character max is 5k (though I'd be surprised if someone actually needed more than that! ) Let's have some fun!
Nonsense Poetry Battle!

Woops! Sorry for the lateness, I thought I posted it last night! There was a little girl whose eyes were bight like night and every time she blinked the world went upside-right! She claimed to see cockatoos whenever her eyes were open wide, and whenever her eyes were three-eights closed everyone seemed to walk on their side! Every book read like ancient Greek; the TV talked in French, And when she stepped outside the gutters were as deep as a trench! Essays were never a challenge for she wrote in perfect scribble and when the teachers graded her work She always scored little! “Tic-Tac-Toe was never a challenge,” she claimed “for you just need to draw a line,” “and anyways,” she always countered “My sight is just fine!”
Nonsense Poetry Battle!

Yeah, it's cool; I really liked your poem! The little bitty kitty cat whose name was Tumbly Dwight tripped upon a tiny gnat since there was no light! It was the middle of the morning, when the stars are shining bright and the sun said, “Here's a warning!” then shined with all his might To which Tumbly Dwight meowed a little “meow”, and squinted his blind eyes tight, and did a little kowtow - - since he’s never seen anything so bright!
Nonsense Poetry Battle!

I wrote this back in September and had fun writing it. I hope it fits the rules. The peep stole the cheese and put in on the air. It said it was healthy that way, but it was actually a chronic chocolate of a time so the solution was to swim to the case land for vases. The liquid map was not enough help. They survived anyways and jumped to grasslands. The brainac had no idea so they sat to the walker ways. That was not enough though. The riots were still going. They needed more cheese even before the peep stole it. The peep already cannon balled to the pond, but the cheese was rocked. The elephant was upset about that. Moral of the story: You can't please them all.
Nonsense Poetry Battle!

Awesome! Let's have lots of fun, yeah? (and I just finished my first one, so great timing!) There was a growling underneath my bed Which was frightening, 'nough said! So I opened my mouth wide as can be And was not surprised when not a sound came out of me! And the monster came out, Mouth shut as he shout “There is a monster above my bed!” And I was surprised up in my head! “You are the monster.” I clarified “You are, which is why I hide.” To this the monster scratched his head “But I am the one hiding underneath your bed!” “Naturally!” I shouted quietly “You are the monster, not me!” The monster laughed rather good naturedly And replied, “Gee! That doesn’t sound good to me!”
It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

Suppose an atheist tells you there are no gods. Should you say, as you would with any other assertion, "Why should I believe that? " Or should you say, "Hey, that doesn't make sense to me, but I guess you're right since you have no burden of proof"? Should atheists back up their assertions with logic and evidence? Or should they get a free pass? The resolution is that it is irrational to think there is a burden of proof on atheism. But, obviously, it is not irrational. Atheists should back up their claims the same as anyone else. Nobody should get a free pass. - Pro's argument, assuming I understand him, goes like this: 1. You can prove things, but nonexistence isn't a thing. 2. Therefore, nonexistence can't be proven. 3. Therefore, the nonexistence of god can't be proven. 4. Therefore, people who believe in the nonexistence of god don't need any support for their belief. That's so wrong. First, it's a non sequitur. #4 doesn't follow from what came before. Pro's "case" isn't an argument so much as it's wishful thinking. Second, it's not fair. We don't give theists a pass just because they can't prove their claims, so we shouldn't give atheists a pass unless they support theirs. We should treat atheists like anybody else. Anyone who makes an assertion should be able to back it up if challenged. If you have a belief, it should be reasonably well founded. Pro has given us no reason to think atheists should have a special exemption. If Pro is right about us atheists being unable to support our beliefs, then we ought to change our beliefs. We shouldn't get a free pass. We don't want a free pass. We want to be held to the same standards as anyone else. If we did claim, as Pro tries to do for us, that we had no burden of proof, that would be grounds for other people to assume our beliefs are unfounded, unsound, unjustifiable, flaky, or, to borrow a word from the resolution, irrational. That's a stay-off-my-side quality argument. I'd rather that Pro joined the other team. Let him point out that theists can't prove their case, and then claim a free pass for them. Conclusion: 1. Pro undertook to prove it is irrational to think atheists have a burden of proof. But the truth is that anyone making an assertion has that burden, regardless of whether the assertion is atheistic. Therefore, the resolution is false. Vote Con. 2. In the first round, Pro's argument appeared to be gibberish. It did not support his resolution. In the second round—-to the extent that I understand what he wrote—-Pro's claim is that atheist beliefs are so hard to support that we shouldn't have to support them. That's messed up. It does not tend to support the resolution. Pro had the burden of proof, but he did not shoulder it. Vote Con. 3. Lucidity and cogency make a debater persuasive. Pro borders on incoherent. His second post was troublesome, hard to read. His first post was opaque. You cannot be persuasive if your readers don't understand what you're trying to say.
It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

I notice that Parmenides, as quoted by Pro, makes no more sense than Pro himself. Pro's argument: Pro undertook to show that it is irrational to think that the burden of proof is on atheism. I read all the words in his post, but I don't see an argument. He made no case. Therefore, since Pro has the burden of proof, Con should win this debate. Pro may introduce an argument in later rounds, and that will be fine. I'm not asking for a forfeit or conduct points. I'm just pointing out that people ought to introduce their arguments in round one. It is impolite to just post gibberish and hope people will keep reading. My argument: I don't have the burden of proof, and Pro hasn't posted an identifiable argument, so I need not post an argument of my own. But I have one anyway: Pro undertook to show that it is irrational to think the burden of proof is on atheism. Is that irrational? No, because many people (most people, in fact) think that atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. That is, it is a positive belief, not the mere absense of theism. This is not my preferred definition (I would call that "strong atheism") but it is a definition with currency: it the most popular meaning of the word, and it is a meaning in the dictionaries. Therefore, it is not irrational to use "atheism" with this meaning. It is not irrational to use a word with the meaning that most people and most dictionaries agree with. Given this meaning---atheism is the belief that gods do not exist---it follows that atheism has as much burden of proof as theism does. Theism is a positive belief (the belief that gods exist), therefore theism has a burden of proof. Atheism is a positive belief (the belief that gods do not exist), therefore atheism also has a burden of proof. This may not be the only way of looking at things, but neither is it an irrational way. Vote Con because: 1. Pro has failed to make a case. 2. Pro has the burden of proof. 3. Con has shown the resolution to be false.