BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

Although, I have seen some people forfeit every round of a debate and still manage to succeed in winning these cases are rare and far between. Usually the debate topic is really bad, the person is despised, or the arguments in favor are actually weak enough that no reply is nearly a tie. None of those apply. - I'm not hated. - The topic isn't so offensive as to illicit anti-votes. - My arguments are not tissue thin and worthless. There are two likely outcomes: -- My opponent will reply thus proving that he or she cannot forfeit every round or that he or she believes forfeiting would make it non-feasible to win, thereby proving my point. -- My opponent will fail to reply and thus have neither the best arguments, best spelling, best conduct or reliable sources. Even if one were inclined to vote for my opponent out of some sense of entitlement for accepting this debate and forfeiting they would still be buried by some individuals who voted on the merits of the debate resulting in a loss. In short, my opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win. (Time to argue is set for 24 hours for speed considerations)
Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

Thanks for another opportunity to show that the realm we live on is indeed a flat one, and not a ball that is roughly 25,000 miles in circumference tilted at a 66.6 degree axis, wobbling, spinning at about 1,000 mph, travelling 66,000 mph on a 600,000 mile racetrack around the sun, which is spiralling with all planets in tow around the galaxy at some 500,000 mph, while the whole galaxy is rocketing at a preposterous 670,000,000 mph around the universe. This is a combined speed of 670,568,000 mph that no one has ever heard, felt, seen or measured. People hang from their toes, water and atmosphere is tightly velcroed to it's surface by some magical force nobody has ever proved while fish swim freely through the water, and birds and insects fly freely around the atmosphere with ease. We have been given this scenario by modern day science from birth. From our first day of understanding, the globe has been drilled into our heads relentlessly. Turn on the television and watch any movie, globes everywhere. This is the definition of indoctrination. The average human has never seen the full earth from afar, but most people passively except it without question. I assume by accepting this debate , my opponent knows I accept the challenge, so I will use this round for clarification, namely the curvature of a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. "If the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet." https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Good luck to my opponent in proving this information. I will provide empirical and logical proof that this is impossible, I hope he can do the same.
Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

My position is that the spherical Earth model is a much more accurate representation of our planet/reality. My opponent must provide arguments how the Flat Earth model is a more accurate representation of our planet/reality. Burden of Proof is on BOTH sides. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Argument and Rebuttal Round 3: Argument (optional) and Rebuttal Round 4: Rebuttal and conclusion Standard DDO rules apply to both sides If either side runs out of room, please make the argument on a Google Drive and link the document. Absolutely no plagiarism. (Unless you're citing sources/using for evidence. "Putting it in your own words" is desired :P ) I ask my opponent to review this debate, before accepting, and request to make any changes as desired.
Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

Alright, so not including the citations, my character count is 10,901. There's still a lot of links and quotes in my argument, that are included in the 10,901 figure. Meaning, my sole argument should fit the 10k character limit. Regardless, I will be posting the link. And again, I will be messaging my opponent the copy and pasted argument to make sure I did not alter it in any way. https://docs.google.com...
Spherical Earth vs. Flat Earth

https://docs.google.com... My argument was 12,354 characters long. Although, if you just look at my arguments and ignore my opponent's quotations, citations, headings, and opening message, my argument would fit the character limit. Still, I decided to link the entire argument, as agreed upon the rules. I ask my opponent to copy and paste the entire argument and paste it to some forum, or google drive, and make it available to the public. That way, it will ensure that I have not altered my argument in any way, after posting it. That is to make sure this debate remains fair.
There was more accomplished in the 1800's than in the 1900's.

First off, my opponent provides no contentions, and only one real argument. He does, however, state 10 important inventions of the 20th century. This debate isn't about whether or not things were accomplished in the 1900's, because, obviously, important things were accomplished in the century. This debate is about whether more was accomplished in the 1800's or in the 1900's. Worse yet, he includes radio in his list. Radio was invented in the 1800's. So were cars, an invention which he also includes on his list. http://www.knowitall.org... http://www.loc.gov... His only real argument is that there was more accomplished in the 1900's than in the 1800's because there was a larger population in the 1900's. However, he does not explain why this would matter, so I am left to assume that he is saying that less people means less inventions being created. However, we have been living in the 2000's for over fourteen years, and yet even though we have a larger population than we did in the 1900's, little has been accomplished. Yes, we have accomplished some things. However, between 1900 and 1914, airplanes were invented, World War One started, and the Titanic was created. In comparison, between 2000 and 2014 humanity has created a better version of the MP3 Player (The I-Pod), and improved the graphics on video games. Over to you, Con.
There was more accomplished in the 1800's than in the 1900's.

10 of the most important 20th century inventions. - Nuclear Power - Personal Computer - Airplanes - Cars - Rockets (Space Travel) -Submarine -Antibiotics -internet -television -Radio Also, with a higher human population in the 20th century compared to the 19th century, I believe you're going to have a remarkably hard time proving much less people were accomplishing more.
Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

I will begin my clarifying some things, then I will begin my arguments. Critique What I had in mind for this resolution was that, when debate topics were posted, then the community should comment on whether or not the resolution could be worded better, had serious errors, ect. There would not be any censoring of topics or committee to pass, just constructive criticism. If my opponent does not want to debate based on this idea, then this debate should be a tie. My Observation My opponent is allowed to challenge my observation, but I would like to clarify that observation. I would like to clarify that the communication is between a debater and the judges (in this case, the community of voters), and their opponent. The reason that I say that communication is the most important part of debate is that effective communication is the only way that ideas and arguments can be conveyed effectively. Several things fall under the category of communication. How convincing arguments are and how well the grammar/spelling are two parts of communication. Arguments cannot be convincing without effective communication. Proper grammar and spelling help improve communication. I hope that this helps clarify my observation. My first argument is that, if debate topics are critiqued, then the quality of debate topics will improve. This will happen because people will learn how to word topics more effectively and clearly. This has several impacts which can effect many different purposes of debate. Education- if the quality of debate topics is increased through critiquing, then there will be more effective debate, thus, more education. Therefore, critiquing would improve debate with regards to this purpose. Also, critiques would educate debaters on how to write topics, further fulfilling this purpose. Fun- if the quality of debate topics is increased, then it follows that it would be more fun because, logically, higher quality topics lead to better debate and ,therefore, more fun. Challenge- better quality topics would be more balanced, thus, there would be more fair and challenging Recognition- better quality topics would enhance the legitimacy of debates, thus increasing recognition Winning- better quality topics would make more fair and balanced topics and would make winning more credible.
Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

Thanks for the topic RougeFox. Clarification - "members" who "should" critique topics should be assumed to be members other than the instigator and the member who accepts the debate (the contender) Burden of proof - as the instigator, my opponent has the burden or proving the resolution true. He says: "by affirming the resolution, it does not mean that every topic should be critiqued. " This is acceptable, but he should have to prove the resolution true in the majority of cases (50% plus one) or else he hasn't proven the resolution true, on balance. He can't just prove that there is one topic on this website that should be critiqued. This sets the threshold for his BOP far too low. Observations: He says I have to agree with all the terms before the observations, but I presume I can disagree with his observation. I can't agree with this observation because 1. it doesn't make sense and 2. it's not true. 1. I can't tell what communication even means in this context. Communicating effectively to the judges? Communicating in good spirits with your opponent? If communication is all that matters, why not start a conversation or post to the forums. There is a reason to specifically engage someone else in a direct debate, with the risk of winning or losing. 2. People debate for different reasons, many of which are equally valid - fun, education, for the challenge, for recognition, for the win. I reserve the right to argue one of these other reasons, depending on my opponent's case. ==Intro== One member of debate. org started something similar to this debate as a joke - a board designed to "certify" topics as good. The "board" quickly devolved into a silly joke. I intend to argue that the Contender can choose to reject (or "not accept") a bad topic, so critiques of "bad" topics are unnecessary. If someone wants to debate the topic, that's his or her prerogative. I will also argue that critiques stifle innovation, prevent people from engaging in controversial or unconventional debates that interest at least themselves and one other person, prevent fun forms of debate (like impromptu and rap battles), and that more generally, topics should be left to individual users (like in a free market) instead of regulated by some outside body of critics (like Statist control).
Debate topics on this website (debate.org) should be critiqued

I would also like to clarify the topic. Debate topics- in this case, refers to the topic of debate which is either a question or a resolution Critique- in this case, it means that members of this website should evaluate the quality of some resolutions. It can either be a con argument, if the creator of the topic is pro; or, it can be a pro argument, if the creator of the topic is con. The reason is that it can be a pro argument is so that topics will be able to be critiqued even if the author chooses to be con. Also, by affirming the resolution, it does not mean that every topic should be critiqued. By accepting the debate, you agree to the above terms. ===================================================== Observations: 1. Communication is the most important aspect of debate.
Hitler was more evil than Stalin

"Hitler's regime propagated the unprecedented horror of the Holocaust, the attempt to eradicate an entire people on racial grounds." That is correct, but Stalin was guilty of genocide as well. He and other Soviet leaders committed genocide agianst Ukrainians in what is known as the Holodomor, and it killed 6-8 million people. It was a famine that was caused directly by Stalin's disregard for his people; he valued industrialization over those millions of lives. You mentioned the 5-year-plans; this came as a direct result of the industrialization and collectivization of agriculture under them. You're right in suggesting that the Allies might not have been able to defeat Germany without support from the eastern front, but Stalin could have industrialized without killing millions of his own people in the process. Whether or not he was helpful by destroying Nazi Germany does not make a difference as to how "evil" he is, as the Soviet offensive was motivated primarily by self preservation. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Hitler was more evil than Stalin

I am taking the Con side of this debate and am arguing that Stalin was more evil than Hitler. Since "evil" is a character trait and is a hard quality to measure, I request that for the purposes of this debate it is defined as the amount of malevolent influence a person has on vast numbers of people during and after their lifetime. Comparing Hitler to Stalin is very difficult as they were both guilty of countless crimes against humanity. However, Stalin was worse. His ruthless reign as leader of the Soviet Union from 1921 to 1953 began with the Great Purge, in which he executed hundreds of thousands of people who were considered to be political opposition. This was just the beginning, as during his rule he was responsible for causing the deaths of more than 25 million people, the majority of which were his own people. These deaths came from nearly a million officially recorded executions (which is probably just a fraction of the total), nearly 5 million people who died in the Gulags (which were Russian concentration camps), 6 million forced industrialization and relocation of agricultural workers, at least 158,000 soldiers executed for desertion during WWII, 1 million from German POW's and civilian deaths, and millions more. Those numbers don't include the countless millions that were brutally oppressed by the regime and forced to live in abject poverty. Soviet citizens during that time period lived in constant fear of execution or being sent to the gulag, and anyone who even slightly questioned governmental authority was subject to those things. Stalin's rule lasted 32 years and his legacy lived on long after in the regimes of his successors. He did not hesitate to have his closest friends executed if they questioned him or were suspected of subversion. Hitler was terrible as well and did cause WWII, but his rule only lasted a tiny fraction of the time that Stalin's did. His legacy after WWII did do terrible damage to the reputation of the German people, but his people did not continue to be oppressed after he was gone. Concentration camps were utterly evil, but Stalin had his own and more. No one denies that Hitler was evil, but it's clear to me that Stalin was much, much worse. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

Answers to queries made during cross-examination: I was merely offering an example as to how inductive reasoning is too subjective for use in this debate. It is up to my opponent to conclusively show that a higher probability of debate.org version 3.0 being up and running has been inherent since this particular debate was implemented. The debate resolution begins with "Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be." Thus, while vigilantly acknowledging the words "will more likely," it is easily observable that this resolution is definite. In fact, my opponent is essentially claiming that it will more likely than not be, while I, as the contender must only claim that it will not more likely than not be up and running. I am not necessarily saying it will not be up and running, but merely that it will not more likely than not be. That is, simply put, a higher probability (of it being up and running) is not definitely and inherently with the standpoint of my opponent in this debate. In order for Pro to win, the resolution must be deduced, rather than merely induced, to be true. Deductive reasoning will more likely than not determine the winner of this debate. Deductive reasoning is true and inherent. Inductive reasoning is dependent upon individual interpretation and subjectivity, making a higher potential for it to be arbitrary. Inductive reasoning, of course, can be used as an argument, but does not necessarily make it valid. I can, however, state that inductive reasoning can help to determine possible events potentially occurring in the future. Even though it is arbitrary, I can conclude that it is NOT MORE LIKELY than not that debate.org version 3 would be implemented (originating from the initiation of this debate). When saying "reasonable," I meant it to be synonymous of logical, right, correct, etc. That which is logical (or right or correct) is not always subjective. It is hoped that this clarifies any confusion residing within the realm of this debate. I await further argumentation.
Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

CROSS EXAMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Before I respond to my opponent's case, I must be sure about the following. I ask that he not bring up new points in this round, but merely answer my questions instead. Question 1) You say that inductive reasoning should not be used in this debate, yet I cannot help but notice that you then go on and claim that "Reasonable inductive reasoning dictates that . . ." So, if we shouldn't use inductive reasoning in this debate, why are you intent on using it? Question 2) To add, you say that your inductive reasoning is "reasonable" Why is that? And isn't the word "reasonable" subjective (which you claim to be against the practice of). And believe or not, that's all the questions I intend to ask. This should clear up any confusion. I'll start my rebuttal in the next round. Later
Debate.org version 3 will more likely than not be up and running by the time this debate concludes.

It is within my belief that debate.org version 3 will be up and running by the time this debate concludes. To define what I mean by this, I'm saying that the chances of debate.org version 3 being accessible before or at the time this debate concludes are at least 51%. Just to insure that this won't be a wait fest, I'll go ahead and provide a contention. For now, my one and only contention shall be that the webmaster stated that version 3 would be up by the end of July. Given that it is long past the end of July, I'd say this serves to show either something unexpected came up or that the webmaster is simply doing some extra insignificant tweaks. It is reasonable for us to assume that debate.org version 3 should be functioning any day now. And it further serves as being evidence since the webmaster has not posted a note to the right of the main page as he usually does to inform us of a massive delay. And given the fact that it has been under development since last year, I'd say any more massive delays are very much unlikely. Given that I intend to use the time limit of this debate to my advantage, at the very least, this debate shall take 12 days to complete (with my four additional rounds combined with the 3 day time limit, that makes 12). I also have a suspicion that there will also be more to add on to the time limit, but I shall elaborate moreso in the next round. Oh and I'd disadvise my future opponent resorting to tactics which are devised to get out of having to argue the intended debate. That is all for now. Some of this may need to be elaborated on
Kony a good person who is doing the right thing

1) My opponent has not denied the moral code that I put forward in R1, so that code stands for this debate and that is what we should measure "good" by. 2) My opponent's argument fails on two levels. First, it is just C/P'd from wiki. Second, it doesn't not even say anything about what "Kony" did, only what his followers have done. My opponent did not reject, nor even address, my comments that a leader cannot be held to the actions of his followers. 3) Merely a suggestion based on what your stated desires were.
Kony a good person who is doing the right thing

ah oui oui i will adress your different sections 1. All you have done is restate what you had written. However, you did not adress how I stated that Kony is not doing the best possible thing he coulld be doing. He is not choosing the greater good, and approaching the situation peacefully 2. I thought this was fairly common knowledge but here: Joseph Kony (pronounced IPA: [koɲ];[6] born c. 1961)[1] is the head of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan guerrilla group. While initially enjoying strong public support, the LRA turned on its own supporters, supposedly to "purify" the Acholi people and turn Uganda into a theocracy.[2] Kony proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the Holy Spirit, which the group believes can represent itself in many manifestations. Ideologically, the group is a syncretic mix of of mysticism, Acholi nationalism, and Christian fundamentalism,[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition.[17][18][19] He ordered the abduction of children to become child-sex slaves and child soldiers.[20] An estimated 66,000 children became soldiers and two million people have been internally displaced since 1986.[21] In 2005, Kony was indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, but has evaded capture.[22] The LRA operates in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Sudan.[23] All copy paste from wikepedia, http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. I dont think this has anything to do with the debate but still, I DO NOT TAKE YOUR RECCOMENDATONS HAHAHAHAHAHAHA yes, this shall make u angry!