BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is such thing as trying.

I extend all arguments. I would also like to further reinforce my arguments and prepare for any refutations on my opponent's part. The most prominent thing that I must point out is that my opponent has not met his BOP (which was agreed upon in the first round). He has failed to produce arguments proving that trying does not exist and has only attempted to refute my arguments. It is also important to realize that no new arguments can be produced in this round, since this is the last round; thus, because my opponent has not and cannot meet the BOP, I have already won this debate. My opponent will most likely attempt to prove that trying is the same thing as doing. I would like to say that this does not disprove the existence of trying, since it simply shows that trying is the same as doing. Conclusion-I am the only one who has put sources in this debate, and I am the only one who has produced arguments in this debate; thus, sources and arguments should go to me. Furthermore, my opponent has forfeited the last round, which is a conduct violation. I apologize for this being so short, but with a lack of arguments and refutations on my opponent's part, there is not much I can do.
There is such thing as trying.

I apologize for posting my arguments so late. I have been quite busy. Anyways, I will proceed to defend my arguments. 1. In order to accomplish an action you must put effort into that action. My opponent claims that putting effort into an action is the same as doing the action. This, however, is false. While they may be similar, they are certainly not the same thing. Putting effort into an action is not "doing." The action itself is "doing". The outcome would be the result of that action (also called the "do" or "do not"). For example, let us say that you are lifting a chair. The act of lifting the chair is "doing" the action. The outcome of this action is whether or not you managed to lift the chair. Straining to lift the chair would show that you are putting a lot of effort into lifting up the chair, whereas lifting the chair up with ease shows that you have put little effort into this particular action. It is how you lift up the chair that shows the amount of effort you put into your actions, not lifting the chair up. Even if putting effort into an action is the same as doing the action (as a hypothetical situation), then Yoda has essentially contradicted himself. Since putting effort (trying) is the same as "doing", then Yoda's quote is essentially, "Do or do not, there is no do." Alternatively, it could be, "Try or try not, there is no try." This is because, (according to my opponent) trying and doing are the same thing (for this hypothetical situation). 2. Yoda's quote contradicts many other quotes. Please remember that Yoda is nothing more than a fictional character, whereas Michael Jordan is an actual, living person; thus, Michael Jordan is actually much more experienced and much more wise than Yoda is. 3. How you got to the outcome of a situation is more important than the outcome itself. It does not matter if you already knew how to get to the answer. The purpose of this argument was to show that trying is essential to the process, which in turn is essential to the outcome; thus, because the process relies on you trying (putting effort into the action and/or process), trying must exist. Additional Argument- I previously mentioned this in my conclusion, but I have decided to make it an argument. Trying exists, because if we do not try, then we simply end up failing in our actions. Since we do not fail in all our actions, and we succeed in some actions, then trying exists. It is as simple as that. Conclusion- All actions require effort, which means that they require trying. Since this is the case, trying obviously exists. I am sorry that MasterKage is no longer able to participate in weirdman's tournament. I hope he enjoys this debate, and I wish him luck in his future rebuttals. I also would like to point out that my computer refuses to let me bold certain statements, so that is why I have not made any bold words and/or characters in this round. Thank you.
There is such thing as trying.

I will just refute my opponent's arguments. 1) In order to accomplish an action you must put effort into that action. By putting effort into any action you are doing than you are “doing” that action. 2) Yoda's quote contradicts many other quotes The fact that Micheal Jackson has a quote that contradicts Yoda's means essentially nothing. Yoda was over 900 years old and extremely wise and Jackson was not wise a bit. 3) How you got to the outcome of a situation is more important than the outcome itself. In refutation of your scenario, to gather the answered to the problem, you must have essentially known the way to get the answer. NOTE: I'm going to have to drop out of weirdman's tournament, not this debate as it's interesting, but if I win this actual debate you will go on because I do not have enough time for WM's tournament. Also, forgive me for my tiny refutations, but I am running out of time today.
There is such thing as trying.

BOP-I, pro, must prove that trying exists. My opponent, con, must prove that trying does not exist. Definitions-Try: to attempt to do or accomplish [1] No other definitions should be necessary. Rules-1. This debate stems off the quote, "Do or do not, there is no try"-Yoda. Thus, the only definition of the word "try" that will be accepted in this debate is the one that is presented above. 2. Although this should not be necessary, there will be no abuse of semantics, loopholes, wordplay, etc. I look forward to a fun, challenging debate! [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
If Jesus were born today he would be an atheist (don't vote w/o reading plz!)

Thanks for accepting blond guy. To be honest i was hoping for a christian but this is fine. "1) Jesus believed that he was a physical form of god, which proves that He believed in God in the past." My argument was that if he was born today he would not believe the same things he believed in the past. All that this point does is explain what he believed in the past. Explaining what he believed in the past doesn't establish anything in regards to my argument. And furthermore jesus never stated that he believed he was the physical form of god. "2)If he was alive today, and remembered his visions, he'd be a member (and prophet) of the Baha'i faith." This claim is completely unsubstantiated. You have not provided any reason or argument to establish that this would be so. Baha'i faith is a Persia faith emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind. If jesus were to fall into a supernatural ideology there is no reason to assume that he would choose the Baha'i faith. He could become asphyxiated with shamanism or the new age movement in america. I would like to draw my opponent's attention to my resolution R: If Jesus were -born- today he would be an atheist. I carefully chose the word "born" instead of "alive" to establish that jesus would be born today, as in brought into existence today. He would not have been alive 2000 yrs ago bc he was brought into existence today. That is the premise of this debate. Therefore he would have no such recollection of any visions. born: (dictionary.com) 1a) Brought into life by birth. b) Brought into existence; created. Even if he did remember/have these visions today he would not take them seriously as he was a man concerned with truth. (see my argument in R1, which my opponent still has not countered) Until my opponent directly disproves my argue it still holds.
If Jesus were born today he would be an atheist (don't vote w/o reading plz!)

I strongly disagree with you simply because: 1) Jesus believed that he was a physical form of God, which proves that he believed in God in the past. 2) If he was alive today, and remembered his visions, he'd be a member (and prophet) of the Baha'i faith. I say this, because if I had the visions and beliefs of Jesus, the Baha'i faith would be the only faith to give me explanations to my visions. Also, believing in being sent from God, he'll believe he was just sent from God once more, after the latest Baha'i prophet, Baha'u'llah. Feel free to ask me any questions on the Baha'i faith in the comments. I know it might be hard if you are not familiar with this "religion".
Modern western nations have birth rates below replacement levels, Feminism is the cause.

First, I correlate certain things with feminism: Abortion and birth control are obvious reasons, I equate them as products of feminism. The not-so-recognized reasons are: Family courts, Family courts favoring the mother for custody eighty percent of the time, A detachment from family customs and heritage/legacy due to lack of biological fathers raising kids, Therefore and as well a lack of a cultural and cohesive identity. Women being told for decades by popular media and academia that motherhood is a sub par job and equating it to oppression. Domestic violence accusations by vindictive or jealous narcissistic partners are to be believed at the moment of allegations by police and later by prosecutors where an order of protection/restraining order is granted at a whims notice, Such issues effect the defendant's rights to own a gun and effects the outcomes of parental custody rights to their children. There are a myriad of other reasons why birth rates are low, One example is women waiting to have children after college and their career has started, They usually have just one on average. Birth control also has been known to cause infertility at quite an alarming rate. Men have stopped pursuing women for a myriad of reasons as well, The post metoo environment has caused men to retreat from the dating scene for mere self preservation. Porn is a huge benifactor to low birth rates as well, Its safer and easier than risking it all in the dating and marriage scene in the west. Porn itself is also and obviously a symptom of feminism, Ironically most feminist hate porn as well as traditional conservatives. . . . Just a little irony there. What do you think? Please point out any fallacies in my hypothesis.
Should skateboarders be kicked out of places because they were skateboarding on that places property

If it is their property, and they need not wish skateboarders to skate on their area, they have every right to disallow it. Part of the reason may be fear of lawsuits; however, most of it is likely that they simply don't want their land to be ruined, as well as the sound pollution. Also, this entire section "What people don't realize is that skateboarding is getting kids up and active, instead of sitting at home all day watching porn and playing video games. I used to do those things and now I go out to skateboard with my best of friends almost every day! Plus, it is a way to exercise. Kids that skateboard are often more fit from the waist down then most football, basketball, and soccer players," has nothing to do with your argument. Yes, skateboarding is good exercise, but that isn't what's being debated.
Should skateboarders be kicked out of places because they were skateboarding on that places property

Skateboarding is not a crime, its a sport and a mode of transportation. Kids and adults do it and love it! So why are people getting kicked out and sometimes thrown in jail because they were skateboarding on a store front's property? The answer is very simple and obvious. The store owners or businesses don't want the skateboarder to sue them if they get hurt, and they don't want the skateboarders to damage property. All we need to do to fix this is say that the skateboarders cannot damage property, or they will be asked to leave. I will have you know I would obey that if it meant i could skate at the local out door mall! The second thing we can do is pass a law saying anyone hurt on a skateboard cannot file any sort of lawsuit towards the property it is on. You don't see kids suing the city for getting hurt at a skate park do you? I don't ever have to sign anything when I go skate there. Please help fight this, there is so much hate towards skateboarders and skateboarding that it has become nearly impossible to skate any where except the local skate parks. What people don't realize is that skateboarding is getting kids up and active, instead of sitting at home all day watching porn and playing video games. I used to do those things and now I go out to skateboard with my best of friends almost every day! Plus, it is a way to exercise. Kids that skateboard are often more fit from the waist down then most football, basketball, and soccer players. So come help me fight to get these laws in place or at least get the attention of some government officials and city officials to pass something that could help us with this hatred toward our skateboarding neighbors.
should doctors be forced to perform abortion

With procedure yes I am referring to doctors in USA There are 3 main points I would like to make 1 it is not the doctor's responsibility to determine the actual surgery in most matters they need to give options but final choice is made by the patient. This has legal precedence. Benjamin Cardozo (who would later become a Supreme Court justice) ruled in a New York case that "[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body. " 2. A patients morals and or beliefs out weigh a doctor's. This has been established before listed a couple examples where a patients choice out way a doctor's decision. a dnr "do not resuscitate" A patient may refuse a blood transfusion 3 A doctor's primary responsibility is to there patient not another life. For an example if I am dead but my decision is not to allow my organs to be harvested it is my doctor's responsibility to respect my wishes even though my donated organs could save one or more lives. Due too these 3 reasons a doctor should have to respect a woman's right to chose termination of a pregnancy and perform the operation regardless of his or her personal views. Links . http://m.wisegeek.com... . http://mytransfusion.com.au... . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
should doctors be forced to perform abortion

Welcome to DDO, and good luck in the debate. Procedurely speaking, you are doing fine. Kudos on your explicit "this debate is not on morality", as that could detract the debate from your intention. The only thing I would suggest is your resolution should be a statement, not a question. Not a big deal, but it should have read "Doctors should be forced...". Trust me, I've seen worse. For future reference, it is good form to always take the Pro when instigating, as you did here. Had you wanted Con, the resolution should have read "Doctors should not be forced", and you take Pro. It is simple and it avoids confusion. Now, since you did not define any terms, as I think they all are pretty self-evident, I am going to assume that we are talking about the United States government forcing doctors within the United States to perform abortions, and not all doctors everywhere. Back to you...
should doctors be forced to perform abortion

I feel like I have made my point stating a patients morals and beliefs have to be honored by their physicians. This point mainly was shown by preventing a doctor from doing an action instead of performing an operation. In your respond to your statement No one had the right to compel anyone to provide a service. This is true to a point we should not force anyone to become a doctor,but once the choice has been made too become a doctor their responsibility should be too the patient and not their belief. Doctors are currently compelled to treat their patients regardless of their beliefs. Both the ethical opinions and legal precedents agree that a physician may not intentionally and unilaterally sever an existing relationship with any patient, unless the physician provides reasonable notice to the patient, in writing, and sufficient time to locate another physician. Failure of the physician to continue to provide care when the patient remains in need of care or failure to provide notice and an adequate opportunity physician before the physician terminates the physician/patient relationship can be construed as the physician"s abandonment of the patient or dereliction of the physician"s duty if injury results. In addition to being exposed to liability for any damages that are caused by the abandonment or the breach of duty, the disciplinary action under the states medical practice act. In Pennsylvania, a physicians abandonment of a patient can result in disciplinary action exposure to civil liability (1) 2. The Hippocratic Oath. I reviewed your source that you provided and I would recommend you review this again. The source that you quoted is out of date and no longer used. The article you quoted specifically states the Hippocratic oath that Med students now take do not include any statement forbidding abortions. (2) 1: . http://www.physiciansnews.com... 2: . http://www.pbs.org... Thank you
If you don't vote for Obama, you are racist.

Hi, thank you for arguing.Let me address my opponent's points. "Everyone is a racist, therefore, if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist."I don't agree with that. There are some non-racist people.Definition of racism: noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. There are people who do not agree with racism, thus, not everyone is a racist. "Con's argument implies that someone cannot choose to not vote for Obama because of racism. Why not? Many people choose to not vote for Obama for precisely that reason. Nothing inherent in the notion of "racism" prevents someone from using that as a reason to not vote for Obama. Thus, Con's reasoning is flawed."I did not mean that someone cannot choose not to vote for Obama because of racism. What I meant is that someone can not-vote for Obama because of other reasons. What I meant in my previous argument by the words, "Can not" is that someone can not-vote for Obama and vote for someone else, not someone cannot vote for Obama. If I meant that they cannot vote for Obama, I would have not separated the "can" and the "not". Thus, PRO misunderstood my argument. "Therefore, if you do not vote for Obama, you are a racist, not because not voting for Obama made you a racist, but because you had no choice in the matter -- you are a racist whether you vote or not."Your statement that "Everyone is racist no matter what" is not true, hence the definition above. Someone can disagree with racism, thus, they are not racist. It is true that someone can not-vote for Obama because they are racist, but what makes the title untrue is that someone can also not-vote for Obama because of another reason, like a political reason. I look forward to seeing my opponent's response.
If you don't vote for Obama, you are racist.

Thank you, Con, for this debate. It is an interesting debate because, to be honest, it is a very one-sided debate. Most people probably think Pro never had a chance. When I read the resolution, I immediately thought the reverse: Con had no chance. To explain why, here is my argument: everyone is a racist, therefore, if you don't vote for Obama, you are a racist. To elaborate, I am saying that, whether you think you are a racist, or you think you are not racist, either way, you are still a racist subconsciously. Whether someone provides racism as a reason for their choices, or does not provide racism as a reason for their choices, it does not change the fact that that person is a racist. Racism, in many people, is unconscious, but this does not change the fact that everyone is a racist. As you can see, then, the debate is a non-starter. Whether you vote for Obama, or do not vote for Obama, you are a racist. Now let me turn to Con's argument, and just pick at it, for the fun of it. Con's argument implies that someone cannot choose to notï¿½ vote for Obama because of racism. Why not? Many people choose to not vote for Obama for precisely that reason. Nothing inherent in the notion of "racism" prevents someone from using that as a reason to not vote for Obama. Thus, Con's reasoning is flawed. Furthermore, Con distinguishes between "political views" and "racism," and suggests that the two are exclusive. To this I say, how so? Racism, in certain situations, is a political view, and therefore, Con's argument, again, is flawed. In sum, basing your reasons to not vote for Obama on "political" reasons in now way excludes the possibility that you are a racist. In fact, because everyone is, by necessity, a racist, you are a racist regardless the reasons you provide for casting your vote in one way or another. Therefore, if you do not vote for Obama, you are a racist, not because not voting for Obama made you a racist, but because you had no choice in the matter -- you are a racist whether you vote or not.
Lowering alcohol age to 18 debate.

Hey guys hows it going i'm new to this site and well I need help for a debate tomorrow. If all of you guys can give me reasons and arguments statistics of why we shouldn't lower the alcohol age to 18 in USA would be very helpful, ( this is my first time ever doing a professional debate so tips would be very helpful on debating also.) Facts, reasons , ect. I know there arguments are going to consist of reasons like oh you can join in the military at 18 so you should be able to drink alcohol or some other non sense. Thanks guys would be very helpful :D
Universities should accept equal number of male and female students in every subject.

In our society today, it is not our place to decide whether a certain role in society is for females or for males. We should furthermore not prevent people from becoming what they want to be, or in this case, learn what they want to learn, but instead, encourage people to challenge social biases. Therefore, I believe that we shouldn't allow a certain gender to dominate anything in modern society. In order to enforce this, we should make it mandatory for colleges, universities, clubs etc. to pick males and females equally, or at the very least to a 4 to 6 or 3 to 7 ratio. I shall post my rebuttals in the next round.
Apple's computers/laptops are better than dell's computer/laptops.

As for viruses, the in built windows defender is usually good enough for the common viruses. And why buy a case and a plug-in when you have already spent so much money on the mac laptop? Dell is cheap and sturdy. Mac never survives 10 years, but my dell is still working. Dell has decent ram and memory and is usable. Mac is good in performance, but as it can't run windows apps, is not built to be long lasting and needs extra accesories, vote for dell.
Apple's computers/laptops are better than dell's computer/laptops.

Just trying throwing a macbook air in the air and then throwing a dell in the air. No covers and no one catches it. Dell has more chance of surviving than mac. Plus, dell prices are more logical and sensible than mac's. Plus, some Macbook don't have cd drive. Mac costs nearly double than dell, but its quality is not doubled. There is the operating system issues as well. Mac can't run the windows apps like visual basic. In my school the ones who had mac had to use a different app in ICT.
Apple's computers/laptops are better than dell's computer/laptops.

I will have too disagree with the contention that apple laptops lack in hardware quality. In my school they all have mac airs 30 of them per class. They have now lasted 5 years and it doesn't even have a scratch. Apple's battery is extremely good i have had my mac book pro for a good month now and its battery life is 7hr with 100 percent charged. I am glad what I spent on my mac because it runs great and it has accomplished all my needs.