BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Term limits for Congress

I would like to point out to my opponent that the title of the debate is "Term limits for Congress". This refers to our current congress, not one in your proposed system. To rebut my opponent's statements on my 2nd attack: This is exactly what I mean. If you know you have no chance of being elected again, then you can do what is best for the country (not what is best for your voters). Also, some congressmen find a way to combine their voters` wishes and what is best for the country (not their party). Also, regarding my opponent`s statement that slavery was what caused the civil war, I feel the need to correct it. You see, slavery was a contributing factor, but was far from the sole cause of the war. Perhaps the largest instigator was the issue of state`s rights. States in the South believed they had the ability to decide what congressional laws to follow, while ones in the North believed you should follow all laws passed by congress. One of the most famous incidents of this was the Dredd Scott Case (1), in which a slave sued the state. This slave had traveled to a free state and was free there, but was taken as a slave soon after. Many states disagreed over how to react to the decision. The rift caused by these states` reactions was a major causes of the civil war. Another one, which I referenced in my debate, was sectionalism. This was when politicians focused on what was best for their regions, not the country as a whole. This led to Southern politicians, such as Preston Brooks (2), to support laws which only aided farming in the south (such as slavery). Northern politicians were not blameless either. They supported industry and manufacturing in the north, such as train tracks and high tariffs (which ended up helping the north in the civil war). Now to respond to my opponent`s second attack: Yes, but experience can also harm politicians. Older politicians aren't as likely as younger ones to be able to adapt to changes in the system. They also form alliances and political ties, which they must consider when making decisions (instead of the country as a whole). Also, unless we stop teaching history in schools, younger politicians will learn about the mistakes of past politicians in school. Here is my final attack: The current system promotes stagnation. Compare our government to a pond. The older politicians are like a dense pond scum on the surface of the water. This scum sucks up the pond`s oxygen and dies, building up on the bottom and providing food for future scum. No fish or animals can survive in this type of environment. The only solution is to remove the scum from the top and the bottom of the pond, and replace it with new, stable plant life. Eventually, fish, bugs and amphibians will move back, and create a positive, healthy ecosystem which is beneficial for all involved. The new plants are the new politicians, the fish are the American citizens, and the removal of the scum is the term limits we need to bring in, to benefit everyone in America. Thank you for your time. I would like to thank my opponent for his time and work. Sources: (1) http://www.pbs.org... (2) http://www.senate.gov...
Term limits for Congress

Debate is about term limits in general. Resolution does not say term limits within current voting system. Since term limits are highly dependent on and are part of election system, we do not require new debate. I am arguing that having term limits and not having term limits within the current system makes no difference. We would still have congressmen representing their own interests and not interests of their voters. Furthermore, congressmen are always interested in their voter's opinion, because they want to get re-elected. If it is their last term, they have no reason to do anything for their voters. For my opponent's information, civil war was caused by slavery, not by voting system. As for attack #2 Old politicians have more experience. New politicians may repeat the same mistakes.
Term limits for Congress

I would like to begin by asking that my opponent focus their attack on the subject matter, not a voting system. While on the matter, however, I would like to point out that I found some potential issues I found with their system. If you would like to discuss them, please message me or start a new debate, which I will gladly join. However, back to the debate. To rebuttal my opponent's attacks, 1. I`m not sure I fully understand your point, but I think you mean people should be able to vote for whoever they want for as long as they`d like. This can cause problems however, as people will often vote for what is best for themselves and not what is best for the country as a whole. This is known as sectionalism, and occurred in the 1820s-1860s, and was one of the causes leading to the civil war, which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans. 2. This point seems to be based upon your own voting system (which physically could not be integrated into your system). Therefore, I will skip this attack. Now onto my 2nd point. Attack #2: New politicians would bring in new ideas Many older politicians are stubborn and unchanging. Due to this, they are set in the older ways of solving problems. Newer congressmen could help bring newer ideas to help lower the debt, resolve foreign problems and aid America in solving its ecological issues. In fact, a group of younger congressmen and women have created a group hat aims to shake congress out of its old ways, and help innovate for the congressmen (1) . With term limits, the older congressmen would have been out a while ago. This would make the job easier for this "Future Caucus". These politicians have the right idea, and need to see it through. Sources: (1) http://www.buzzfeed.com...
Term limits for Congress

New election system: - Each mentally able adult citizen(in further text: MAAC) has 1 electing point - Each MAAC can give his election point(s) to any other MAAC during the non-voting period. - Everyone can see to whom every individual gave election point(s), on the official website. - Each MAAC can take away same number of election points from MAAC that he previously gave his election points to, during the non-voting period. - Each MAAC that has over 150 election points may vote on suggestions of new laws and suggestions of removing old laws and suggestions of changing laws(in further text: altering laws), during the voting period. - Everyone can see how MACCs with voting right voted, on official website. - Only congressman can suggest altering laws. - Congressmen election is done every 3 months. Simply, 535 MAAC's with the most election points at the end of election time become congressman. - President election is done every year, simply, the guy with most votes of congressmen wins. There are much more details, but I think I named all important stuff. Here is why this system is better: - It is cheaper - It is much more harder to bribe voters - People can change their representative, if he is not doing as they like Why term limits are not welcome: - If people consider someone to be the best person who represents their interest the best, then that person should. - If someone was voting for bad altering laws, people can take their election points back. Person will only have his term again if people who elected him are satisfied.
Term limits for Congress

Attack #1: Political gridlock is caused by unlimited terms As is clearly scene in modern American government, gridlock and partisanship prevent decisions from being made. A recent example would be the government shutdown, caused by the federal government`s inability to pass a budget before the deadline (1). Term limits would prevent politicians from being elected again and again until their death (i.e. Ted Kennedy (2) ). In the current system these politicians (safe with the knowledge that they will be re elected by the voters they try so hard to please) have no concern for what is best for the country at whole, only for what their constituents want. If new politicians were brought in more frequently, they wouldn't`t have time to cultivate political alliances, and would instead work on policies that were best for the country. Sources: (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) http://tedkennedy.org...
Bible baptism includes sprinkling or pouring on one's head.

Greetings. Baptism is an important subject in Christianity. Jesus told the apostles to baptize those that they converted (Matt. 28:19). The apostles, after preaching the first gospel sermon, converted and baptized thousands of people, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). Considering the importance of baptism, does it include sprinkling and pouring, or is immersion alone what the Bible refers to? Rules 1. By “Bible baptism,” I refer to the Bible’s meaning of the Greek words baptisma (noun) and baptizó (verb). In most English translations (such as the New King James Version), they generally are rendered baptism, baptize, etc. 2. By “includes,” I mean that when baptisma or baptizó is used in the Bible, sprinkling or pouring on one’s head is (sometimes) meant. 3. By “sprinkling or pouring on one's head,” I refer to the ritual of applying water to a person’s head, whether with sprinkling or pouring. The word "or" is inclusive, meaning that only one of the criteria is necessary. 4. The burden of proof is on Pro to show the proposition to be correct. While I will not be prohibited from making arguments, my main goal will be to negate Pro's points, rendering his position unable to be proved. 5. Pro shall make his first argument in this round, Round 1, getting the first word. However, Pro is not permitted to make any arguments in Round 4, the last round, but may make a comment in order to avoid a forfeiture—giving me the last word. 6. Rebuttals are permitted to occur as early as in Round 2; there are not strict rules concerning rebuttals. 7. All extrabiblical sources must be freely accessible via the Internet. 8. The proposition and these rules (including this one) will be based upon my interpretation of them, which shall be enforced by the judges. If you have any questions about the rules, please message me before accepting the debate. Thank you, and may the right man win! Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved. This applies for all other Scriptures used in this debate by Pro unless otherwise noted.
Social Security

Social Security too me is something that need to be changed since United States seams to be going into some kind "Change" blah blah blah whatever. My opinion about Social Security is just stupid because of the fact that people are wanting the rich to pay more money just because of there wealth. How I see it, is that they really don't even need Social Security because there already set for life. Just because some of these people can't get off there butts and get a job we have to give them money OK! NO! I understand about some people that got hurt or are just to old to work but really there are some people that advantage of our hard earned money. Just save money and we need to stop waisting our money.
Social Security

Thank you, Hreha827 (Was Hreha already taken? Nevermind...) for starting this debate. I would like to begin by defining Social Security (This time, not using Merriam-Webster.) "Social Security Definition The comprehensive federal program of benefits providing workers and their dependents with retirement income, disability income, and other payments. The Social security tax is used to pay for the program." -http://www.investorwords.com... You define Social Security as "My opinion about Social Security(: it) is just stupid because of the fact that people are wanting the rich to pay more money just because of (their) wealth." My opponent clearly does not understand what Social Security or the benefits thereof, are. "The Social Security program is a Government-operated retirement plan that provides monthly income to retirees. It was designed to meet the basic needs of retirees." -http://www.investorguide.com... Obviously, We can see that Social Security is for the betterment of those who most likely either cannot support themselves due to age or are not in a position, at their time of retirement, to make any sort of money for their support. "How I see it, is that they really don't even need Social Security because there already set for life." I believe all I need to say is... Wealthy people are NOT the only ones paying the tax supporting Social Security and are not the only ones benefitted. "Just because some of these people can't get off there butts and get a job we have to give them money OK! NO!" A majority of retirees have... Well, I'm not sure how to put this, already had steady and fufilling jobs and are stopping their work life to enjoy life. (Generally, this falls under the aged category as they have the most time to earn money for retirement and social security helps keep food on the table.) "Just save money and we need to stop waisting our money." My opponent is seventeen years old. (http://www.debate.org...) Seventeen. Is it not bewildering that someone that age who claims the use of a debate account is using this kind of... Nevermind. Please, for the reasons presented to you, You vote Pro. Thank you, -EG
Should students be able to listen to music with limitations in school

Yes, I agree most students lack the willpower to sit and study, but the music helps them focus. Say, for example, that a student is having family trouble at home where they cannot get their homework done. Yes this is a problem within itself, but music and help calibrate the mind towards learning. What if a student is unable to sleep at night, music is know to rejuvenate both young and old minds. During school hours, this can prevent students from laying their head down and taking a cat nap. Yes, technology is a major distraction which is why if schools do have Ipads, Ipods, computers etc. they have multiple restrictions on them. This limits the students activities while using the technology. My school uses computers and the teacher is walking in circles around the classroom reprimanding students who are messing around.
Should students be able to listen to music with limitations in school

As my opponent states, it is beneficial to academic skills to listen to enjoyable music while studying. However, the studying part is where we hit a bump in the road, so to speak. Students are already distracted with the luxurious technologies available to them, I am actually in a debate over the issue currently. Students are already distracted as it is when it comes to studying. Many lack the willpower to sit down and learn when technology is readily available. There are two ways schools could go about allowing students to listen to music; handheld devices or computers. If a student uses a handheld device, it's already an issue in many schools of misuse. Cellphones are easily concealable and an available distraction to students. Computers, even with proxy settings, are portals to all kinds of games and other distractions.
Should students be able to listen to music with limitations in school

The issue is, no matter how much scolding or restriction you implement, technology in a school setting will be misused. Bypassing a restricted proxy server is the modern "playing hooky. " Students are adapted to technology and how to use it to their advantage. Many teachers lack the knowledge on how to use technology efficiently to reprimand children. In conclusion, I stand by my statement that allowing music opens a can-of-worms of distractions for students in the classroom. While I agree that some students would benefit, the misuse outweighs the responsible and productive usage of this technology.
Should students be able to listen to music with limitations in school

Since my opponent forfeited the last round, I will not argue this round. I will simply close my argument I will give him this round to give his rebuttal and closure. In conclusion, I still believe that music should be allowed in schools with limitations. Yes, the games are distracting, but most teachers are schooled in scoldings. As he stated earlier, most students lack willpower, but music has helped improve this aspect in a lot of children. Even kids with ADHD. Thank you for voting and thanks for participating!!! :)
Homework Interupts Home Life

I'm going to spend the time that I have this round rebutting my opponents points, and stressing my contentions. I'm going to go one by one with his points. "The act of learning is much harder than the act of doing" While this may be true, why do we have to stress our students out like crazy before they even get to the "act of doing". How will we even know that they will be able to handle it? There needs to be more time for fun and relaxation in the time that they are home. You can't function with very high stress levels. "Homework solidifies concepts in your mind" My rebuttal for this one will lead a little bit out of the debate realms, but I believe it is justified in the end. This is not true for all students. The students that are able to grasp the subject at hand do not need that extra work, because it it is just "busy work". Maybe instead of assigning homework, students should become more responsible and do the work if they feel that they need it. "Based on the current school set up homework is necessary. " Not much to say here besides maybe we need to change the school setup. Is it worth having our next generation and their parents stressed out from all the work? "Each class only get your attention for a small portion of the day" Again, this is a problem with the education system. Why stress out the students because the education system is not perfect. "Homework puts the student in a place of responsibility for their education" No, homework is forced upon the students, even the ones that do not need it. If homework was optional the students that do not need it would be able to be responsible and understand what they need and what they do not. So far this debate has lead out of the original path that I expected it to go, which is very amazing. It's awesome being able to think about the education system as a whole and it's impact on students, the homework levels, and the students stress levels because of it. I look forward to hearing my opponents rebuttals in the next round.
Homework Interupts Home Life

I'm looking forward to it, as I would like to hear and argue with the other side of this matter. I would like to start off stating the matter at hand here. Students receive a large amount of homework, especially those in honors level classes. While they do understand before going into these classes that this work is expected of them, the homework in general interrupts home life. The matter of this debate is that school should be kept separate from home. School should end after school hours and should not take up your home life, a. k. a. free time. So now that that's out of the way I would like to start off by stating my two main contentions. 1. Having little to no free time at home, besides sleep, causes a stressful generation. 2. The level of homework does not match what students should expect in the real world. Now that I've stated my contentions I would like to dive into more detail for each. It's a wonder why this generation is stressed out. With the increasing selectivity of colleges, pressure from other countries, and technological demand, students have more on their plate than ever. They need time to relax and have fun. They are teenagers, they need to get out a bit, there's no point in them spending their entire night working on homework. Humans are social animals, we need time away from work. Instead of home being the relaxing and stress free place that it should be , there is a constant pressure for the students to get their homework done. My second contention is that the level of homework does not match what students should expect in the real world. Most jobs, there are a couple of exceptions, end when the employee goes home. They do not have work to do when they get home, and if they do they can expect to be paid for it. Isn't that what school is all about in the first place? Preparing the students for the future? Again, the stress is too high and the students are not being prepared for the future correctly. I can not wait for the arguments for the other side!
Learning about other religions at school is a waste of time

I don't see anything wrong about giving a student a chance to follow what they actually believe in. If somebody has no idea of the belief's of another religion, how can they possibly be part of it. I am not saying schools should have RE lessons anymore than they do, but if they taught a variety of religions rather than going into unnecessary detail about one religion that only half the class believes in, it would be more educational and useful. You mentioned that teaching multiple religions would cause conflict. I struggle to see how teaching only one religion would be less discriminating, let alone cause less conflict. I believe that teaching multiple religions would provide a chance for young people to follow their beliefs, cause less conflict and give a chance for students of other religions to learn more about their traditions, beliefs and expectations.
Learning about other religions at school is a waste of time

I guess it is a waste of time as we may not believers of the opposing religion(s), like really why should we learn from their religion, for us to follow? No definitely not. We must abolish it so that religious conflict will not rise, which will eventually lead to racial riots when we are continue to be influenced by such things. Plus, some of the religion's cultures are sometimes ridiculous, such as the Indian's who are mainly using their right hand, but what about the left handers? Is the left hand considered unhygienic, in a cultural perspective, it is true, but in a scientific perspective, it is not true unless it is really contaminated with bacteria. People will have to adhere them. It is truly a waste of time learning this, don't you think, even though we must respect them sometimes, I do not mean to be racist here.
Learning about other religions at school is a waste of time

I think that multiple religions should be taught at school because if they are not then a student's religion is decided by their parents and peoples opinions. If different religions were taught at school then a student would choose the religion that matched their beliefs. A student may have been taught by their parents to believe in a certain religion and that students parents may have been taught the same thing by their parents. Teaching religion at schools means that the student chooses for them self what to believe in. it is only right because it is giving them the chance to choose what they believe, not what their parents and everybody around them believes. I do think that going into too much detail would be a waste of time though.