BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

The balance of BiasI will not say that my opponent is wrong in his statement that most actions contain bias, but my problem with the contention is it's impact having an effect on the ultimate conclusion. Sure, if we want to get philosophical, we can argue that everything has a bias including the eqaution "1+1=2". The common equation, and answer to that equation, though is a bias that most societies unanimously accept and agree to. By unanimously agreeing to a system of mathematics, words, and phrases, we can easily understand and better accomplish things through one shared understanding. So yes, bias can be argued philosophically, but the accepted understanding of it shows us the realism behind the word.Such is the case with the DDO community. Many newcomers to the website don't initially understand the way things here are run, yet the community and society here have a bias already set in place for how we expect voting to look like. The community is expected to adhere to that bias, and when the bias isn't adhered to, we have problems. So Bias exists, and always will yes, but on balance, bias works well here, and suits the vast majority of the members needs by sticking to that bias. RFD VS Score Again, I won't neccesarily dis-agree with the argument itself here. It is obvious that the points merely exist to satisfy the competitive nature and "need to win" of many that belong to this community. But on the other end of the spectrum, where exactly is the difference between a debater voting for themselves, and laying out there argument in a debate? It's obvious that they agree and believe in what they are saying, unless they themselves forfeit the debate (which has happened many times here). We've effectively established that bias itself isn't the whole problem, but if I may be philosophical myself, does allowing one to vote for themselves have a specific point?SSS if people could just vote for themselves, they could just create a massive number of debates with the purpose of voting for themselves on each and every debate.This actually was the case, years ago when voting was allowed on ones own debate. Members like Danielle, Jblake, LogicalMaster, etc would undoubtedly always vote for themselves all 7 points. In which case almost 100% of the time, their opponent would too. Even with the RFD system in place, however, voting for oneself is very redudant, as their affiliation lies within their own arguments. While the SSS is an interesting idea, I don't see how it justifies allowing debaters to vote for themselves. The same system could be implemented now, and seemingly work well (probably a lot better than having time limits).LearningBy getting other people's opinions on a debate, you are getting better knowledge on to what you can do better for future debates. You already know your own opinion, and your opponents. The points are merely a means of telling you that you did well, and should continue the good effort, or that there is room for improvement.
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

I thank TUF for accepting. I hope my argument proves to be interesting. =)Bias is ExpectedIt is simply impossible to elminate bias. Each and every vote is biased, without exception, despite any ostensible claims otherwise.Even a statement like "1+1 = 2 is true" requires a certain perspective, that being understanding of arabic numbers, algebraic symbology, and the English language. All three of those aspects of understanding lead to bias in how you interpret the statement.Someone who did not use the arabic number system and thought the symbol for the number "1" connoted "carrot" and the symbol for the number "2" connoted Satan would find the statement to be rather difficult to accept. Thus, all else being the same ("ceteris paribus"), bias would lead this person to probably vote against the validity of the statement. Such a vote is a valid vote, regardless of how many people come out and flame this voter.These votes are designed to reflect bias - the main aspect of scoring a debate is to ask yourself "who posted the most convincing arguments?" This basically breaks down to: "Where does your bias lean as a result of being exposed to the debate?"RFD and Score are Wholly Separate The vote is meant to reflect bias. The RFD is meant to explain this bias for the purpose of constructive criticism of either PRO/CON. These are two wholly separate aspects to what currently constitutes a "vote".When Gallup does a poll, they do not require an RFD for why a respondent voted the way they did, even if Gallup brings up context (i.e. arguments) explaining the issue at hand. They simply score the vote. If the respondents want to leave an RFD, they are more than welcome to do so, and Gallup will look at the RFDs to ascertain why the vote went the way it did. Regardless, most news outlets would not care for the RFD...they would simply report on the score and consider the score itself to have significance.I will expand on this as well in future rounds.Problems Require SolutionsI understand I am bringing up an issue that will lead to further problems - for example, if people could just vote for themselves, they could just create a massive number of debates with the purpose of voting for themselves on each and every debate. They would not advertise these debates and rack up a lot of one-vote victories. The solution is in line with what both GWL-CPA and myself believe - that these votes and the victories that are determined by them are almost utterly meaningless without a statistically significant sample (SSS) of votes - we simply need more votes on these debates. The best way to make the process more relevant is to acknowledge that there are no winners or losers in a debate until this SSS is achieved...let's say 100 votes or more on a debate. Therefore, simple - any debate without 100 votes on them would not count as having determined a victor.We could play around with this quite a bit, and I will do that in subsequent rounds if challenged on this point.
Voting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDO

BackgroundThe idea for this resolution originated from private discussions with the esteemable GWL-CPA. Unfortunately, this esteemed individual cannot go more than one or two rounds of argument-counterargument before resorting to gratuitous insults and other forms of ad hominem, so I have refrained from challenging him to this resolution. Regardless, credit where credit is due - IMHO GWL-CPA's opinions and ideas on the problems with voting on this website are largely sound.GWL-CPA's opinion on this resolution - that self-voting is wrong - is not one of those sound ideas. Long story short, bias should not matter when it comes to voting.I've issued this challenge to TUF unannounced and unsolicited. I understand he may not have time to answer this challenge, in which case I will open it up to the general public. Regardless, since it is a DDO administrative issue, I figured it would be nice to give the Prez a chance to address this first if he so chooses to do so.ResolutionVoting For Oneself Should Be Allowed on DDOI think the resolution is self-explanatory and does not require definitions.RulesMy standard boilerplate:This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed.Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate.I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you. ---Burden of proof (BoP) is on PRO.5 rounds1st round acceptance only2/3/4 rounds argument and rebuttal5th round closing, no new arguments or sources.3,000 character rounds. This is meant to be a short, succinct debate in order to minimize disruption to the prez, while allowing for back-and-forth if necessary.
It is reasonable to assume JFK was shot by a nigger

A firm rebuttal of my opponent’s bigger argument “My opponent has dedicated his entire opening argument to proving a link to a Wikipedia page regarding Lee Harvey Oswald. ” One of your links agrees with Wiki. (https://www. Britannica. Com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy) “We therefore cannot say with certainty it was him who shot JFK. In fact, Lee Oswald was a mere scape-goat. ” The evidence confirms the opposite thesies. “It’s well documented that the shot which killed Kennedy was nigh impossible, So much so that only a trained marksman could have made the shot, Someone who was a marine perhaps? While Lee Oswald was a Marine (Intent) he was also a Marxist (Motive. )” It was evidence that he did the crime especially since Marxist thought believes that capitalist governments should be overthrown. This shows clearly that Lee Harvey was motivated, Trained and had the intention to murder Mr. Kennedy. “Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, So the source provided by con, Is not of academic relevance and should be regarded as mere opinion. ” Not anyone can edit wiki. I’m obviously not a troll, But I tried to edit Wiki from getting an account and I got blocked from it twice. Wiki is not an “everyone can edit it” site. I would like to make potential voters aware that my opponent has neglected to put forth an actual argument, Considering this is my final round, He has ensured his actual argument, If he makes one, Cannot be refuted. “Therefore, Consider awarding me a point for conduct. ” You can refute it in the comments. Since you said the N word for the title, I might win on Conduct. I did make an argument, I just made a small one. And you refuted it. While Black people are more likely to commit murder, The person who murdered Mr. Kenneddy was white. Source: https://www. Britannica. Com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
It is reasonable to assume JFK was shot by a nigger

A firm rebuttal of my opponent’s short comings My opponent has dedicated his entire opening argument to proving a link to a Wikipedia page regarding Lee Harvey Oswald. It is well known Lee Oswald was not convicted by the courts due to being assassinated himself, We therefore cannot say with certainty it was him who shot JFK. In fact, Lee Oswald was a mere scape-goat. Consider this, It’s well documented that the shot which killed Kennedy was nigh impossible, So much so that only a trained marksman could have made the shot, Someone who was a marine perhaps? While Lee Oswald was a Marine (Intent) he was also a Marxist (Motive. ) This shows clearly that Lee Harvey was a scape-goat. Marines fight for their country and are patriots, Whereas Marxists hate their country and want to completely change the way it is run. It is unreasonable to believe Lee Oswald was anything but a fall guy with an obviously fabricated motive and intent. Even a fool could see. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, So the source provided by con, Is not of academic relevance and should be regarded as mere opinion. I would like to make potential voters aware that my opponent has neglected to put forth an actual argument, Considering this is my final round, He has ensured his actual argument, If he makes one, Cannot be refuted. Therefore, Consider awarding me a point for conduct. I have used the court tested method of ‘motive and intent’ to demonstrate the likelihood of a black shooter and the likelihood of Lee Oswald being a mere scape-goat. [A] Black crime statistics: https://www. Channel4. Com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime [B] JFK source: https://www. Britannica. Com/event/assassination-of-John-F-Kennedy
It is reasonable to assume JFK was shot by a nigger

Indeed, Within America the black man has always been the black sheep (the odd one out) which is why we must address the African elephant in the room, Did a black man shoot JFK? The truth is we don't know who killed JFK, But we can take a bloody good educated guess. For us to understand who killed JFK, It is important for us to analyse the probability of the gun man being black. [1] Who has hate and resentment for the slave trade era? Indeed the answer would be black people, Thus we have found motive. [2] Who is statistically more likely to shoot and kill someone? Indeed the answer would also be black people, Thus we have found intent. I ask the jury of voters to consider this, "when you go black you ain't neva going back" This saying is common black rhetoric designed to suggest that once you're in, You're in. However, In this instance I would give it another meaning, Once a savage always a savage. One does not simply turn enslaved tribesmen into law abiding citizens. Their ways are of tribal warfare and cannibalism [A] Considering we have found motive, Intent and gang-like rhetoric commonly used within the black community, I declare it reasonable to suggest a nigg may have shot JFK. [A] Black Cannibalism: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=ZRuSS0iiFyo
The Proof that God exists IS Mans unique existence.

If you want to preach: Heres what to do: stand on a street corner, wearing a sandwich board and sell pencils from a cup. Here's what not to do: start a formal debate, have your arguments dismantled, but still claim victory. You have surrendered your reasoning faculty to mysticism, you cannot form a conherent and logical argument, you cannot answer a single challenge to your position. However worst of all when under severe pressure in a debate format you crumble become emotional, resorting instead to hectoring your opponent about your false hope of salvation by a magical being. Pro has failed to meet his burden of proof. I therefore submit that man is not proof of the existence of a god, much less the Christian variety. Pros arguments have been dismantled and he has resorted to preaching and not debating.
Nudity on television/any form of media

Pro made a remarkable claim at the beginning of his argument. His claim was that he saw no harm in having children curious on how they're parts work. This is troubling to me. What is a child like when it is curious about something? It is a pure, honest look for an answer. Two children at the ages of which my opponent describes could get curious, and thus become curious about each other. Before you know it, there are babies from these children. That is why we do not expose them to it. Eventually, over time, they become mature enough to be able to understand and look at the opposing sex's organs for reproduction. However, at the age of which my opponent describes, they are not able to handle this knowledge.
Nudity on television/any form of media

If you state that human psychology would get them wondering ,,how a penis works' what is the immediate danger? Education? so what you're actually suggesting is that we should completely wipe education from all forms of media? nudity itself is not indecent, it is the abuse of portrayal of nudity...The FCC is seeking comments from the public as they consider relaxing their obscenity standards for broadcast television and radio. If adopted the new, lower standards would allow brief "non-sexual" nudity and isolated expletives even during prime time, when most families are typically watching with their children. I mostly assume that certain religous parties will oppose my argument strictly out of ideology, I therefore urge you to think about my following proposition. The human body is not essentially nasty. I mean, God (if you believe in him) made us without clothes. And you look at that famous statue of David that's considered one of the masterpieces of the Renaissance, and here's David, and he doesn't have any clothes on at all. You've got the Venus de Milo and some of those others...the Sistine Chapel, Adam has got no clothes on, and that's the famous artwork of God touching Adam.... The body is not essentially pornographic, and I think to make it so is a mistake. It's what's in your mind. Imagine the pope watching a television show. Maybe it's got some redeeming qualities, but I'm sure wouldn't turn him off just because he's watching a few clips of nudity on TV. That said, overreaching nudity on television (like the wrecking ball video) is inappropriate, son in that respect, I see your point. Yet you mistake my meaning. I'm simply implying that simple nudity/brief nudity shouldn't be crucial to parents and neither should it be censored...
Nudity on television/any form of media

I would have no idea what could be wrong... well, mayyybee...:The fact that human psychology would get them wondering how a vagina works. The fact that human psychology would get them wondering how a penis works. They don't need to be seeing each other naked. It is inapporpriate.The point in which the sex organs actually start to develop is the beginning of pueberty, which makes exposing to them pointless. I have nooooo idea though..
Nudity on television/any form of media

I am a huge fan of Game of thrones and while I do think that sex on television should be tuned down for children, I don't think the same should be done for nudity. Children get nude themselves and see their own body-parts and at some point learn about them at school, yet are constantly told that nudity on television is inappropriate...Why? what is the difference between Media nudity and actual nudity...please provide a valid argument and don't bring in any prefixed ideologies. Thank you
Abortion is murder.

Here are my responses to two of my own statements, which have been questioned by my opponent and by spectators of this debate. "Abortion fits this description in the sense that abortion is deliberate on the part of the abortion clinic and of the woman." In Round 2, I quoted the OED definition of the word "murder." The OED states that murder is "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, especially in a premeditated sense." My opponent has pointed out that abortion is legal in most countries, however, abortion is still unlawful under all circumstances in Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, and Malta (Wikipedia). This contradicts con when he says, "[Is abortion] unlawful? Well, abortion is legal. Which is to say that abortion is permitted by law. So, no, abortion is not unlawful." When con said, "Abortion is legal," without distinguishing that abortion is illegal in certain areas, we can assume that he intended to say, "Abortion is universally legal," meaning that abortion is not illegal in any part of the world. However, as I have just stated, several countries have banned abortion under all circumstances. Since a large part of con's argument is based upon the fact that abortion is legal and can therefore cannot be classified as murder, and since it has been established that abortion is indeed illegal in several countries, we must move on to the next point. "Since the fetus, which is an organism, was created by humans, the fetus is technically human." Con has compared the status of a fetus as a human to that of an acorn as an oak tree. He has stated that an acorn is not an oak tree, but is an oak tree in development. I will respond to this analogy with an analogy of my own. Imagine that there is a cake baking in the oven. Now, we refer to the confection baking in the oven as a cake, even though the confection is still in the process of being developed in the oven by means of heat. Now imagine that the oven is a metaphor for the womb, and the cake is a metaphor for a fetus. Would that change the fact that a fetus is a human? I will also remind you of how Abraham Lincoln pointed out that if we were to regard a sheep's tail as a leg, the sheep would still have only four legs. This means that if we were to call an object something that it isn't, we do not change what it is. If we were to consider a fetus something other than a human, we do not change the fact that it is a human. Let us go back to the definition of murder, "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, especially in a premeditated manner." I have established that abortion is deliberate, unlawful, results in the death of a human being, and is premeditated. Therefore, abortion is murder.
Abortion is murder.

Here is my response to con's previous arguments: C1: There are three characteristics that define all living things: 1) All living things are constructed of cells. 2) All living things reproduce. 3) Living things are can create organisms of only the same species. This third point is important. The fetus was produced by two human beings; one was male, and the other was female. According to the third point, since the fetus, which is an organism, was created by humans, the fetus is technically a human. C2: According to my response to C1, human beings are fetuses. C3: As we have discussed before, murder is the deliberate and premeditated killing of a human being. Therefore, since fetuses are human beings, as we have established in my response to C1, and since abortion is premeditated and always results in the death of the fetus, abortion legitimately qualifies as murder.
Abortion is murder.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines murder as "the deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being, especially in a premeditated manner." Abortion fits this description in the sense that abortion is deliberate on the part of the abortion clinic and of the woman. Murder can also be defined as the deprivation of the life of another being without that other being's consent. Babies do not have a say in deciding whether there should be an abortion. The U.S. Declaration of Independence lists three "unalienable rights", which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The word unalienable, which has been largely replaced with the word "inalienable", refers to something that can not be taken away or denied. However, the baby who is aborted has been denied the right to life; therefore, abortion technically violates the basis of modern democracy. I will further my arguments in the next round.
Abortion is murder.

First things first, I think "murder" requires a definition. However, I don't think PRO means "murder" in the legal sense. So, I shall take it to mean something akin to "the intentional killing of a human being" where the intent is NOT self-defense or defense of others. That said, I will simply make a few opening comments, but no real "argument" until next round.I do not hold abortion to be murder, but I do find abortion to be unethical in certain circumstances. The main issue I have with it is that women are given full autonomy, but men are given absolutely none. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he is essentially at her mercy. Though not all women are conniving and vile, the fact that a man is not able to relinquish rights and responsibilities is an immense problem, in my eyes. Many people disagree, on the grounds that he still has a responsibility to the child, but I always find that this reason is highly inconsistent. Mothers who give their children up for adoption also have a responsibility, yet adoption is supported. It's all a confusing mess, in my opinion.Now to get off my soup box, and get this debate underway.Good Luck PRO!
Abortion is murder.

Abortion has undoubtedly become a serious issue in today's world. People are debating the legality and ethicality of abortion, and they have developed different opinions on the subject. I believe that abortion is murder, and that it is unethical in many senses. The first round will be used solely for the opening arguments. The second and third rounds will be used for the main arguments, and for the rebuttal of the arguments of the opponent. The fourth round will be used for the closing arguments. I extend my gratitude towards anyone who is willing to debate on this topic.