BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation

New to this.... just wanted to see people's opinions on the Philosophy of a Democracy. I'm totally open to be proven wrong, but at this point, I hold these notions: 1. A democracy is a political system whereby the power is held by the people through elected representatives (of the people). 2. These representatives of the people are not separate to the people, rather speak on and judge on behalf of them. 3. If there is information that the representatives know, then If they don't share it with the rest of society, they no longer become representatives and internal to the system of government, rather external and misrepresent- this is because it then contradicts the system of a democracy; that is, the power is no longer with the people, rather, with those elected officials. This only becomes a problem when, given the fact that the system of electing is partially built on trust, this power becomes unevenly distributed throughout society 4. If there is government secrecy, the democratic system of government topples Please refute me if you will; Only hoping to learn and refine my perspective on the world. Thanks!
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation

1) The role of the government is to help regulate the country and keep it going. The country isnt broken like your toilet yet it needs constant nurturing like a gardener does to a plant. Without the government the economy would wiltWhat do i mean by thisDemocrats are usually big government people Republicans are small government peopleWithout big governement the economy takes a beating click="document.location='/Reformist/photos/album/5682/39293/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5682/332567-5682-vgs8f-a.jpg" alt="" /> click="document.location='/Reformist/photos/album/5682/39292/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5682/332567-5682-fdgw4-a.jpg" alt="" />So big government is generally good for the citizens because the better the economy the better its citizens.Transparency can hurt in mulitple cases because sometimes we need to do things that are neccessary for good even if the average american doesnt know about it2) Again you didnt explain how no transparency conflicts with the definiton of democracy which, again is: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representativesNo government transparency does not conflict with this definiton. We are still electing members to represent us in the USA.3. Thanks? Why are you thanking me. Because of that there is more anti american people in the world.4. Its not observational selection. This is a debate. You need to prove why your stance is true. And you havent so far.5. And.......... you still havent provided an explanation why its against democracy. I feel like im repeating myself6. Even if theres almost no transparency we know what bills they are voting in and vetoing out.7. Did you even read the article? Read it again because i think you skimmed over itOverall it was nice debating you manSource:https://www.bing.com...https://02varvara.files.wordpress.com...https://www.bing.com...
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation

1. Your example diverts the nature of a government. Obviously, if your job was a plumber and your sole aim was to fix a toilet, it would be clear whether the toilet works or not. Conversely, to say that a government's role is to lead a country and its people into prosperity is something that can have conflicting ideas in terms of the definition of prosperity. So, clearly, you have misconstrued the nature of the government and the fact that the results that the government bring are not black and white, binary or twofold. Also, whether the government manipulates or doesn't manipulate is beyond the point. The point is whether transparency is necessary for a democracy to occur. 2. I did in my first argument. I asked if you could provide alternate definitions to those that I was posing, however, your arguments turned more into Red Herrings and straw mans. 3. Thanks? 4. Observational selection is no means to put forth an argument. You've used one example and given your previous example about Guantanamo bay, self-annihilate your argument... 5. It's not a matter whether a citizen needs to understand what the government does or not... It is simply a debate about the nature of transparency and its coherence with democratic ideologies... The straw mans are multiplying 6. Yes, however, how can we ever know if they are representing us or not given the nature of the anti-transparency... this is an issue. 7. How? The article doesn't seem clear in the argument is making. Also, hidden agendas must be considered. :)
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation

I will explain now why your refutations are wrong 1) Its not a massive leap of faith. If your job is a plumber you are tasked with plumbing a toilet. Are you going to somehow sabatoge the toilet? No? That's the same logic as the government trying to ruin the country for the citizens in a democratic nation because in the end they want reelection. Manipulation can happen, but not enslavement but if it is manipulation it does not conflict with the definition of democracy Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: (Oxford Dictionary) Because of this I do not see how manipulation can destroy a democratic nation because according to the definition its a system of government where the population elects representatives 2) You still haven't explained WHY a government without transparency is somehow anti-democratic. 3) Yes transparency in everything the government can/will do will create distrust and disgust. When everyone didn't know we were torturing muslims in Guantamo we were good. Then we realized what was happening and there were riots and protests http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... 4) Again you still haven't explained how government transparency is against a democratic notion. Ive already explained why it isn't against it in 1) and when the government kills terrorist leaders with few civilian casualites we should be thanking them not bashing them 5) Again no explantion why a citizen NEEDS to understand what the government does. BoP is on you since you didn't specify that in your arguments. I hope you knew that 6) If representatives aren't representing us then elect another one. 7) Again complete transparency does NOT help the common citizen. It actually hurts them http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Source: https://www.bing.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation

Refutations 1. The government always has our best interest because they are the ones running the country - I don't think that is in any way a deductive or inductive argument. To state such a cause and effect is a massive leap of faith. The problem with this leap of faith is the fact that it allows room for manipulation and enslavement- If there is a means of countering this, then maybe you may have a point. However, the problem with this is that stating that the democratic system eliminates manipulation and enslavement due to elections creates a problem if transparency doesn't exist... 2. Now of course there are a few bad apples but that doesn't make the entire system a failure. - I never said it makes the entire system a failure... I'm just saying that it's anti-democratic if the government is anti-transparent (Of coarse, I'm open to changing my views if more notions are put forth) 3. Transparency for the government will put even more distrust into the hearts of its citizens - No justification given whatsoever... In fact, the current disillusionment with the government's anti-transparency and increasing figures of people choosing not to vote is evidence enough to show the disillusionment people have (this is very generalised) with the current political system... People are disengaged and detached, and the fact that there isn't transparency isn't really aiding the resolution of this 4. They need to do what's necessary, whether good or bad, to keep us safe and people in the streets calling them murderers isn't helpful and is actually counter productive - Whether they need to keep us safe or not isn't the point... It's whether government transparency is necessary for a democratic nation to exist. Red Herring. And also, if the government has murdered people (hypothetically), then people are justified in calling them this in the streets. You also don't mention how it is counter-productive in any way, does it not breed change? 5. A citizen needs to live in this country and be happy. He doesn't need to know all the extensive things that we do. - Again, no evidence to back up any of the statements you're making and no explanations given as to why a citizen doesn't need to know all of the extensive things that he government do. 6. We already elect representatives to represent us we don't need to keep bugging them or provoking them to do what we want all the time. - But what if they aren't truly representing us? And to say that we shouldn't be vocal about what we want is antithetical to the liberties that the democratic system portrays. 7. Sometimes the government knows more than we do because, lets face it, most Americans aren't really the sharpest knives in the drawer - Whether Americans are intelligent or not is beyond the fact that there should at least be the option of knowing these things. I don't think the matter of transparency can be negated by your judgement on the intelligence of the American population. ... And let the discussions continue :)
That Government Transparency is necessary for the existence of a Democratic Nation

The government always has our best interest because they are the ones running the country. The government itself is tasked with keeping the country going. Now of course there are a few bad apples but that doesn't make the entire system a failure. Transparency for the government will put even more distrust into the hearts of its citizens They need to do whats necessary, whether good or bad, to keep us safe and people in the streets calling them murderers isn't helpful and is actually counter productive. A citizen needs to live in this country and be happy. He doesn't need to know all the extensive things that we do. Government should always be for the people and by the people but there needs to be a middle ground. We already elect representatives to represent us we dont need to keep bugging them or provoking them to do what we want all the time. Sometimes the government knows more than we do because, lets face it, most Americans arent really the sharpest knives in the drawer
christianity is not a religion

Okay. First of all, I ask my opponent to clarify his debate. I do not understand what he means when he says "Christianity is not a religion". Religion is defined by Meriam-Webster Dictionary as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods". Since Christianity is based on the idea of a God at its principles, the debate seems illogical. Maybe my opponent means whether Christianity is logical? Second, I will establish a few rules for this debate. 1) NO Personal Attacks. I expect this to be a logical and constructed debate between two mature people, and if that is not the case I will not waste my time on it. No exceptions. 2) All claims must be supported with evidence. This is simply to prevent ridiculously claiming without solid evidence. 3) Respect your opponent. This goes back to the personal attacks. I will respect you, and your views; I expect you to do the same. Note: This does not mean that you cannot dissect the viewpoints expressed, but since this is a debate about religion you must respect them.
The Electoral College

The Electoral College was a great idea in the early stages of America. There was little communication, many people weren't educated enough to make such an important decision, and the states needed a system to help unify them. Now, we are able to learn each candidates' positions by simply going on the computer or watching the news, we have a higher percentage of literate and educated people then any other time, and we are united as one nation. We also have too many people for the amount of representatives. At its beginning every elector represented approximately 7,000 citizens. now every elector represents 700,000 people. It is not possible, under these circumstances, for every citizens view to be represented. For all of these reasons the EC should be abolished and replaced by popular vote.
The Electoral College

I think that the electoral college is a great compromise between big states and little states and should be maintained. I've explained how its faster easier to poll and a part of American history. People would still target the swing states if there was a popular vote because there most open to change. Anyway electoral college is the way to go. If you think there's not enough representation than It would be better just to add some more electors. Please vote for me if you agree. I would like to say thanks again, it was a great debate and may the best man win.
The Electoral College

Only three times in history the electoral vote over ruled the popular vote 1876, 1888 and 2000. Each state shall not be overruled by the big states. Are you saying changing the laws of the presidential election a small change? If they wanted us to change our laws so frequently why would we need two- third majority in both houses? The articles are only to be changed when they violate our freedoms. You have just given basic answers and nothing more to me your case is not good enough.
The Electoral College

Okay, I did the math for those stats to be exact. there are over 315 million citizens in the US, with 538 electoral votes. This means that on average each elector represents over 586,000 people. That is not an adequate representation of every Americans views. And you said "the people came up with a compromise and now we have an electoral college." Well as I said before, this was formed by the Framers of the Constitution, not by the people. They did, however know what they were doing. They allowed amendments to be possible in order to make small changes to the Constitution that they knew would be necessary for the progression of such a large nation. And vetoes have been put in place in the government so that not one branch has too much power. If we were to switch to popular vote, the government would have no power over the issue, and we would not need a veto. The people would decide who they want to be president and that would be the end of the argument. I do not understand how anyone could be okay with the large percentages of states not being represented as happens often in this form of election. You also said nothing to disagree with my point that there have been multiple times in which the winner of the popular vote has not won the election. It seems to me like you have not done your research on key facts about this subject.
The Electoral College

Really each elector can represent up to about 400000 at most. You give a basic argument like by the people, for the people,as the people. But legislation is kinda of like this, you pass through both houses with flying colors but the president vetoes it. We also need some kind veto in the election of the president . If most states as a whole don't like it then he should not be president. That's why the senators have equal representation. The people came up with a compromise and now we have an electoral college. The big states get higher representation but enough little states can get the big ones.
The Electoral College

I said that those numbers were approximations simply to get my point across. Either way we have lost a huge amount of representation. And the reason Wyoming has that many is because 3 is the minimum number of electoral vote that any state can have. As for polling, there would still be polling. People would still poll early in order to predict the outcome. And last, I'm not sure if u have looked at the outcomes of the elections before because there have been multiple time throughout history when the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college. The most recent of these being in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote and George Bush won the electoral votes. I was a Bush fan at the time and was therefore happy at the outcome, but if the American people want Al Gore to be their president then that's who it should be.
The Electoral College

Polling is much easier with the states instead of the whole country. Thousands of polling jobs could potentially be cut from work. The popular vote is almost always the same outcome as the electoral college. about 200 years ago we made a compromise between the Virginia plan and NJ plan. So that smaller states have a good amount of power to overturn the bigger states when they mess up. And that's how it should be. Plus My opponents numbers from the first round are way off 700000 per elector is completely wrong. Wyoming has a population of 698000 people and it has three electors. He probably made up those numbers in his head.
The Electoral College

I hope we have an educated discussion on this topic. This is the topic I am using for my senior project in high school so I have done a lot of research. You said it is part of America and it should be kept. Well I would disagree. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. This is why they allowed for amendments. They knew that over time the situations would change and changes would need to be made to the government. You also said that if the majority of the states don't support the candidate then he should not be president. I disagree simply because I would rather reach the majority of the people rather than the majority of the states. Though many people forget, we live in a Republic. This was created because the Framers knew that America would be too large to have every citizen vote on every decision that needed to be made, but they wanted the people's opinions voiced so they had representatives for them. This is the most important decision we make in America however. So I believe that every citizen should have a say. And along with that, under the current conditions if the EC, if a certain state's voting breaks down to 40% and 60% on the opposing sides, the 40% wouldn't count towards the election because the winner of the majority would win all the electoral votes for that state. That is not a republic. That means that 40% of the state isn't represented. I see a problem with this. Now, finally to reply to your comment about the length of time it takes to tally the popular vote, I would like to simply say that we would be able to do it quicker. At this time the popular vote doesn't matter. So it is not a necessity to have the numbers in quickly. And also, as it is now, the projections would call the winner early based on their research and study.
The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage was a good thing.

1) No you don't. Why not? You didn't bring any evidence in this debate, just your subjecive opinion. I've brought understandable logic, and I don't even have to prove anything. BoP lies with Pro.2) I love how alleged liberty loving conservitaes think they have the right to dictate the liberty of other people. We can't dictate other people. They can get married, I can't stop them. The debate is on whether or not it is moral acceptable to allow gay marriage, and you haven't met your burden.
The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage was a good thing.

1) You do not have the right to force your principles on other people.Actually, I do. Let me explain:Let's say a thief steals someone's wallet. By his morals, stealing isn't wrong. It's his source of income. But by my morals, stealing that wallet is wrong, because it's someone else's source of income. He is punished. Why? Because we as society forced our principles on him.2) If gays want to get married, they have that right.Circular reasoning. They have the right, therefore they have the right.
The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage was a good thing.

1) Gays having equal rights does NOT equal your rights being violated.No, it doesn't violate my rights. It violates my prinicples and worldview. Pro has BoP, and must prove that it is "good" that homosexuals are alowed to get married, and frankly, has only stated what she thinks on the issue.2) I am a liberal Christian.Good for you. So am I, but that doesn't mean I belive everything they say. See comments for rest of argument.
The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage was a good thing.

1) "The ruling was good..."By whose moral guidelines?2) "It is none of anyone's business what consenting adults do."I'm sure the government would dissagree with you there. There are laws preventing abuse and other crimes from happening "in the bedroom."3) Religious conservatives do not have the right to force their religious interpretation on other people.Secular humanistic liberals do not have the right to force their political agenda on other people either.See comments for rest of argument.
The SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage was a good thing.

500 characters is quite constricting, so my argument will have to wait until next round. Definitions:-Untided States: a fictional country, solely existing in Pro's mind and Round 1 argument.-United States: a real country composed of 50 states.-Marriage: An intimate and complementing union between a man and a woman in which the two become one physically, in the whole of life.-Same-sex marriage: same as above, except between two members of the same sex.-Good: moraly right and acceptable.Pro?
God is real

Ok so like I said many atheists say that God does not exist and that we Catholics have no proof when we actually do have proof. No atheist can prove that God doesn't exist because there are cases to were the Eucharist starts beating like a heart and blood runs down it too. Scientists testers the blood and a piece of the Eucharist and the blood went back to the time period of Jesus. How can that be right? Well it's because miracles like this that happen as a sign that he does exist and other cases are very severe like a man had the wounds of Jesus appear on him suddenly out of no where and he was in agony and bleading, but that man said it is a blessing to share the pain that Jesus went through. This is proof that God does exist and it it a visual so for those people that say seeing is believing well this is proof and you can even find these miraculous events on Catholic sites. That's my opening. Thank you.