BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The format on debate.org should be changed to encourage more comments on debates

As it currently works on debate.org, when a user clicks on a subject tab there are displayed ten links to debates in the voting period and ten to current debates, each complete with a preview. They are ordered based on which debate had an argument posted most recently, so for debates in the voting period, they are ordered based only on which debate ended last. This means that a debate that has inspired lots of commenting from other users will be on the second page as soon as ten other debates in that category finish, and will than be forgotten. Priority should also be given to debates that have new comments in order to keep alive these secondary discussions, for they may be just as interesting as the actual debate, if not more so. This way, debates that receive a lot of attention will remain at the top of the list, while those that nobody cares about will quickly move to the bottom. Since it would not be unlikely for there to be more than ten debates with new comments and/or arguments, it would be prudent to expand the first page of each subject to accommodate more than ten debate links. However, this would be very cumbersome and would take up a lot of space, unless if the previews are discarded. They are not really necessary as long as the title is named appropriately. I would also suggest adding some useful information about the debates such as the number of rounds, the number of comments, and who is currently winning(pro or con), but this is really trivial. Because many users are interested in having open discussions on serious topics, and because serious debaters want to inspire discussions on their debates, I believe that users and potential users would be more pleased with this website if my suggestions are incorporated.
The format on debate.org should be changed to encourage more comments on debates

I made the point that "I think the format on debate.org should be changed to eliminate comments on the debates until after the debate is over." <> Yes, but you've only made that distinction in the final round of the debate and you made no mention of that in Round One. In all your suggestions that you would have incorporated into the site, you failed to mention this one, which is more important than any of the changes you've brought up. Overall fairness should be considered before the popularity of any given debate topic. <> Then you are obviously not aware of the "Watch" feature that is a link directly below the "Technology" category on the page of every debate. After you've decided that a debate is worthy of your personal attention, you can click the link and it will be EASILY retrievable on the "Watched Debates" Page. If you want to quickly and easily get to an interesting debate you just go there! It's so simple. < > Yes, but there's no accounting for taste. The people that come to Debate.org are all different, representing different demographics. We don't all like the same stuff or find interest in the same topics. < > I disagree. This change will only promote TROLLING. < > No, it's also the problem for the people who have to sift through the debates, if your suggested system were put into place. < > It isn't necessary, as folks can avoid the tedious task of having a pointless debate load on their screen and determine that the back button needs pushing if the site is left just as it is. < > What I've found on debate.org is that you have to argue what you mean, as no one here should be expected to read your intentions. Thanks for the debate!
The format on debate.org should be changed to encourage more comments on debates

"I think the format on debate.org should be changed to eliminate comments on the debates until after the debate is over." I would agree with that, my main concern is in regards to completed debates. My wish is for the completed debates to serve as a basis for discussion, not so much the current debates. "At the bottom of each category there is a link labeled: "more..." If you click this link, it takes you to a page that has numbered links at the bottom that allow you to view ALL OF THE DEBATES, so that none of them have to be forgotten, unless you choose to forget." I am aware of the "more" link, perhaps I should have refrained from using the metaphor of being forgotten. As it currently stands, members engaged in a discussion in the comments of one of the debates must make an effort to find the debate if it is not very recent, which makes it much easier for them to forget about it than if it were on the first page. More importantly, other users of the site have no idea that there is a meaningful discussion going on in the comments of one of the debates without blindly looking through them. By giving priority to debates with new comments, other members will know that a particular debate is still active with comments. On that same token, commenters will have the benefit of other users being more likely to read their comments, as there is currently no indication that a debate has recently been commented on. "They are not really necessary as long as the title is named appropriately.>> ...which would only cause new problems, because you cannot guarantee that every debater will do just that." Frankly, if they don't know how to properly title their debate, that's their problem. Readers will quickly realize that a debate's title is misleading and can easily hit the back button after voting for the opponent. "As a user, I would NOT "be more pleased with this website if [your] suggestions are incorporated", which negates your belief in this argument." Well, I should have indicated that I was referring to many or a majority of users, and not necessarily all users. In which case, your disagreement would not negate my argument.
The format on debate.org should be changed to encourage more comments on debates

I disagree. I think the format on debate.org should be changed to eliminate comments on the debates until after the debate is over. The site is set up for two debaters to square off head-to-head, but allowing comments to be posted during the debates allows outside influences to help any given side, thus making the debate unfair. <> At the bottom of each category there is a link labeled: "more..." If you click this link, it takes you to a page that has numbered links at the bottom that allow you to view ALL OF THE DEBATES, so that none of them have to be forgotten, unless you choose to forget. < > Therein lies the unfairness of the site. I'd prefer for the debaters not to be able to see the comments during the debate, but that isn't a realistic expectation. Discouraging comments on debates during the debate is the most fair course of action. < > ...which would only cause new problems, because you cannot guarantee that every debater will do just that. <> I agree, so I won't comment on this, at this time. < > As a user, I would NOT "be more pleased with this website if [your] suggestions are incorporated", which negates your belief in this argument. Thank you.
Is it like idol worship to learn about evolution

With all due respect and most sincere apologies, my opponent, My opinions have not changed. I am sorry to have confused you. When I began this debate I had practically no experience here. I can no longer continue this debate. You agree with me on point two, though I think I also omitted my thoughts on that point. I have already answered point one and do not feel like clarifying, as I do not feel like rebutting point 3, though I disagree. My opinion on the debate was that in religious schools it should be an option for those who do not want to learn about evolution to do another program that consists of the main concepts of evolution and what your religion says on this theory. I apologize heartily for the trouble and waste of time I have caused you. If people would like to finish the debate please paste your arguments under comments and I will copy them under your name into the debate. Again sincere apologies and best wishes, Unity
Is it like idol worship to learn about evolution

originally I took this debate because you implied that you were against evolution being taught in school at all and then you switched to being only taught the basics and not the details. My question is, are you switching your argument now because that makes it difficult for me to know what to argue against, but I digress. I will present my case/rebuttal in this round 1. It is important to keep the kids educated. If you were to outlaw teaching evolution in school, it would basically be stifling the education of the students. By teaching them evolution, you are allowing them to learn about another theory of how the world came into being. It also teaches them why evolutionists believe what they believe. If you were to remove evolution teaching from schools, kids would think that all evolutionists were were a bunch of idiots who believed we evolved from monkeys. They wouldn't know why the evolutionist believed what they believed and it would leave them very uninformed. Now, whether evolution is true or not is yet unproved, and even though I believe in creationism, I have yet to see anyone prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that creationism is what really happened. Therefore, the only truly safe and intelligent way to go about this is teaching both the idea of creationism and evolution in school and allowing the kids to decide for themselves. This leads to my next point which is 2. Even though evolution shouldn't be taught in school as a fact, it should be taught as a possible true theory along with the rest of the theories/religions. Granted, evolution is taught as fact in science classes, there are classes that teach it as a theory along side Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism etc.. There are classes such as Ancient World History that teach these not as a fact, but as a theory in order to educate the kids on what and why people believe what they do. This leads me to my third and final point 3. You cannot determine what the "Basics" of evolution are. There is no way to set a specific guideline on what the basics of evolution are so you either have to teach evolution in school or not at all (and as I have stated before banning the teaching of evolution as a theory would stifle the flow of knowledge in school). I urge my opponent to establish what we are officially debating here. Are we debating whether evolution should taught in school at all or that it should be taught in a more vague fashion?
Pushy Parents are Good Parents

First I will start off my final speech by saying my opponents "rules" were never set out as rules. Their was no outline explaining the definition had to stick. I did not understand so I believed definitions were interchangeable. I will argue that they should still be interchangeable because if they were not I had no room to argue. In order for a fair debate we cannot have one definition. Unless it was cited by Blacks Law Dictionary. (The dictionary used by the supreme court). Continuing on to the article I presented, These parents are pushy parents who are literally forcing their children into drug use, depression, and other dangerous acts indirectly by being too pushy. That is obviously bad and cannot be argued. The second attack my opponent made was about the responsibilities of the parent. They even cited it. The article was basically just on when and where parents should get involved. Nowhere did it say arguing your child's paycheck was a good time to step in. This article actually flows to my side. My opponent later said in the rebuttal their is a difference between "helicopter parents" and "pushy parents." Their is not. Helicopter parents hover over their children like pushy parents do. Hence the name "helicopter." My opponent said pushy parents push their children into hobbies they wouldn't have done before. Isn't it just as easy for these parents to push their children into things they don't like? It's completely possible. My opponent at the end of the rebuttal showed famous "pushed" children. Here are some famous orphans. NELSON ROLIHLAHLA MANDELA STEVEN PAUL JOBS JOHANN SEBASTIAN BACH BILL CLINTON JOHN WINSTON LENNON LOUIS "SATCHMO" ARMSTRONG All of the examples can be found here for reference-->http://thirdworldorphans.org... Thanks to my opponent and to my judges judging this round.
Pushy Parents are Good Parents

Definition clarification: I very firmly outlined the definition in the first post; when my adversary accepted this debate, they automatically accepted the rules that I set out. They cannot attempt to change the original definition. The original definition sticks.The article that you posted in support of the so-called depression, drugs and other related issues is irrelevant; the report, if read thoroughly, is about overprotecting a child and smothering their education by completing their homework and coursework for them."If we could really understand that when "helping" slips into taking over and the underlying message we are giving out is "you're not clever enough to do this on your own", maybe a space between parental involvement and a child's own authorship can begin to emerge."[1]This quote is lifted directly from my opponent's own source (second to last paragraph) and highlights my rebuttal: the article describes 'helicopter parenting' -- pushy parenting does not involve doing the child's work for them, but instead encouraging them to enjoy learning and enjoy doing things by themselves. The parent simply pushes their child into certain activities that they would not have tried on their own; this will reveal hidden interests and talents, bringing the best out of them.Finally, to please my adversary, here are just a handful of successful people that have openly credited their success to their parents:Michael Jackson -http://en.wikipedia.org...Albert Einstein -http://en.wikipedia.org...Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart -http://en.wikipedia.org...Lang Lang - http://en.wikipedia.org...(pianist)Lea Salonga - http://en.wikipedia.org...Conclusion:Parents must take an active approach to their child's education from a young age. My opponant has given a good argument against being 'too' pushy, but I believe the benefits outweigh potential harm.[1] - http://www.independent.co.uk......
Pushy Parents are Good Parents

To begin my rebuttal I will first start off with the definitions that both my opponent and I have presented. Pushy parent. My opponent insists that this is the correct term because he or she presented it as the one and only definition. I urge my judges to completely ignore this definition. The reason why is because a pushy parent PUSHES their child. Often to do things the child isn't interested in. My opponents definition for pushy parent should fall under the category of caring parents. first I will defend my case. My opponent attacked my depression claim by stating it was not cited. well with this evidence their is more damage than just depression. Increase risk of suicide, more likely to abuse drugs, the list goes on and on.http://www.independent.co.uk... My opponent attacked my contention where I state pushy parents raise children who cannot function as adults. This attack is illogical because the parents are not obeying the child. The child isn't asking for parent help. The parents are doing it on their own. Now to attack my opponents case. The only part of the case added was about how pushy parents raise the best children in the world. This is not cited. The possibility for these gifted children pushed by parents to be great is simply because they are gifted is very great. The parents could have had nothing to do with it but take the rewards because they were "pushy."
Pushy Parents are Good Parents

Apologies for the tiny character count, it was an accident. Forgive extreme brevity.DefinitionFirstly, I must reiterate that the definition of pushy parenting in this debate was outlined in my original post -- please refer back to round one and familiarise yourself with it. I accept the term 'encouraging parent' as an interchangeable alternative to 'pushy parent', but pushing a child implies a stronger and more consistent use of encouragement, without unreasonable stress being caused as outlined in round one. A 'helicopter parent' is not the same as pushing a child; 'helicopter parent' denotes overprotion. I urge voters to discard my opponent's new and unwarranted definition."Depression"Your claim of depression is uncredited. I concede that forcing anybody to do something that they do not wish to do can be stressful and can indeed lead to depression, but as highlighted in the definition above, I have already explained that undue force is an unjust extreme. A light amount of force is healthy encouragement; the child should never be brought to tears or subsequently depressed."Lack of independence"This is a completely misguided claim. Pushy parenting does not involve pandering to your child's every whim; as explained in the definition section, pushy parenting is not 'helicopter parenting'. A pushy parent is not a push-over parentAn early start leads to successThe fact is, human beings learn a lot easier as a children. Look at second language acquisition for example; a quick Google search will reveal the many studies that have shown children to absorb language like a sponge, whereas adults spend years -- decades -- trying to master a new tongue, but rarely gaining fluency.Ask a successful singer when they started to sing and you will almost always be given an age younger than 5-years-old. Celebrity singers are well-documented; this information can quickly be found online.The greatest minds and artists of all time were often gifted children pushed by parents.
Pushy Parents are Good Parents

The first thing I will be presenting in this debate is definitions 1:Pushy parents; a parent who pushes their child to be better than everyone else. Often times referred to as "helicopter parents." C1. "pushy parents" create negatives on a child. Pushy parents give their children depression. Children who have been under the influence of pushy parents have seen a dramatic increase of depression then children who do not have pushy parents. This is because the child is expected to be more than they can be. Once the child doesn't live up to his or hers expectations they feel as if they are a failure thus leading to depression. C2. Pushy parents cannot teach their children to live on their own. Pushy parents have done things for their children that the children have to idea how to be independent. I don't have many characters remaining but you could read more here->http://www.forbes.com... Attacking my opponents case My opponent said that he or she's opinion on pushy parents is they just simply want the best for their children. "I believe pushy parenting should consist of influencing a child as opposed to forcing them. " This is a direct quote from my opponents first speech. We cannot use this opinion because it gives an unfair definition to what a pushy parent is, and will confuse the judges and myself. A pushy parent should be referred to as a helicopter parent and an encouraging parent should be referred to as a caring parent. Caring parents are better because the ensure their child's success while appeasing the child's hobbies or interests. The parent gets what they want and so does the child.
Pushy Parents are Good Parents

[[This is the first debate I've ever started on this site, so please forgive any conventions I may unwittingly break! This is an 'education' debate, but could also be classed as a 'society' debate. I have set the posting limit to 24 hours, but I plan to post within an hour of seeing your arguments]]My stance: I believe that pushy parenting is not only acceptable, but also beneficial to children, therefore making it a good parenting approach.In this argument, pushy parenting is defined as: "taking an exceptionally keen interest in a child's education and strongly influencing them to enjoy and succeed at specific activities from a young age, such as playing a musical instrument, in an attempt to better their future."CON will be against pushy parenting and will start their argument in the first round.I will kick the debate off by stating that I believe pushy parenting should consist of influencing a child as opposed to forcing them, which could cause undue stress for both the child and parent. I do not believe that forcing a child to learn or take up an activity is an acceptable thing to do if the child becomes upset; pushy parenting should be an amalgamation between education and play.
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

To counter my opponent, James explains that sometimes you are not able to wait for sufficient evidence to be provided.[re] In the example used one is not able to wait for sufficient evidence in order to find out if he would survive or not. [s] One example of how you don"t have time to wait for sufficient evidence is wen individuals" work together together. [s]If one were to wait for evidence to find out if the potential business client is genuine then the world would come to a standstill to confirm such belief. [i]
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

In the example of the rock climbing, as my opponent mentioned, one could argue that someone believed they are capable of succeeding at rock climbing without prior experience ,they"re wrong [Ri]. They"re wrong because they are still searching for evidence, whether it could based on their prior experiences with other similar situations or others situations they"ve heard [re]. When one holds a belief without a sufficient evidence , they"re searching for evidence throughout their life to justify those beliefs they hold or once held [em]. Like Woods stated, " Maybe beliefs themselves are not (or aren"t often) directly voluntary, but the ways we form and maintain them- by looking for evidence or not looking for it, considering it or not considering it, letting ourselves be swayed by irrational factors or resisting their influence- are often up to us" [s]. Believing without evidence could lead to self- deception due to how one could become ignorant to others idea and thoughts [ri]. They become close minded and don"t have other life perceptions but their own [q]. How could you succeed in life with that state of mind? [ri] I will rest my case by saying that if one is too busy to inquire for more evidence then one have no right to uphold a belief [I].
You should never believe anything on insufficient evidence

I disagree with the opponent when saying that it does not take a lifetime to figure out and justify beliefs. [MP]As human beings our beliefs are constantly changing and morphing based on our experiences. According to James there are two options when wondering whether or not to believe in things. [S]Experiences in which we are forced to believe certain things at the exact moment which are momentous moments that are without sufficient evidence or things that we just have to believe because there is no other choice than to do so which are called trivial or avoidable moments. In the example of the rock climbing ,[S] James would say that you do not need sufficient evidence to be successful at rock climbing. All you could need would be the belief that you re capable of being successful . [RI]That has shown to be of true value in many situations. Although proof of this beforehand is not necessary to be able to accomplish the task and be successful. [RI] James says that " we are all absolutist by instinct an only by reflection can we achieve empiricist moderation". [RE]By saying this it is to say that by nature we are always believing things without sufficient evidence. When we begin to reflect and delve further into our beliefs Is when we begin to question them . [I]