BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent will probably win this debate.

I'm going to go against what I normally do here and discuss each aspect of voting. I will be quoting a lot of my opponents arguments from round 2. I think I won the argument portions of this debate by giving more logical reasoning for my position than my opponent has. However even if the voters disagree that I won the argument portion, they should at least give me points in every other category. Spelling and GrammarHere is my opponents own words:"Its true. I hvae bad spelling. oS make sure U velt in favor of me opponent"s spell"n" an gramma. "That sentence right there is enough to give me S&G points. If you reread his arguments several other spelling errors will jump out at you as well. ConductMy opponent has threatened me and made several other conduct violations. Here are some of them. Round 2"If my opponent dares try to lose" Then mark my words, I WILL FORFEIT A ROUND! BWAHAHAHHA! You hear me". I WILL FORFEIT! !And I won"t attend your funeral, even though you send me wedding gifts. ""I just can"t stop ranting on how much I"m going to lose this debate. Its inevitable. I know I simply can"t do it any further. I might have to shoot me, or the other guy. Its complete madness I tell you. I"ll be stuck ranting through this entire debate. On and on and on I will go. Without stopping. Because its hopeless I tell you. HOPELESS! "SourcesI've actually used 2 sources in round 2. My opponent has used absolutely no sources. ConclusionVote for me in every category please. Even if you don't give me argument points, I still think I deserve points in the remaining categories. I thank the voters for sticking with the debate this long and look forward to your feed back.
My opponent will probably win this debate.

You see con is trying to confuse you. His tactic is so extremely brilliant that I almost didn't spot it right away. What he's trying to do is show you that I conceded the arguments, and argue that he out performed me (which is true because I was trying to do that so that my case is true! That my opponent will probably win) In fact his speech is so smooth that he even said "vote con" at the end of it (almost like he decieved himself as well). In a typical debate, this reasoning is valid, but this is an abnormal debate. My case is "that my opponent will probably win this debate", so I want him to out perform me as much as possible. Why? Because out performing someone means you are probably going to win the debate... right? Thought so. "...I have out performed him on every aspect of this debate..." - Wylted [Is like saying] "My opponent will probably win this debate." - Debate Title Haha!
My opponent will probably win this debate.

A lot of my opponents arguments from the previous round were pure nonsense. I will just address the ones relevant to this debate, The Paradox Problem There is no real paradox problem. 2 different worlds exist. The world inside this debate and the world outside if this debate. So I can very well win this debate by giving more logical reasons why I won't win then what my opponent can for why I will win. Statistics I gave legitimate statistics for not random made up ones. My stats trumps my opponents stats. Conclusion My opponent's relevant premises have been refuted.
My opponent will probably win this debate.

Voting parameters Regardless of how clever my opponent thinks he is. There are certain rules that determine how people should vote. I won't list them here but they are listed in the site F.A.Q.. I urge the voters to vote according to those parameters. http://www.debate.org... My opponent has the B.O.P. to argue why I will win. Argument 1 Nobody wins theses types of debates. They are a waste of time. Even if more people vote on this debate in my favor, I still lose because I wasted my time on something so infantile. I could be having sex with a beautiful woman right now or getting high, but I'm participating in this debate so I miss my opportunity to do so, therefore I lose. Argument 2 I will cheat. My opponent has been on this site twice as long as me and has been 1/20 of active as me. I have a ton more friends then him. I will just have them wait until 5 minutes before voting closes and vote against me. My opponent can't influence as many people to vote against him. Argument 3 I will demand that the debate be deleted. If at any point I start winning the debate I Will request that it is deleted. My opponent has violated the terms of service for DDO. My opponent has threatened to kill me. My opponent strongly insinuates he will murder me if I attempt to lose. "And I won"t attend your funeral, even though you send me wedding gifts." If he is going to threaten to kill me if I lose, than justification for removing the debate has been given. http://www.debate.org... Argument 4 75% of all available options involve me not winning. Option 1- I lose 25% Option 2- I tie 25% Option 3- debate is removed 25% Option 4- I win 25% So there you have it 75% of available options go against me winning. So statistically speaking a good bet is on me losing. argument 5 Less then 50% of all debates on this site have a winner. Some debates are ties others are removed. Statistically speaking I have less than 50% chance if winning this. Rebuttals in next round.
School systems kill creativity.

"However, this implies that creativity must be a result of motivation or initiative on the part of the students, meaning that teachers do not implant this in their students" The teachers control the opportunities of creativity given. They can provide them with opportunities to be creative, which multiple students take into use. The students themselves must perform the creativity, but so would any individual. Students cannot just ignore the voice of the teacher and go off on their own, which shows that the teachers themselves must provide students with the chance to show off their creative side. 75 percent of teachers believed schools were expanding A.P. courses "to improve their school"s ranking and creativity in the community." (http://www.thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com...)
School systems kill creativity.

The way classes are taught (starting from a very early age), students have it drilled into their heads that a certain type of problem has a certain solution. The way teachers teach classes, they do not emphasize (with the exception of a select few elite schools such as Phillips Exeter Academy) creative problem-solving on the part of the students. Many teachers show students one way to solve a problem, and expect them to solve variations on the same problem using the same method. I strongly urge you to watch this interesting TED talk, which describes the point I am trying to make quite well:http://www.ted.com...Students can choose to be much more creative with their answers on tests, quizzes, and class works if the material is more difficult.I completely agree with this statement. However, this implies that creativity must be a result of motivation or initiative on the part of the students, meaning that teachers do not implant this in their students. By not forcing students to use their creativity when solving problems in class, this skill slowly withers away.However, when a student either forgets a formula, or feels more challenged by it, that encourages them to try to think of their own solution, therefore, increasing creativity.While this may be true with some students who have learned academics extracurricularily, many students who learn academia exclusively in schools are not able to solve the problem using their own solution method, as they are taught that a certain way is correct. Not knowing this method, therefore, renders them essentially incapable of solving the problem.Additionally, you say that the amount of students taking Advanced Placement courses has increased in Des Moines. This is not the case in the vast majority of high schools, many of which do not even offer AP courses. While AP courses do promote problem solving and creativity, many students remain in lower-level classes and never will take an AP course. Only two states had a percentage of students taking AP courses above 40% (http://www.nsf.gov... click the "Data Table" tab).
School systems kill creativity.

"In short, many school systems today simply require applying a formula or stating a memorized definition on assessments, and do not make use of more difficult, deep thinking questions that are much more common in the real world." Would you mind sharing how this kills creativity? Students can choose to be much more creative with their answers on tests, quizzes, and class works if the material is more difficult. Yes, some non-advanced courses may use simple formula required problems, but Des Moines schools have more than tripled the number of students taking Advanced Placement courses over the past two years. (http://www.desmoinesregister.com...) However, when a student either forgets a formula, or feels more challenged by it, that encourages them to try to think of their own solution, therefore, increasing creativity.
School systems kill creativity.

Recent data shows that 92% of students grades 5-12 surveyed state that they participate in at least one "creative, fun" activity while at school.Would you be able to provide me with a source for this information? Additionally, I find that the students' perception of a "creative, fun" activity is very nebulous. Many teachers provide fun, interactive exersizes in class which promote creativity and class participation.I do agree that teachers provide fun, interactive exercises. However, these exercises simply engage students and create an interest for the subject, not creativity in problem solving and understanding of the material.I do have an issue with the fundamental philosophy of the curriculum in virtually every academic subject. This is seen, I feel, most obviously in mathematics courses. From personal experience, I learned mathematics mainly outside of school (including non-curricular discrete mathematics) in an environment that forced me to solve problems by thinking about the tools I had, not just straight application. In short, many school systems today simply require applying a formula or stating a memorized definition on assessments, and do not make use of more difficult, deep thinking questions that are much more common in the real world. This focus on memorization of facts and not the reasoning behind them or their applications results in students possessing a single view of the subject matter, instead of a rich understanding of the wide range of applications of a single scientific law or historical theory. Additionally, curricula are structured in a way that crushes outside-the-box thinking. Teachers often do not expect students to ask in-depth questions because they do not expect the thinking and creativity required to come up with such questions. My example for this is my math teacher. She is perfectly capable of drilling formula after formula for permutations and combinations into our heads, but when asked the simple question of WHY the formulae work by one of our classmates, she was completely stumped. If teachers cannot show the creativity and thinking required of modern human beings, then their students cannot grow that creativity either.
School systems kill creativity.

As a continuation of a recent debate about the same topic, I would like to argue that schools do indeed slowly but steadily reduce the creativity of individuals. I do very well in school because I avoid the textbook teaching/learning methods and try to understand WHY the material is the way it is rather than rote memorization of formulas, facts, etc. If you accept this debate, please do your best to maintain an intellectual, logical environment without profanity and poor spelling and grammar. Thank you very much!
Kirsten Dunst has really bad teath!

"Her jagged teath would tear up a poor unsuspecting member when she gives head." Really. In 2001, Dunst admitted her and Toby Maguire had a "thing" going on. Obviously, for the typical celebrity, a "thing going on" means "We're having sexual relations". Now, during sexual relations, I'm sure we can all relate to that after starting out with some nice, soothing kissing, most of us skip foreplay and head right over to head. As I'm sure Tobey and Kirsten did. Now, if the "jagged teeth" of Kirsten Dunst tore up Tobey's penis-oh, I'm sorry, how vulgar of me-if Kirsten tore up Tobey's poor, unsuspecting dick (much better!), then he would not be able to perform such illustrious jumps, twirls and spins in his filmings of Spiderman 2 and 3, for the little lingering pieces that hung off his dick would catch on to his spidey suit, thus, setting off that "Spidey Sense" of his, which would make him say "MY SPIDEY SENSE IS TINGLING!" more than the script calls for, thus, more takes of the scence, thus, slowing filming. Hence, when you say really bad teeth do this, and it could not have happened to Tobey's little vienna sausage, Kirsten Dunst cannot and does not have bad teeth. Oh, and byeth the wayeth, teeth is spelled t-e-e-a-h-t-h, not t-e-a-t-h. Aduh.
Kirsten Dunst has really bad teath!

Look, here is a picture of her teeth: http://dotnet.org.za... Oh dear. Wrong image. Here is her teeth: http://images.google.com... Oops! That was my uncle. Now, here are her gorgeous teeth: http://www.cupertinoorthocare.com... Take a deep breath and count to three, Jonas...The beautiful teeth of Kirsten Dunst are right here: http://rosasacidas.files.wordpress.com... Looking at this closely, I see no overbite, underbite, crossbite, buck teeth, cavaties, gingivitis, chipped teeth, yellow discoloration, or AIDS. Thus, hence.
No action can be truly selfless

"Definition of an atheist: The belief that there is no God of any kind. If there is no God of any kind...then there are no moral values of any kind. (Explained Below)" Your entire argument regarding atheists rests on this faulty premise. You have assumed wrongly that all moral values must come from God, or a belief in God. I have meant plenty of atheists that not only possess moral values, but believe them to be objective values. There are also several philosophers (Immanuel Kant is a good example) who devoted quite a bit of time to the discussion of the validity of their moral systems without bringing God into the picture. "2.Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all atheist going to live feeling worthless if they believe there is no purpose in life and everything is pointless. Hero: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose. (The American Heritage Dictionary) The definition of a hero contradicts an atheist's core idea that there is no God, therefore life has no purpose." You're wrong, very wrong. Again, you make a another faulty assumption: that all value must come from God. No supreme being is needed to create value for anything, living or otherwise. Value is there because conscious minds put it there. Also, an atheist must not necessarily believe that everything is pointless. As I stated, value can have other sources aside from God. If you ask a devout Buddhist, most of whom can be considered atheist, it is very unlikely that he or she will tell you that life is worthless or pointless. Your entire argument regarding Christian Hedonism only backs my point. They are seeking their own pleasure, period.
No action can be truly selfless

Umm... so you are agreeing with me? I can't seem to find anything in your "argument" that disagees with mine. You said that a truly selfless action could only occur in a world without guilt. Since guilt is deeply rooted in human beings, that's pretty much impossible. So how is this even a debate? "You might claim the only reason an atheist would give their own life is that they are so afraid of the guilt they'd feel otherwise that they would rather die. Which, of course, is possible, but not provable." There are other reasons. Self-satisfaction, for one. Some people's self-esteem is just so low that they'd rather die feeling like heroes than live feeling worthless.
No action can be truly selfless

Hi Maya I've thought about this often and have wrestled with it for years. I disagree with Maya's assesment that no action by a living being can be truly selfless for the following reasons... I agree that people, by and large, are hedonists. But I don't just mean the prostitutes and drug dealers. I also mean the lady who helps out every week at the homeless shelter, and the boy scout who helps that lady cross the street. Ask somebody who does these "good" deeds why they do them, and you will, nine times out of ten, get a response similar to "I like helping people." People who do good deeds inevitably feel good about doing them; people who do bad deeds inevitably feel guilty about doing them. This does not, of course, prove that these consequences are why people choose to do good deeds and not bad ones, but once we accumulate a certain amount of purely circumstantial evidence, it would be foolish to ignore it. Now I'm not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing. Certainly the homeless person doesn't care why that lady helps them every week, and that lady doesn't care why the boy scout helps her across the street. Our motives do not affect the consequences of our actions upon society. I think it does, however, affect the inherent goodness of those actions. A good deed done out of fear of guilt or out of desire to feel good about doing it is no more a good deed than a criminal sentenced to community service. It has good effects; it is not a good deed. It is, in essence, hedonism. And a hedonistic act that helps society is no less hedonistic because of that. Through mechanisms such as guilt, we are programmed to do these "good" acts not out of selflessness, but out of our own selfish desires. I'm not arguing that guilt is a bad thing - our society depends upon said mechanisms to remain stable. It has been stated, "People without guilt are called 'criminals'." However, it seems to me that only in a world without guilt can any truly selfless act occur. The main flaw that I see with this idea is that of the martyr; or more specifically, an atheistic one. People like the ancient Christians or the modern suicide bombers do not count, as they believed they would receive their reward in Heaven. After all, what's a crucifixion or two compared to eternal bliss? But a true atheist who sacrifices themselves for another without any hope of a reward, now there's a problem. You might claim the only reason an atheist would give their own life is that they are so afraid of the guilt they'd feel otherwise that they would rather die. Which, of course, is possible, but not provable.
No action can be truly selfless

Since I can't seem to find any worthy opponents on the topic of gay marriage, I've decided to take a break from that one. This is a philosophical topic. I decided to put it in the society section instead of the religion section because as I see it, it has more to do with society than religion. Anyway, on with the debate. It is my intention to argue and prove that no action by a living being can be truly selfless. By truly selfless, I mean that the action can never be devoid of a self-serving purpose. Even in actions that cause self-harm, desires are satisfied or purposes are achieved that outweight the harm inflicted and thus gratify the person acting.
If a fetus is found out to have Tay-Sach disease, parents should be mandated to abort the fetus.

The Tay-Sachs disease is a horrible one. But it doesn't mean humans have the right to murder babies just becuase they have the disease. Here are my reasons in a nutshell as to why they should not be aborted... 1. There is no cure now. But in the next few years maybe a cure might develop. Scientists are making cutting edge discoveries every year. Wouldn't you feel guilty murdering a baby and then finding out that the baby could have been cured? 2. Mothers have a risk of dying due to the abortion. It is rare, just like the Tay-Sachs disease. But it still happens. Why risk the mother's life? See link for details: https://www.google.com... 3. They may suffer pain but keep in mind that religious people believe that their suffering will end with death and that they will receive everlasting life in the afterlife which will make the five or less years of suffering look like nothing.
If a fetus is found out to have Tay-Sach disease, parents should be mandated to abort the fetus.

Tay-Sachs disease is a rare inherited disorder that progressively destroys nerve cells (neurons) in the brain and spinal cord. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... This disease is fatal and will kill the affected in his first 5 years in his life. There is no cure. Prenatal testing for Tay-Sachs can be performed around the 11th week of pregnancy using chorionic villi sampling (CVS). Tay-Sachs cause deafness, blindness seizure, and eventual death of the affected in his first 5 years of life. It is not mandated by anyone that parent whose fetus has Tay-Sach abort their fetus. The reasons that parents who have fetus with Tay-Sachs disease should be mandated to abort the baby are following. Bearing a baby with Tay-Sachs disease is as same as a creature that will suffer all of its life until dying in less than 5 years. There is no cure for Tay-Sachs, and the baby will only suffer when he or she is born. It is better to stop the pain in future for the baby by aborting the fetus.
This House Believes That Voluntary Euthanasia should be legal

Ok First, I want to define about Voluntary Euthanasia it self. Voluntary Euthanasia is euthanasia conducted with consent from family and especially from sufferer it self. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon (USA) and Washington (USA). Read more: Euthanasia Legalized in The Netherlands | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com... So, I believe that government in THE ALL COUNTRY should be legal Voluntary Euthanasia (Voluntary Euthanasia : Passive and Active). My argument are : 1. Justification This is justice for the sufferer especially. Because, this is their right to choose kill their self or not even they suffer an ill that can't be cure. So, it's very clearly that we can't less their right. 2. Social side Let's think logic. They suffer an ill that can't be cure. An example is : HIV. And you know that HIV is ill that can contagious. So, it will give bad influence for the sufferer it self. In their environment, they will feel discriminative. People in their environment will avoid them. 3. Economic side Will need much money for their treatment. Whereas, they ill can't be cure and it just vain. It's not solve a problem, and just waste their money. And this will less their right (Family who still alive). And the better is that money use for the people who still alive for fulfill their right.