BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Sea of Japan should be named "East Sea"

Thank you for giving references to your arguments. I would also like to state that I found that there were 31 islands in the Sea of Japan. [1] Just because one in particular is Korea's, doesn't mean the whole sea is theirs. And it could be that my source is wrong, but I used wikipedia. So if my source is invalid, then that could mean your wikipedia source could be invalid as well. In conclusion, I think the Sea of Japan is a better name because it is used internationally already, whilst the name "East Sea" is only used locally in Korea. The Sea of Japan is the only name used all over the world. [2] Furthermore, the Sea of Japan touches more of Japan's coast than it does for both North and South Korea. And the Sea of Japan is more precise and easier to locate just using the name alone. But for the name East Sea, it could be anywhere, especially since there is more than one sea referred to as the "East Sea." Therefore, I think Sea of Japan is a more logical name. I think I won this debate because I had better spelling and grammar, my arguments and rebuttals seemed more convincing, while pro didn't have many rebuttals, if any, and I had more sources. Thank you for debating against me and good luck! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.mofa.go.jp...
HB-2 (Bathroom Bill)

Welcome to the debate! I am glad to back on DDO! I will open up my return with a debate over the infamous HB-2 bill that was passed in North Carolina. This debate will last four rounds. 1st round will be Acceptance Only 2nd round I will waive Con will begin his opening statements Third Round; I will begin my Opening statements and rebut. Con backs up and rebuts my points. Fourth Round; I will begin my closing statements no rebuttal. This debate will be closed if you wish to join please ask in the comments. If you find a way to join without my permission it is an automatic forfeit. If you begin arguments in round one it is an automatic forfeit. Please no swearing, trolling, etc. HAVE FUN!
the dalai lama should be allowed to be in tibet

I understand my opponent's arguments perfectly well, and I refuted them all along with providing my own arguments against the resolution. I also think it's rather clear that I speak English fluently. I didn't avoid anything my opponent said. By not responding at all to what I had to say in the second round, my opponent HAS given up. Everything I said in the last round has gone completely untouched, and her first and second round arguments were rather weak compared to mine as well.
the dalai lama should be allowed to be in tibet

ok, there is no point in arguing aganst you because you obviously are to stupid to understand my aguments and its hard to argue agaist someone who does not speak english so every one or anyone who is following this debate know this: i am not giving up, but i dont see the point of arguing aganst someone who cant understand my arguments and i hope that you see that he kinda avoded the thigs he knew i was right on. also i dont have time to type anything else because i am going to a hotel for spring break!!!!!!! yea!
the dalai lama should be allowed to be in tibet

Ok, I give you the fact that China may have control over Tibet, but i doubt that the Dalai Lama will "undermine the government" this is just stupid. I am buddhist myself, so i know that the Dalai Lama will do anything that the Chienese Government will not like except not be under their control. Also, my oponent said "There is not a single person in the world who is "meant" to be anywhere at any given point in time." Well, what about government? Does any government (namily the Chienese one) have the right to control anyone or any religon? NO. You said it yourself, Zakkuchan, unless someone can prove their is a higher power who wants something, there is no reason the Chienese should be in Tibet. What religon are you? i dont really care, so dont tell me. But what if your government said "your pope, rabbi, whatever, is not allowed in your country. whould you like it? whould you take offence? YES YOU WOULD!!!!!!! I can tell you that. Unless your, like, some unemotional person who has no life worth living, that is. And Zakkuchan also said that we should stop making such a big deal about it. well, the Dalai Lama has been around for 1391! ( I DONT CARE IF YOU BELIVE IN REINCARNATION!!!!!) budhism has been around since 5th century BCE. Thats a long time. It deserves respect just like any other religon, and Stephen Harper knows that. He is Canada's prime minister, if you dont know. I dont know why you suport China. Their just being unfair.
the dalai lama should be allowed to be in tibet

Ok, this should be fun. I'm going to start by going over what my opponent said, piece by piece. "[F]irst of all he is ment to be there." This is a completely baseless claim. There is not a single person in the world who is "meant" to be anywhere at any given point in time. Unless my opponent can prove a higher power exists, and wants the dalai lama to be in Tibet, this point falls - and even if she somehow proved that much, we'd have to debate whether that constituted being "meant" to be in Tibet. "[H]e is never going to do any harm to anyone." Physically? Sure, I can concede that that's probably true. But what about the other ways to do harm? His very existence within the borders of China (i.e. within Tibet) would undermine the Chinese government's control over Tibet, thus directly harming the Chinese government. "[H]e's budhist! the whole point of budhism is to respect other people and their belifes!" He clearly does not respect the Chinese belief that Tibet rightly belongs to China. "[I] doubt that anything he does will hurt the stupid chienese government." See above. He most likely wouldn't put an army together and march on Chinese forces, but he'd be doing harm to China's sovereignty over the land just by being there. People in the west really need to stop whining about Tibet. The fact of the matter is, other than a relatively short period of time before the People's Republic of China re-took Tibet, Tibet was a part of China for hundreds of years. Somehow, the concept of freeing Tibet from a government that has centuries of rule over the land to back up its claim to legitimate ownership has become the cool thing to believe in in the west. What we need to realize is that China's claim to Tibet is just as valid as our claim to any of the land in North or South America. Unless we all want to pack up and sail back to Europe, it's hypocritical to ask the Chinese to leave Tibet. Sympathy for the dalai lama in the Tibet situation is just another permutation of this same delusion.
meat is bad for your body

My opponent has not stated any reason why meat is not bad for your body. He has just used simple statements. Such as "any time you eat a steak, you are saving a few extra years of your life. " That is not a fact. Merely a hurried non-thought out argument. There is no nutritional value from meat that you cannot get from anywhere else. I have stated diseases from meat and why meat is bad, he has never used nutritional facts to support his case.
meat is bad for your body

"and you can eat tofu and cheese to get protein" he never refuted my statement, i said, "meat is most definitely good for your body" my point still stands strong. he simply gave other examples of protein. "I just have 1 word: McDonalds" my opponent said this... mcdonalds? the resolution says "meat" mcdonalds does not have real meat. they used a proccessed beef mixed with lots of hormones. it is not real meat. my opponent fails to argue that meat is bad for your body. thankyou, vote neg!
meat is bad for your body

First, "It gives you necessary protein." and you can eat tofu and cheese to get protein. And there are many other ways to get muscle without eating meat. Second, "Any time you eat a hamburger you are strengthening your body." I just have 1 word: McDonalds Thirdly, have you heard of Mad Cow Disease and Salmonella and Cow AIDS. "There is some evidence to suggest that the human digestive system was not designed for meat consumption and processing." www.emagazine.com/view/?142 Your turn
meat is bad for your body

this is a 500 character debate with 24 hours to reply I stand in negation of this resolution. meat is most definitely good for your body. It gives you necessary protein, to keep you physically, and mentally in shape. without meat, you would have a lot less muscle. any time you eat a steak, you are saving a few extra years of your life. any time you eat a hamburger, you are strengthening your body. meat is surely good for your body. Good luck :-D
August Beginner's Tourney R1: Prophett and OpinionPersom121

August Beginner's Tournament Round One TheProphett vs. Persom121 Topic: Resolved: When in conflict, an individual's freedom of speech should be valued above a community's moral standards. First of all, I would like to thank the organizer of the tournament, 1harderthanyouthink, for allowing myself and my opponent to be included in this debate. I am sure we will both get tons of experience out of it. Secondly, I would like to wish my opponent good luck, and may the best debater win. Without further ado, I present the structure of the debate, the rules, and the definitions that we will have to abide by. Structure Round 1: 1. Pro instigates, posts entire set-up definitions, this, etc. /Con posts acceptance *only* Round 2: 2. Pro opens/Con opens Round 3: 3. Pro rebuts/Con rebuts Round 4 (final round): Pro rebuts and closes/ Con rebuts and closes. Rules No forfeits Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate No new arguments in final round; R1 is for acceptance **ONLY** Maintain a civil and professional-like atmosphere. No trolling No kritks My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution relating definitions The burden of proof (BOP) is shared. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Definitions 1. Freedom Of Speech: "The right to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. " 2. Conflict: "be incompatible or at variance; clash. " 3. Individual: a specific person 4. community: the people of a district or country considered collectively, especially in the context of social values and responsibilities; society 5.
Everyone in privileged countries should be vegetarian

Eating a plant-based diet is proven to be much healthier than an animal-based diet(1). This is because along the food chain, all nutrients originate from the sun's energy. The sun feeds plants, plants feed bacteria, insects, animals and humans. Insects feed bigger animals, and in turn animals feed humans. Material and energy is passed on from one stage to the next, and with each stage a percentage of material and energy is lost. So, the shorter the food chain is, the less energy is lost. Applying this to us humans, the more plant foods we consume, the more nutrients we will get in comparison to if we ate an animal-based diet. As nutritionist Carla Golden writes, "There is simply /no/ nutrient in animal-based products that a human can't get from where the animal got it; the sun and the earth." (2) Therefore, all the nutrients you list that are in meat, are prevalent to a much higher extent in plants and more direct sources: Iron: Dark leafy greens such as spinach, beans, seeds, nuts, dark chocolate, and tofu. Zinc: Wheat, seeds, beans and nuts. Selenium: Wheat, seeds, beans and nuts. Vitamin A: Carrots, dark leafy greens, sweet potatoes, bell peppers. Vitamin B12: comes from bacteria in the soil, so instead of eating dirt we can substitute this with vitamin B12 supplements, or fermented soybean products. Vitamin D: Sunlight, and supplements. Vitamin D from diet alone is not enough for full human health, so we need to be exposed to sunlight.(3) (1) also shows that even vegan diets are a safe and viable option for all age groups. It shows that vegetarian options would benefit us much more than an animal-based diet would; including a reduction in obesity, diabetes, heart attack, high cholesterol, stroke, and cancer. So as I've just proven that a vegan (yeah even going that far!), and by default vegetarian diet is healthier than a meat diet; I'll address your next point. We're not Neanderthals anymore, that phase has passed. Now we are humans, and we don't need hunting anymore. As humans we've evolved to farm meat for thousands of years, and only in the last few decades have we got to the point where vegetarianism is a realistic option for us. We have so much choice now with the way that food is produced, and we can therefore make the decision to omit the factory-farmed animal products, and after all the health etc. research that has been done to show the direction we need to be heading. As intelligent and developed beings, humans now have the ability and conscience to do the right thing; so I believe this is it. Yep here we go, the 'meat is delicious' argument. Saw that coming didn't I lol. (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... (2) http://www.carlagoldenwellness.com... (3)(vivo.colostate.edu)
Everyone in privileged countries should be vegetarian

Most importantly, since meat contains all the essential amino acids, it definitely ranks as one of the best sources of protein. Benefit off the many nutrients that meat contains, it is rich in iron, zinc and selenium. Most people consider vegetables and fruits to suffice when it comes their daily nutritional needs while also thinking that plant protein is better (and safer) than animal protein. As this is not true, here is a list of the health benefits of eating meat that all contribute to carrying out vital metabolic functions but also giving one a lot of energy as well: Benefit 1Since meat contains a large amount of protein, this could be beneficial to the body as the need for protein is an important one for the body. Since protein is said to improve the overall health and well-being of one"s body, there are other benefits such as the repair and building of body tissues as well as the production of antibodies that will protect the body from infections, thus strengthening the immune system as well. Most importantly, since meat contains all the essential amino acids, it definitely ranks as one of the best sources of protein. Benefit of the many nutrients that meat contains, it is rich in iron, zinc and selenium. While iron helps in forming hemoglobin that transports oxygen to different parts of your body, zinc helps in tissue formation and metabolism as well as selenium breaks down the fat and chemicals in the body. Benefit 3Vitamins are also a big part of the one"s diet, and Vitamin A, B and D are commonly found in meat as well. Not only do these vitamins promote good vision, stronger teeth and bones but it also support the central nervous system thus promoting mental health as well. Another big benefit of eating meat is the maintenance of your skin"s health Finally I would like to conclude for round 1 that without meat in our diet we would still be Neanderthals grazing for berries in the grasslands and forests and society would not have evolved without the meat to where we are today. In the next round I will demonstrate how human evolution is all based on the consumption of meat As an afterthought, I would like to acknowledge my opponent and let them know that I am a meat eating Viking with roots from the Nordic region, I love meat and everything about it, vegetarians to me are just grass eating wussies that I would snap in a second with their frail muscles and bones because of the lack of protein. Meat rules and is delicious, vegetarians all turn into wimpy anemics, bring on your argument grass eater!!! LOL
Everyone in privileged countries should be vegetarian

I believe that there is no excuse to not being vegetarian. A few decades ago, I would understand. Back then, people knew where their food came from. If you didn't raise your own food, you could get your meat from a local butcher and the milkman would deliver milk from the local dairy. Animals were never given growth hormones and antibiotics, and therefore the meat was much healthier. Nowadays, we buy en masse from supermarkets without much thought - animals are raised in tiny, crowded cages in unhygienic conditions, without ever seeing the light of day. As if they weren't stressed enough, on the journey to the slaughterhouse, they will recieve no food or water on a ten-hour ride; trucks can range from -15 degrees to +30 degrees celcius depending on the season. In the cold, sometimes cows will freeze to the side of the truck until they are pried off with crowbars. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Even the label of 'free-range farming' is clutching at straws; one of the requirements is that animals must be able to have access to outside light. Therefore, farmers will cut small holes in the factories. Yeah, /that/ is classed as their access to the outside world. Eating meat is also bad for the environment; deforestation and loss of habitat is largely caused by the crop fields required to feed farm animals; whereas crops required to feed only humans is a much smaller amount. I would support a fully free-ranged diet, but with most of our food being bought as ready meals, and processed, it is becoming more difficult to distinguish labelling of good sources of meat. Other than that, there is simply no excuse to eating meat nowadays. Compared to what animals have to go through, when your main argument 'but its yummy' that really makes you sound ignorant as fk. But I'd be interested in hearing other arguments against this.
Bailouts Should be Banned

If a company collapses, then there will be temporarily painful repercussions. But as more companies arise, this will all heal. And trust me: if a product is in demand, there's almost certainly somebody in America who is willing to make it. This will lead to more jobs. Also, giving bailouts encourages political corruption. And what about our government, which is already in debt over its head? Uncle Sam has got to start saying "No!" more often. Bailouts were one thing he should've said no to.
Bailouts Should be Banned

As expected, Pro has the BOP. There isn't much space, so I'm not going to say much in this round. The fact is, Pro's proposal is based on nothing more than abstraction and emotion. He boldly proclaims that another company will take the place of one which has failed. This is not only an assumption, but ignores the systemic risk and moral hazard that gave rise to the phrase "too big to fail." Case in point, as Ben Bernanke has stressed, the collapse of a too-big-to-fail bank in Central Europe in 1931 and the resulting spillover is what made the Depression as bad as it was [1]. Moreover, the collapse of Lehman during the recent crisis put a significant strain on an already fragile recovery. It's patently false to say "another company will spring up." He ignores the damage of the initial failure -- unemployment, falling inflation expectations, failing financial sector, uncertainy, etc.[1] http://tinyurl.com...
Bailouts Should be Banned

To recap: Pro has the BOP.Pro dropped systemic risk and the Depression. Pro dropped the ramifications of a failure.Pro dropped my responses to corruption. He is appealing to emotion, but he is simply stating that we ought to care about X, Y, and Z -- doesn't justify them, might I add -- even at the expense of the global economy, which is what we do if we don't have checks for systemic risk. Moreover, he COMPLETELY dropped my point that, if we put in place proper preventice measures, such as macroprudential regulation, we could address too big to fail and the necessity of bailouts would dissipiate. He then makes a statement about demand which is factually wrong. He assumes people will always spend ther income if there are products they like. No. People hold back when the economy is doing terribly, when they expect deflation, when their job security is poor, and when they aren't confident. With respect to "debt," note that a global collapse would make it even WORSE.
Bailouts Should be Banned

Pro continues to appeal to emotion, and drops my case about systemic risk and the Depression. He misrepresents the repercussons of a collapse. The Depression lasted until 1942 -- that's over a decade of crippling unemployment, self-reinforcing deflation, and lost dreams. He assumes "companies will rise" and the economy will fix itself: this is ALSO incorrect because he assumes growth will emerge from nowhere. The repercussions from a collapse of this kind are far-reaching, and even if people ARE willing to work, it isn't going to happen if demand is depressed, no one is spending or hiring, businesses are uncertain of the future, and the financial system is unstable. He discusses political corruption, but ignores (1) the necessity outweighs this (2) preventive measures could be adopted WITHOUT a ban and (3) much of the crisis-era bailouts came from the Fed, which is insulated from the political process. The Fed's participation also refutes Pro's debt point.
Gay parenting (resolution in debate)

FULL RESOLUTION: Children raised by homosexual parents are "no different" then ones raised by heterosexual ones. Cons view -- there are differences Pros view -- there are NO differences ==>Definitions<== Gay parenting: homosexual parents raising children like their own No difference theory: "The widely circulated claim that parents engaged in same-sex relationships do just as well as other parents at raising children—a claim widely known today as the "no differences" thesis (...)"{1} ••• Rules: Please no semantics or trolling. Pro has the BOP, no negotiations here. ==>Format<== Round one: Pro makes opening case, but NO ARGUNMENTS last round, only a brief summary and conclusion. Round two: Con rebuts, presenting a case is OPTIONAL as I do not have the bop pro defends. Round three: con counters, pro defends Round four: con counters and concludes, pro concludes. --> On a side note, if you need to put sources outside the debate (i.e. separate debate, comments etc.) that is NOT a Warner for voters to take off points. In other words it's allowed. Go! Present your case, and convince me... Or try too. Definition reference: {1} http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
The synopsis of account of creation in Genesis are true scientifically and logically.

Synopsis means an outline, a brief summary of an event, etc. In the first book of Moses, the Account of Creation was written in brief and concise. However very informative and easy to understand ( if you have understanding ). The word used by God is simple that a simple Human being can perceive. He didn't use such word like fusion, helium, etc. And for Moses part, he only use simple terms according to his knowledge at that time when jotted down while witnessing the creations in the beginning. So, if we are going to read the explanations of the bible ( not my explanations ) and the explanations of true science about the process of how and when everything was made is very clear enough to comprehend the very knowledge that the Bible is true and reliable. From the very first beginning that taught by Christ ( not the beginning written by Moses ) up to the last days of every physical shall end, the Bible made clear that every basic info that we needed to understand are all written down. Our job is to seek and search and discover of her Authenticity. And I found out that when it comes to basic info of our solar system, universe, multiverse, stars, sun, moon, etc. From each every basic process up to their last day of existing, the Bible provide us very unique and easy to believed in. To the person that will accept this argument, and to all that would like to put a comments here, are very welcome, and let me serve your doubt.