BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should establish a national primary.

I would like to start by refuting your case on my hypocrisy. My democracy far outweighs your democracy argument. You say that some voters don't have their vote count because they live in an area that is focused on the opposite party, but in total, the states have an equal amount of support for each candidate, please refer to this picture, which is of the states voting in the Romney, v Obama run. https://www.google.com... i would also like to refute that by saying that majority simply rules. If you are in a room, and asked to choose a candidate among 19 others, and 11 of those people choose democratic, but you chose republican, that isn't a failing in democracy but simply majority ruling. Also, the plan is to replace this electoral college system, as I will state in my third point, which is The U.S. needs this new system for voting. National primary is a new and good way of voting, and has proven to be much better than what we have now. National primary is even more popular with the public than our current system. A CBS News/NY Times poll in 2000 showed 75% of adults favoring a national primary and only 19% favoring the current system. And if that seems outdated, a more recent national telephone survey of respondents in 41 states voting on Super Tuesday or later found that 73% of Americans are in favor of a national primary. This proves that national primary is much, much more favored than what we currently have. A national primary may even bring in more voters because more people are content with the system and think that their vote is actually going to count. Speaking of, when people don"t vote, it destroys democracy, especially when people aren"t happy with the system and are voting because of that. This happens because people who would have had a vote instead don"t vote because they know it won"t count. As USC Professor Geoffrey Cowan in the Los Angeles Times points out that critics have identified countless problems with the current process including campaign finance laws that give inordinate influence to big donors; limits on voter registration and participation; and the power granted to Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states to cast votes. The rules, which differ from party to party, election to election and state to state, are dizzyingly confusing. Moreover, in a country where roughly 40% of the electorate is not affiliated with either party, does it really make sense for some states to have "closed primaries" where only party members can vote?
The United States should establish a national primary.

If you are speaking of unfairness, why do you not care about how states such as New York and California are always Democratic and the Republican voters have little chance to vote there. This seems hypocritical to want democracy but then nit want to get rid of the elector college, in which the electors can vote for anyone. This isn't even a rare thing, as 157 electors have done this. This though isn't a problem because the Constitution sets up the college, and as such while it didn't need to be discussed, is proof of your lack of real commitment to democracy, or rather wanting to change something small but not the big problem. Second, you say that it doesn't represent the population, but in the 2012 GOP Primary, Romney had a similar support of popular votes to poll numbers in which he won 52% of the primary votes, and had an average of 40%+ in the polls throughout most of January 2012 on. Third, political parties are not a national government organization that is made to be equal, but rather a state thing and as such is made to represent a states interest. Smaller states need to go first Democrats and Republicans have agreed so that they are not over looked. Iowa has 30 while New Hampshire has 23, which is small as the number of delegate is 2286. That is very miniscule. Also, Rick Santorini won Iowa and still lost the 2012 nominee. Romney though did win New Hampshire which does help your cause. This though can be disproven as Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire in 2008 but Obama won the nominee, as well as how John McCain won 2000, but lost to George W. Bush. McCain won 2008 and John Kerry won 2004 but that along with the facts before shows the inconsistency.
The United States should establish a national primary.

I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points. The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available. My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named "13 states that matter". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few. The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple. With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don"t seem to meet anyone"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process. (Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University) My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.
The United States should establish a national primary.

No national primary. This would not be a good idea because of the wide ranging ideas. Primaries have several debates prior to the vote, so how would we do that with 15 Republicans and 3 Democratic major candidates and their many smaller ones. Also, what about the 150+ over candidates from parties other than the 2 big ones? There are too many variables, the proceedings would be time consuming, and a national primary would destroy parties that are required in America's democracy so each house has some sort of leader. Removing the state/party primary would only lead us down a path of more conformity and less organized parties for people to become something. http://www.politics1.com...
States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

However, I will raise a concern regarding local politics in my closing statement. Before my closing argument, I would like it to be noticed that Pro changed his stance between round one and round three. In round one Pro claims "The states rights to nullification of laws, regulations, and executive or congressional acts, except congressional amendments, should be upheld. " This is different from Pro's closing statement that "[t]he states, however would not be able to nullify the 27 amendments, a nationwide draft, or internal military orders. "My conclusion statement shall be in the form of a concern. I argue that if states are given too much freedom, the supreme court will not have the jurisdiction to keep the majority in check and protect the minority voices in each state. Discrimination could take place if the federal courts cannot override a decision. Given Pro's failure to address this possibility, I determine that he has not met his burden of proof that the states deserve to be given the power of nullification.
States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

On your first highlighted quote, I was not speaking on slavery. I was going off what you said in your previous argument. On your second highlighted quote, I failed to mention my voting plan I would love to have in my state. I never mentioned anything when it comes to voting, which is what Con implies speaking of 49% vs. 51%. May I present a video explaining the alternative vote, which is the best way to appease the most people. http://www.cgpgrey.com... On your third highlighted quote, it is not a possibility under the states rights to nullify because, as said before, they would not be able to nullify the 27 amendments, I was using slavery as a example, probbably not the most appropriate example, but an example nonetheless. On my closing statement. I'd like to stress the importance of the most freedom as possible for the people, this is what state nullification would allow. Any law, regulation, executive action or congressional action would be allowed to become null and void by any state. The states, however would not be able to nullify the 27 amendments, a nationwide draft, or internal military orders. This is the best way to ensure the ultimate freedom for people. The alrernative vote also ensures this where voting is involved.
States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

Am I delirious or did I just see Pro equate the ability to have slaves to freedom? "Based on the idea of that states would take action against minorities for various reasons. As appalling at that sounds, it is the cost of freedom."What Pro claims is that giving people the ability to have slaves is the cost of freedom. I argue that this is false. The idea that a black man should have to sacrifice his freedom because of what a white man yearns for is despicable. Oxford English Dictionary defines freedom as "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) The second that you deny this to any creed, race, religion, or political sect, you cannot claim that it is the cost of freedom. "All I want is ultimate freedom within the bounds of reason for people."This statement directly contradicts the earlier quote I highlighted. Pro claims that he wants "ultimate freedom within the bounds of reason." But how can ultimate freedom exist if 49% of a population can be controlled by 51% of the population?"If people in, say, Arkansas want slavery, then that is their right."Who will be enslaved though? Will the be minorities? If so, then that contradicts their right to not be enslaved. Nobody will voluntarily be enslaved by the people of Arkansas. I'd really like Pro to articulate on who will be chosen to lose their ultimate freedoms.
States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

Your argument is a good one, however, I do not agree. You said,"States cannot be trusted to have the power of nullification." Based on the idea of that states would take action against minorities for various reasons. As appaling at that sounds, it is the cost of freedom. If people in, say, Arkansas want slavery, then that is their right. Of course, that cannot be implemented because of the amendments, but for the sake of example, Nevertheless, it is their right because that is the people want. Who are we to control people just because we disagree? It is their right because of the freedom we insure. All I want is ultimate freedom within the bounds of reason for people.
States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

In 1962 the Incorporation Doctrine was applied by the supreme court. The Incorporation Doctrine changed the federal/municipal relationship by making the states follow key parts of the Bill of Rights. This was allowed because of the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment. This was done because states were doing things that endangered people's fundamental rights, and encroaching on federal authority. (http://www.fofweb.com...) [Source url shortened because it was too long. If requested I can post it in the comments]. Learning from states taking steps to stop minorities from voting (poll taxes, poll tests, etc), I argue that states cannot be trusted to have the power of nullification. (http://abhmuseum.org...)
States rights to nullification of laws, regulations, or executive or congressional acts.

The states rights to nullification of laws, regulations, and executive or congressional acts, except congressional amendments, should be upheld. Reason being, that it guarentees that states have the ultimate freedom within the country. The national government's role when created, was to act as a wall, protecting the states from outside forces, and to make sure the states would not quarrel amongst themselves. Only the amendments were to not be nullified. The national government's reach over the people and states has reached too far. This happened after President Andrew Jackson, like a tyrant, struck down the right for South Carolina to nullify high federal tariffs. This ensured that the national government had power over state governments, the first choking out of freedom from the people. This cannot be continued, we should allow more freedom and local action, and let not this nation be bound by the politics and slowness of action in Washington D.C. bring their purpose back to its roots, and allow states to become more infused into their original role. http://www.history.com...
legalization of marijuana

I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. "The only reason is not because of its effects but because a vicious and racist add made by Harry J. Anslinger." Did you mean "ad?" If so, just because one ad was publicized does not mean that the contents of that advertisement covers or represents the beliefs of those who do not want marijuana to be legalized. Secondly, you said that "some of the most successful people in the world smoked weed." Just because people are successful does not mean that they make right choices. Expanding on that point, and because of the proven ill-effects of marijuana, one can only begin to imagine what some people could have accomplished if marijuana was not in there lives. You also said that "there is no reason that it illegal." I'm assuming that you meant that there is no reason that it is illegal. If that is what you meant, then there certainly are reasons that marijuana is illegal. Please see my previous argument in Round 1 to understand a few.
legalization of marijuana

first the not saying its completely good but there is no reason that it illegal the only reason is not because of its effects but because a vicious and racist add made by Harry J. Anslinger "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others." also some of the most succseful people in the world smoked weed like bill gates, George w. bush, Steve jobs.
legalization of marijuana

I accept your challenge and look forward to an intellectual debate. Since you didn't type much in the first round, I will use this round only for preliminary arguments. First of all, you seem to think that marijuana is a harmless drug. This is definitely not the case. Even though it cannot cause death by overdose, it could indirectly cause death. The state of being high, much like being drunk, could make one lose control of one's own actions. In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse even said that "Marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers who have been involved in accidents, including fatal ones." Second, marijuana is extremely addictive, with severe mental and physical side effects. According to Dr. Drew Pinsky, a doctor that works with addicts, "I've been treating cannabis addiction for 20 years. When people are addicted to cannabis, cocaine and alcohol the drug they have the most difficult time giving up is the cannabis." Besides the addiction, marijuana isn't good for mental heath. A Northwestern University study found that "Marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory and that chronic marijuana abuse may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia." Third, do we really want children to be exposed to this stuff? In Amsterdam, where marijuana is legalized, citizens are rightly alarmed that students and children are exposed to it. If marijuana is presented to young people as harmless, they are so much more likely to become addicted. What's there to be gained by addiction? Addiction controls lives so that their time, money, and well-being are wasted, with no gain to users at all besides temporary "pleasure" that alters your thinking state. Finally, marijuana itself is not the only reason that it should not be legalized. Marijuana is usually a gateway drug to other, much more dangerous drugs. Although marijuana could be defended as relatively harmless, most other drugs can't, and legalizing marijuana is the first step to legalizing more dangerous drugs. That's why it's my opinion that marijuana should absolutely not be used, or legalized, for any reasons other than medical purposes.
Atheism (pro) vs Theism (con)

I accept your challenge. I am assuming that anything regarding both topics is up for debate, as you simply said Atheism Vs. Theism. I would also just try to make sure we both are on the same page here. I am not supporting Young Earth Creationism. I also strongly believe in Evolution and God's involvement therein. You may use these as arguments, but know I will probably ignore them as I will likely agree. Make no mistake, I am strongly religious, but I do not believe the Earth's creation happened over night. Stopping there, I hope for a good debate :)
Atheism (pro) vs Theism (con)

This is a very old question. Is there a God. Let's talk about it today. I am looking for someone who will take the theism side. I will take the atheism side. Each side will then present its case in the following format. Round 1: Acceptance round Round 2: Presentation of arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Statement Rules: No offensive language. No rebuttals in round 2 no arguments in round 1. Max 10,000 characters per round. If providing statistics, quotes etc please provide reference to where this information comes from.
IVF Debate

In according to multiple cases, and recent statistics divorce rates are higher than they have been before. And with it comes to question, well what happens to the egg when the couple who underwent IVF gets divorced? Under law sperm and eggs are considered property of person it is produced from (6). In regards to IVF, informed consent forms are required for all clinics before procedures, but not always are they politically correct and or filled out properly and provide loopholes. In according to recent cases, men in a divorce fight for rights over the baby in regards that their sperm was used. However women also argue that they also contributed their eggs, and had to carry and incubate the child. Misconception declarations of the law in regards to the nature of any remaining cryopreserved embryos in the event of a divorce or death are not uncommon in clinic consent forms. "Embryos cannot be used to produce pregnancy against the wishes of the partner, without written consent of both parties." (6) According to laws, this is not completely true. It was concluded that in at least two courts there have been instances where judges ruled ex-wives to use embryos created during the marriage over the opposition of the ex-husbands. So under law, it is still unknown where to draw the time of ownership in cases of parents splitting up. In conclusion, IVF is a very medically advanced form of science that could be considered too advanced and uncertain, to allow for benefits of IVF to out-way the harmful side effects and danger. IVF is a procedure that to the naked eye seems completely beneficial and harmless, but what isn"t seen are the high percent chanced of deformities, complications, death, etc. (6)http://www.americanbar.org...
IVF Debate

The sad reality is that there is too much opposition in order for IVF to flourish and develop certianly needs more research to back it up. IVF is in its infancy and help. Most of this opposition stems from the belief that conception is the start of life and it is sacred. Thus the killing of oocytes is unwarranted and morally wrong. If the current situation gets better then IVF has an exponentially large amount to improve and will probably be at the height of technology. With new technology coming out everyday IVF is not only made more cost effective but safer, efficient, and refined. In conclusion I feel that IVF has a limitless potential and is the way of the future. No longer will we have to deal with passing down disease to our childern. No more infertile women, and most importantly no depressed mothers . There is too much stress in this work and a child is the last thing people are worrying about.
IVF Debate

In regards to IVF there are also many issues pertaining to the issue of having multiple births. According to an article, "Multiple pregnancies often lead to risky preterm births and other complications." (4) A healthy number of babies in a single pregnancy is around 1-4 babies. When the number of babies starts to exceed four, baby complications like; higher risk of preterm births, malnourished babies, and miscarriage occur. Some pregnancy complications that could arise are; pre-eclampsia, Caesarean section, and gestational diabetes (4). These problems arise because the human anatomy is an intricate development that originally is meant to hold one baby, however with the chance of more. An example would be in 2009, when Nadya Suleman, a single mother gave birth to eight babies in one day. With this event doctors were on edge because there was only one other occasion a mother gave birth to eight, however one of her babies died after delivery (5). The issue surrounding multiple births widely involves the possibility that the mother and children have a higher risk of death. (4) http://www.nytimes.com... (5) http://www.nytimes.com...
IVF Debate

I personally think that IVF can be a great asset to mothers who cannot concise naturally. However like all thing this practice must be regulated in order to prevent mishaps and possible ethical issues. First and formost anyone that ungergoes IVF should understand the risk involved in the procedure. This is a fairly new procedure that can produce good results in certain cases. In other cases oocytes might end up dead. IVF should also be handled in the most objective way as possible. This will allow the advancement of this technology without too much ethical turbulence. Anyone should be able to chose the best life for their child with genetic screening and IVF can make that dream a reality. Genetic screening is probably the most controversial topic pertaining to IVF however if treated like nothing more that a vaccine shot opposition will dwindle.