BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rational_Thinker9119 is possibly the smartest debater on DDO

well, first of all, as can seen from his debate profile on http://www.debate.org..., he has won almost 80% of his debates, an impressive amount that racked up a high and mighty elo score of 3,711. Of course, being an amazing debater doesn't really justify that he's extremely smart, but I will get to that later. Now, Rational Thinker is a very scientific thinker, posting to The Cosmological Argument, and he asks Atheists to Explain the Universe, posting to that specific topic many many times, with intriguing comments and confusing ones too, one example being "...there is a contradiction with the A-Theory of time because each moment would be the past, present, and future which is a contradiction as every moment, at any given time, can only be one of the three, but not all three simultaneously. I'm on the fence on whether or not that certain argument is sound, but it has many defenders in the philosophy of time."-- from http://www.debate.org... What in the universe did he just say? I caught something about time and philosophy, but I didn't get anything else. Another good complex post is when he said "...P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: The universe has a cause or something like: P1: Everything that exists has an explanation, either in an external cause or the necessity of its own nature P2: The universe exists P3: The universe has an explanation, either an external cause of the necessity of its own nature P4: The universe does not have a necessary nature C: The universe has an explanation in an external cause"--from http://www.debate.org... This is all very scientific, and it is obvious that Rational Thinker is astute in these fields of knowledge. Now, I know what you will say--"Well, not all scientists are super smart!" And that is true. However, I will prove further that RT is extremely smart within his debates. RT's Debates: Most times Rational Thinker spends a lot of time on his debates, listing concise points and researched very thoroughly. Once, he was so confusing the opponent basically gave up! His opponent even outright stated "wtf is this, my brain is having trouble processing..." (see http://www.debate.org...) In addition, his series of "my opponent will not win this debate" has been so cleverly devised that no one has won the debates, whether they attempt to argue about the rules, didn't even try, or even if RT trolls with dumb arguments, he still wins! His smart rule of "aBcD" only applying to the opponent made the debate unequal and near impossible, frustrating, and insanely hard to win. Finally, one troll debate I found clearly demonstrates RT's incredible genius. http://www.debate.org... He purposefully forfeited, and stated that he was so stupid he thinks he can win even after he forfeited, showing his "debateness" in this debate. Of course, had he really been stupid, he wouldn't have thought of the ingenious idea of forfeiting then "so stupid that he thought he could win". It can be seen from everything above that Rational_Thinker9119 is (possibly) the smartest debater on this site, if not already the smartest.
Rational_Thinker9119 is possibly the smartest debater on DDO

Last round. Nice rebutting, BTW. As for number of debaters who are extremely versatile, I will give an example of a great debate in which the biggest troll got trolled. Remember the "My opponent will not win this debate" series? Well, imabench was in one of them, and he lost! He got trolled by RT, just for saying "state your case" after his "Acceptance", and RT unfairly and very troll-like said "the first round was JUST for acceptance", stressing on "Just". Imabench was practically so frustrated he simply swore for the rest of the debate. This shows RT's smartness-he knew how to get on the biggest troll's nerves, by trolling the troll. This shows he is even smarter than imabench! Very compelling evidence for being an amazing debater vs being super smart...Do I have to keep on stating this was only a weak opening statement? I wanted the rest of my arguments to seem super strong in comparison, so I started off with an extremely weak statement. As for Sargon being super convincing, I will choose the first debate to argue about. RT may have been the Devil's Advocate on this topic. Furthermore, the topic is so complex that I can't understand a single word of it. WTF is Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation?!) RT understanding such deep topics shows that he is very knowledgeable about this, and because such, he is very smart. (Because, seriously, I would reply "WTF is Neo-Lorentzian Interpretation? And WTF is the the Minkowski interpretation?") In the 2cd debate, RT openly acknowledges "The bulk of my losses are from playing devils advocate and conceding. " This shows that RT knows his side very well, and challenges himself to go for the other side. It is only logical that he fails, as he probably already debated versus himself this topic, and the pro side already won over. Finally, you argument about greater knowledge. This is probably my strongest argument, and it is because of the word "POSSIBLY". This stresses that it could be many many people have the same knowledge about the topics RT knows, and because we don't know how deep everyone knows about these respective topics, I started off this topic saying "POSSIBLY", stress on "POSSIBLY." Good debate. I can't say it was easy to support the opinion that RT MIGHT be the smartest person on DDO.
The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

Thank you jwesbruce.well we can not stop climate change but we can reduce it.i find it useless to focus on the economy than on the world am living on it.jwesbruce you said that climate change cannot be stopped its a perpetual process....what we can have control on is our well being.you will never be healthy if the world around you is affected.thats so lame to take economy as a first thing because what sustain the economy is the primary sector of the economy.we can reduce climate change.what if you can replace a regular light bulb with a compact fluerescen one?that saves 150 pounds of carbon dioxide each year.walk,bike,carpool,take mass transit,and or trhp chain.all of these things can help reduce gas consumption and one pound of carbon dioxide for each mile you do not drive.*use less hot water*it takes a lot of energy to heat water.reducing the amount used means big savings in not only your energy bills,but also in carbon dioxide emissions.using cold water for your wash saves 500 pounds of carbon dioxide a year,and using a low flow showerhead reduces 350 pounds of carbon dioxide.we have much power to take care of the world you are living on it.is it a hard thing to plant a tree?a single tree can absorb one ton of carbon dioxide a year.
The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

To warrant putting the Great Recession on the side, these would be nice answers to have. I'm going to keep this round rather brief and, hopefully then, concise. As a brief road map I will 1) offer rebuttals to the new contentions put forth by opponent, I will then 2) discuss where my case stands and 3) finally finish with a quickie conclusion because it's 3 A.M., I'm tired, and there's no way I'm waking up before the deadline. ^_^ The Questions and Contentions of Franklinpoet and the Standing of my CaseFranklin's rebuttal to my case all comes down to one item, " that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? ... "All the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ... Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change? When can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition. " It should not be ignored that our environment is always in a state of flux, for this is the natural way of the world. Our world started as molten rock, now it's tropical (relatively), and later it will, scientists speculate, look quite like Mars. Climate Change cannot be stopped. It's a perpetual process. Humans no more caused it [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] then they can stop it. It should also not be ignored that the human experience is destined to become, one day, as finite as the dinosaur. However, what we do have control over is our well-being. And economics, as dull as it proves through a teacher's mouth, is a very considerable determinant of a person's well-being. And that very same economics right now is putting a lot of working fathers and mothers on the street. This debate has been rather general, thus far. But let's not forget it's reach-in-topic is real. Millions of people have lost that state of well-being, and that's one thing that we have control over to fix. We should not give up that attempt for the sake of something perpetual in nature. In the truest sense, the economy ought to be taken care of first.In ConclusionThat's all for now, I'll hand back over to Pro http://www.forbes.com... [1] http://useconomy.about.com...[2] http://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com...[3] http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org... [4] http://american.com... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://www.wisegeek.com... [7] http://climatechange.procon.org... [8] http://climatechange.procon.org...[9] http://climatechange.procon.org... [10] http://climatechange.procon.org...[11]http://climatechange.procon.org... [12]
The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

Thank you bruce:you mentioned that six of the 17 countries that use the euro currency are in recession and the U.s economy is struggling again.on the above round i mentioned that things such as droughts or global warming leads to recession.did you look on the cause of that recession before you mention that? Sixty nine percent of homes built in last three years are still unsold;we can not be suprised because where there is no employment there is no money.go back and look on the primary sector of that country.the Greece's GDP is 16% below the pre-crisis peak.wow that is good you.GDP generally is defined as the market value of the goods and services produced by a country.one can ask him self that why one country can produce more products than the other country.i wonder why did Greece obtain such a less percent of GDP.it means that the primary sector of that country is not doing well.when we look such many things are manufactured from farming.the problem may be with the land nor the farmers.the Philippines is one of the countries that suffer the most from extreme weather events which exact a high death toll and economic losses.analyzing data from 1991 to 2010,germanwatch,a climate and development organization,said the Philippines ranked 10th among countries when it comes to exposure and responding to severe weather caused by climate change.all the countries identified to be the most affected in the past two decades were developing countries ,the study noted.aside from the philippines,there were Bangladesh,Burma,Honduras,Nicaragua,Haiti,Vietman,the Dominican republic,Pakhstan and north korea.what about these identified countries? Does that not show us that those countries are not focusing on climate change?when can one look at the status of the economy of these countries you wil find that they are at poor condition.this year's analysis underline that less developed countries are generally more affected than industrialized countries,according to the climate risk index.with regard to future climate ,the climate risk index can serve as a warning signal indicating past vulnerability which may further increase in regions where extreme events will become more frequent or more severe through climate change.
The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

Thank you jwesbruce for accepting my challenge.first of all i would like to define the word climate change.climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years.it may be a change in average weather conditions or in the distribution of weather around avarege conditions.my main point on this issue is that climate change comes before the global economy so the world should focus on climate change.because if we do not focus on climate change it means that our land will be affected.e.g what if we have things such as global warming?that will be a case of one country but the world as whole will be affected.i would like to give you a very good axample by one country.let it be Zimbabwe.if there is global warming in Zimbabwe that means Zimbabwe can not produce the products it was manufacturing before because we manufacture products from raw materials.the country will have to depend on the other countries.that means there is no state income for that country.that is a process ,the economy that you were focusing on it start to decline.that will force you to go back and come with ways of ending global warming.because the economy of a country is sustained by the primary sector.how can you plant your seeds without the ground?and now where is people those are living in that country?is poverty not there?some firms will be closed up and people will be unemployed
I am Con.

No it doesn't, contradictions within entities run counter to the laws of our universe, creating logical contradictions as I stated in my second round. Because of this, you are AGREEING with your title, "I am con." and then proving that you are in fact not pro. So, you saying "I am not con." can't be possible and forces me to win the debate. If any of this is unclear, please look again at round #2. You still haven't provided any reason why B can equal C without the logical contradiction between A not being either B or C, yet C=A, and B=C. That is exactly what you are trying to prove by using a double negative in the presence of 3 variables: logic that is incoherent with the rest of our universe's laws (meaning it doesn't work). IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO WIN THIS.
I am Con.

I see your point, but you are forgetting that taking the Con side is saying that I disagree with the topic, just like saying that you are pro means you claim to agree with the belief that I am con. If I disagree with my own statement about my stance, then I am contradicting myself. Therefore, I am both Con and not Con, making you both Pro and not Pro, making us both Con, not Con, Pro and not Pro, and making it just go on for infinity.
I am Con.

Correct, in which case makes me pro, because I agree with the statement you created as con. But when we take a look at the evidence, being, right under your picture is the word "Con", that must mean you are con. At the same time, while you disagree with the statement "I am con," meaning in fact, you are pro, you violate the laws of logic. Let me explain. If object A and object B are not the same, then A cannot be B. Likewise, B cannot be A, unless they are existential qualifiers, like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. In both cases however, B will not be logically A. Now in our situation, Con says Con stance is A, but then after A = B, con must be B. B however says, BX00;Con. So B, meaning pro, is unable to be C, con. Con, now needs to provide BoP for how B = C without A contradicting. If you can't, then Pro (me) automatically wins.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in America

I hope you enjoyed the debate as well. The last thing I have to say is not for all people on this site, but for my fellow Christians. It does in fact say that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Genesis 13, 2 Peter 2, and Leviticus 20:13 are just a few areas in the Bible that talk about homosexuality. Well, that's all for me. Again, thanks Ariesx for the debate. I hand it to you voters!
Gay Marriage should be legalized in America

My opponent bought my curiosity in just a matter of seconds, as I read through his case. But I looked at his sources. I looked through his argument on a man suffering from sexual abuse. I checked the person that wrote the article. He doesn't have a phd, he hasn't cited any people that support his theories. How can we trust what he says. Therefore what my opponent has said is irrelevant. The majority of the scientific community has verified that gay men hold female traits. I don't have any science backing up the idea of getting scared of the other sex. I have no idea where he is getting his articles, but what I can say is it is absurd. Females not getting the same effect is irrelevant to gayness. We can get into lesbians in another debate, but this debate is not gays.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in America

Yes, I do know that couples of the opposite sex get AIDs too. But in homosexuality, it's spread would be almost assured between the couples (I assume you would know why). I found your genetic study argument to be interesting though, so I did a bit of research on it. An online newspaper article from the UK says that through more studies, they found "That while gay men share similar genetic make-up, it only accounts for 40 per cent of chance of a man being homosexual". I looked through the article some more and also found “We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.” And another line that sparked my interest was, “No-body has found something like this in women,” The article also says that it is slightly due to the rising in the womb, and that it may cause more feminism. Early on in the article, it does say that it has nothing to do with choice, which I disagree with but I will get into that a bit later. Now of course, I can't just go off of one article. So I looked some more. I found an article saying “At best genetics is a minor factor”. In this article, a study was done through a set of twins. It read, "Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. 'No-one is born gay,' he notes. 'The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.'" The list went on with some more things, but I found this to be the most interesting detail.Now, earlier I said I disagree with homosexuality having nothing to do with choice. This is definitely not true in one case, which is when the person is sexually abused by the opposite sex and they find themselves afraid, or sick of the other sex. Since this is not part of my argument I will just add some sites... http://www.wnd.com...Here are my sources for my arguments...http://www.telegraph.co.uk... "Being Homosexual Is Only Partly Due to Gay Gene, Research Finds." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 11 Nov. 0059. Web. 21 Nov. 2014. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org..."Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic."OrthodoxNetcom Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in America

Sorry for the forfeit. I had a very busy week, but I would like to add my attack of my opponent's arguments. My opponent says in round 1 that homosexuality is a doorway to immoral sex traditions. My opponent than clearly has no knowledge of what he is talkies about. Verified by scientists around the world, gay people are born with a different set of chromosomes which allow them to be attracted to the same sex. If that doesn't change your mind, you can research about a gay converter camp between 1950s, and 1980s. The whole point of the camp was to convert gay men to straight men. After the camp was done, 1% of the men said that they were straight. My opponent's second argument is about AIDS in gay people. You also have to understand that straight people can get the disease by having sex. This argument is irrelevant, because his logic also applies to straight people. Just because their is a possibility of std, doesn't mean it should be outlawed, because than straight marriage should be illegal.
Gay Marriage should be legalized in America

My first reason for why I beleive that gay marriage should not be legalized in America, is that the legalization and "okay"ing of homosexuality, is a doorway to other immoral sexual relations (apologiez for the run-on sentence). Homosexuality, has been seen as an immoral sexual relation, for quite a long time. It was down there in the "weird and wrong" categories of sex, along with rape and beastiality. It stayed there for a while, the odd sexual acts of the Romans, and Egyptians, up until the early 1900s rolled around and it slowly grossed in popularity from then on. More and more people have been joinning the band-wagon that is gay rights, saying things like, "it's just love", "they're people too", "how would you feel if someone told you who you can or can't love", etc. Well, one of the ways I see it is that, soon the people that wish that beastiality would be okay will think, "Hey, if the gays can earn the okay of the world, why can't I?" and they'll begin their own campaign. People will most likely join in on saying "It's okay, love of animals is natural," "People have been doing it for years," (which is true, and homosexuality, and rape have been around for years as well) "They should have there rights too!", soon, the animal lovers (far worse than the PETA kind) will have their own spot on the sexual morality board. After that, yes, the rapists go after their rights. They say, that because they "love" the person, they should be able to rape whoever they want, and it should be okay . You se if gay rights is okayed by everyone in theis nation, other people will get the idea that their immoral acts, far beyond the idea of homosexuality, are okay. They'll chase their "rights", and most likely will acheive them, just like the gays. It may sound crazy and extreme, but then again a couple decades ago, the gays getting rights seemed extreme too. I hand it to pro.
The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

My opponent has argued that abolishing the minimum wage would lower the standards for worker conditions but has showed no evidence of this. I argue that some workers are not worth the current minimum wage. The minimum wage prices out of the work force many low skilled workers, maintaining the unemployment rate higher than it should be. Furthermore, the minimum wage force forces employers to only hire those with better educations in order to get the best value for their dollar. This has a disproportionate impact on poor minorities and is the cause of poverty in urban and minority communities where good education is scarce.
The Minimum Wage Should Be Abolished

Abolishing minimum wage would open up a lot more jobs for low paid, unskilled workers- but is that who we want working for us? When the cost of labour falls, apparently employers will look for more employees. These employees, however, will probably be less motivated, less appreciated and there will be more of them. I think that this would cause the standard of workers conditions to decrease massively and in turn would create a rerun of the social disaster we faced in the first and second world wars.
Feminism in society and what is useful for,Rape Cultures existence, Wage Gaps existence

Here is my rebuttal. This entire argument can equate to one type of person: feminaziHere's the difference. Feminazi - an extreme feminist who believes the option of abortion is essential to the political, social, and economic advancement of women [1]Feminism -the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. [2]This argument extends to only feminazis, as all feminazis aren't real feminists, according to the definition. I look forward to your defense. I'll go into a more in depth rebuttal in my opening statements. Citations[1]http://www.dictionary.com...[2]http://www.google.com...