BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Both debaters must follow the rules.

1. By voting on this debate, voters accept the foundation rules that apply to them. 2. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 3. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. The victor of this debate is the one who has committed the fewest infractions of the rules. 10. Breaking a foundation rule results in the breaker's automatic loss. 11. All rules are assumed to apply only to future actions. 12. ToastOfDestiny must use the numbers 13-27 and NotPurpleHaze must use the numbers 28-42 for their respective rules. /Foundation Rules 13. Con's rules must restrict himself and only himself. 14. Con must follow rule 13. 15. Con must follow rule 14.
Should students really have more than 10 subjects? ESF school.

I would like to take the last part of this debate to make my last argument and debunk Pros argument. Pro above states, " What I mean is that there should be at least 4 subjects per day. Which then includes in their own timetable, their 10 subjects. People learn more, with 10+ subjects. " I agree with the fact stated that students would have more things to learn with more classes. But a major flaw in this system would be the fact of only four classes a day. This would require class rotations per day, realistically not allowing students to learn as much, and giving them a day in between to loose the taught material. This means that part of the class time would be learned reteaching what was already taught, not learning new material, which would be the point of switching to this schedule in the first place. "To succeed in school and life, children and young adults need ongoing opportunities to learn and practice essential skills" [1] . http://www.summerlearning.org...
Should students really have more than 10 subjects? ESF school.

Thank you Con. I didn't say to have 10 periods per day. I said 10 periods for their subjects. What I mean is that there should be at least 4 subjects per day. Which then includes in their own timetable, their 10 subjects. People learn more, with 10+ subjects. But, people who don't like less than 10 subjects. Then you are lazy. Parents pay you money, so you can go to the school. To be educated better. To have better results. All I am saying is that every school should get at least 10 subjects. Very fun debating with you! I have a feeling this will be close!
Should students really have more than 10 subjects? ESF school.

I thank Con for a swift answer. I would like to use this part of my round to justify my reasoning. Students having a ten course day would be stressful to them. They are already burdened with a 4 to 7 course day, depending on class length. Adding in these days would only shorten classes, thus not allowing students to learn necessary material, or extend the school day, causing less time for homework, extra curricular activities, and outside of school employment. Students being forced to have a 10 period school day would only add to student drop out and flunk rates.
The straight white male is the most discriminated person in America.

Thank you very much for taking this debate. Your points were well thought out. I think this will be a fun debate. Now my topic is the straight white man is the most discriminated against person in America. Now there are several points I can make about this, but since you brought up one of them, I will discuss it. White men are the punching bags of American History. We are considered to be tyrants, slavers, woman abusing, land stealing, villains. I will admit, in the past white men have done terrible things, but what race hasn't? Blacks in Africa sold rival tribes as slaves to the white man, that little tid-bit is ignored a lot in the history books. The Indians would have been conquered by the spaniards eventually, not saying that what we did was right, but it was different times, harder times. But not modern times. The white man of today is paying for sins of the past we had no control over. You watch, if John McCain gets elected it is because of the racist, sexist white man keeping everyone else down. If Obama gets elected it is cause of the black man rose up against the evil white man. If Clinton gets elected it is cause the women voters threw off the shackles of a sexist nation. When it comes to White men, if you don't approve of or support a person of a different race or sex, it is because we are evil bigots. I have had discussions about illegal immigration with certain peers in the past and they always close their arguments with "Typical racist white man.". When you are a straight white male you are a bigot, no questions asked. Is that fair? Isn't that a form of racial profiling? Anyway, that is all I have for this round, I will try to keep it short.
gun control

Hunting to me is a very legitmate reason to have a gun, I'm not with Peta, My sister lives in the uk, And my family is from Holland (the Netherlands) getting a hunting weapon is not that hard, A fire arm for self defense is almost unheard in Holland, In the UK it is explicitly prohibited. . Again if you keep a gun in your home you are 5 times more likely to shoot a loved one or yourself. Nations that have strict gun laws are almost always safer places to live.
gun control

Keeping a gun in the house for self defense is counter productive, Those that do are more likely either to shoot a loved one or themselves than they are a burglar, Carrying a fire arm will not make you safer, States that have made it easier to conceal and carry have not exerienced drops in crime, They have actually seen crime rates go up compared to states with stricter concela and carry laws, Its better just to save your money and move to a safer naighborhood, And aviod dangerous situations, People obseesed with weapons will go looking for trouble, They are a dangerous deceit you feel safer but you are not.
removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

Ok so as a brief roadmap for today's closing speech Voter issues. Closing summation. Opening summary: Voter issues: 1. Definitions: so my opponent has not actually proved any definitions that in of itself is a reason for you to vote her down but the real point here is simply this he claims that their simply a "formality" no definitions DEFINE the perimeters of the debate so without definitions there really is no reason to actually debate a topic it completely negates the educational value and from what I"ve seen DDO is all about educational discourse. 2. Dropped points: My opponent has actually dropped almost all of my contentions in todays round her only refutation was that she could actually argue the legality well legality goes into morality which is what this whole round is based off so that argument/ refutation should fall. 3. No contentions of her own: She has yet to present one original idea only refutations to my points which simply should make her argument invalid. 4. No citations: She didn"t give one source for anything which means she is no longer a credible narrator so she should be voted down for this as well 5. Impacts: She gave not one impact not one reason why anything she says matter i have. 6. Criterion/value: She hasn"t followed the value or criterion thus again she should simply loose Closing summary: What you have seen ladies and gentleman in this debate is one world riddled with hypocracy and inhumanity that lacks morality. and then you"ve seen a just and safe world. Which would you want to live in? Thank you all again for you"re time have a lovely night
removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

i dont get into the definitional stuff, cause i fail to see how it's relevant to the issues at hand. it's at best in this debate a formalism. i can appreciate con's point that sometimes with morals all you can say is 'i just disagree' or 'i inherently think XYZ'. i just can't fathom how one could use that logic when trying to distinguish why removing a baby with nothing atttached to it is inhumane, while removing a baby with a tube or something isn't inhumane. i see no meaningful distinction. i mean, sure you can say your inhernet value is tat the moon is made of cheese, but if you can't show that it's made of cheese, it doesn't mean much. i didn't argue 'double effect' was not valid. i said if you don't accept it, you won't accept just removing the baby. in a sense, i was questioing whether you accepted it. we may be missing each other here, talking past each other, i don't know. con views just removing the baby in otherwise ectopic situations, or perhaps mother endanger situations, is a technicalit, and her 'tube attached' point isn't a technicality. i can't see how she'd argue this though. what is effectively being done with all these scenarios? the baby is being removed for the life of the mother. the baby dies. whether or not there's a tube attached to the baby for effective purposes means nothing. so, it's more the technicality. con also mentions some points about legality etc. i'm only arguing about what 'ought' to be the case, morally. i'm not necessarily talking about legality. i dont know why it's brought up, the issue of legality. we've been talking about what ought to be the case all along, as far as i can see.
removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

con merely says the distinction between taking the baby out and taking it out in a fallopian tube, is that doing it by itself without the tube or something is "inhuman". this is a conclusory statement and doesn't really argue the differences. the point about how direct killing is inherently evil while just removing may not be, falls into wehther you view "the principle of double effect" to be a valid moral disguiher between abortion and removing tubes with babies in it for ectopic pregnancies. if you dont view that as a valid distinghisment, which i can sympathisze with, then you won't view just removing the baby as anything different than just kiling it etc. but, most moral theologicans and ethicists say they think there is a difference. and if we accept that, i would argue that there isn't much difference in doing it with a tube attached v not attached. it's really a technicality if it's attached. and again, all con has provided to say otherwise is the conclusory statement that it's "inhumane'. and just to point out, im not arguing that we could just take the baby out at any point in the pgrenancy for any reason. i'm arguing when the mother's life is at risk due to the baby, we shouldn't limit it to ectopic pregnancies, but should expand the rational to just removing the risk at all. and in the most limited sense, it's not different if we remove the baby in an ectopic pregancy, and forget about harming the mother with other parts of her being removed as well. it's all effectively the same thing.
removing baby is moral equivalent of removing tubes with baby in it: ectopic pregnancies

people say the ends do not justify the means. they use the principle of double effect as a way around what might otherwise be thought of a an evil means etc. but at least as applied in any cases I can see, and probably in theory too, it opens up to a slippery slope. people like to say these hardline rules, the ends don't justify the means but principle of double effect works, help avoid "slippery slopes" etc. but even these "principle of double effect" arguments open up a can of worms, a slippery slope an example is ectopic pregnancies. they say you can just remove the tubes with the baby inside. so couldn't the principle be extended to removing uterus's with the baby in it, when the baby poses a risk to the mother? isn't that just an end run around the rule that you can't have an abortion etc? and if you could just remove the uterus with the mother in it, why couldn't you just remove the baby without the uterus? how is there really any difference between removing a uterus with the baby in it, and removing the baby itself? [not killing it directly as w an abortion] directly killing a child could be seen as inherently evil, but just pulling the baby out is very arguably completely different. it's so much more like pulling it out in a uterus, than it is directly killing it, that it's essentially the same thing.
Islam is a religion of peace

First I shall start of with definitionsIslam- the religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah. Religion- a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:Peace- a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations Why Islam is not a religion of peace. Argument 1: Violent Verses in the Quran4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against themThis verse is bascially promoting inequality among genders. It says that husbands should beat their wives, if they fear they might become arrogant.5:33 Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and who go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or to be banished from the land. That is a disgrace for them in this life, and in the life to come theirs will be a terrible punishment. This verse is tells us that those who "corrupt the land" should be subject to having their feet and hands cut off, and crucification. Keep in mind, that ISIS is doing exactly this, and both moderate and extremist muslims read the same book. So to finish this argument off, Islam cannot be considered the religon of peace, when it promotes hate, violence and unequality. I would like Pro to refute these claims, and I will present my other arguments in the next round.
Islam is a religion of peace

Since, it is pretty obivious none of us are writing wrong verses, I won't be picky about sources it. However, if you make an extrodinary claim, I ask you to provide sources. I shall do the same thing also.I will start off with rebutallsFirstly, my opponent says that I only listed two paragraphs out of 6,236 verses. At the end of this round, I will list a few moreFor him presenting information on Mohammed, I hate to say this (he wrote a alot) but none of this is really relavant to the resolution. I'll try to adress the parts that Muhammad says about Religion.My opponent says that in the Quran, it says "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." I looked this up, and it is true. However, in the Quran, it also says this. "Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29" Bascially, both of these verses are contridicting each other. So If Islam was a religion of peace, there would be no reason for such verse to exist in the first place. Also I'd like to provide some statisticsOne third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children.http://www.ynetnews.com...31% of Turks support support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).http://pewresearch.org...So, If Islam was a religion of peace, such alarming % of people wouldn't be there. Obviously, you can't expect 100% to be peaceful, and I'm not a fool to think that, but surely if it were peaceful, these statistics wouldn't exist. You also mention that the women have a choice to say I am not following this religion. Well technically yes, but when you have verses like Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper." It cannot be considered a viable option for anybody.My opponent also says that such acts like "tooth for a tooth" were acceptable back in the day, however that isn't the point. Regardless of what traditions and values were back then, you can't regard it as peaceful, because the definition for peaceful has always been the same. My opponent is right, that other religions such as Christianity also had violent verses, however I'm not defending Christianity as a religion of peace.
true negates belief

My opponent says that if the statement is true then it is not about belief. Two problems: 1. "It" is an ambiguous term. We do not know that "it" is, or what "it" is about, so we cannot say that "it" is not about belief. 2. The position that what is true negates belief is not furthered by the claim. It should not effect voting as it does not pertain to the topic. Also, my opponent brings up religious claims. This also has nothing to do with the debate. Next, my opponent asks me to close my eyes and read. I, obviously, cannot do that. But I can believe that I can read with my eyes closed. My opponent's argument, if put into a more formal matter, goes like this: 1. Beliefs can contradict with reality. 2. What is true is what is reality. 3. Therefore, beliefs can contradict with what is true. This argument only shows the existence of false beliefs, it does not further the position that what is true negates belief. Furthermore, if one is to accept any of which is true, one must use belief. This implies that beliefs are true. However, in neither case does what is true negate belief. Therefore, this argument should also not be convincing, as it does not further Pro's position. My opponent ends with belief=be lie, which I frankly do not understand the point of. Pro finishes his conclusion stating that reality is unbelieved (sic), and that one cannot believe in reality. This is also false, as one can definitely accept a statement of reality as true. This means one can believe in reality, thus negating Pro's final claim. Thank You.
true negates belief

My opponent says that belief is always false. Such a statement is self contradictory. If belief is taken as defined, being the acceptance of a statement as true, then my opponent must accept the statement "belief is always false" as true. Therefore, my opponent must believe that "belief is always false". This is, again, self contradictory. My opponent also equates the acceptance of imagination as belief. This is true, for if one accepts the concept of the process of imagination as true, they are believing in imagination. However, this is not an argument to further the position that what is true negates belief.
true negates belief

My opponent's argument rests on the proposition that acceptance is not necessarily belief. However, I have given sources to the definition of belief, which state that belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. -https://www.google.com... Therefore, given the definition of belief, if one is to accept the statement "I am reading these words", one must have belief. Therefore, that which is true does not negate belief in this situation.
true negates belief

The topic is as follows: "True negates belief" The definition of true is as follows: In accordance with fact or reality. -https://www.google.com... The definition of negate is as follows: nullify; make ineffective. -https://www.google.com... The definition of belief is as follows: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. -https://www.google.com... Given the definitions, one must accept that one is typing words on their keyboard or reading them on their screen. Therefore, that which is fact or reality does not make ineffective the acceptance of something as fact or reality. Therefore, that which is true does not negate belief in the situation given.
Sherlock Holmes is a far more superior detective than Nancy Drew.

I admire strong women as much as you do. However, what big case has she solved? Sherlock Holmes risks his life all the time, dealing with some of the most dangerous men in London. He solves murders, conspiracies, and disputes. I guess I can give Nancy drew credit for um...discovering who an old clock belonged to? Also, in reference to the new Nancy Drew movie where she finds her way to Los Angeles: Sherlock Holmes could have solved that case in half the time.
Sherlock Holmes is a far more superior detective than Nancy Drew.

In my mind Sherlock Holmes is a far more superior detective than Nancy Drew. Sherlock Holmes has incredible powers of deduction perhaps only rivaled by Dupin (a character of Edgar Allen Poe's). Holmes is a master chemist and he applies that science to all of his cases whether it be identifying the differences between various types of tobacco or identifying where in London a patch of dirt came from. Holmes is an accomplished fencer, boxer (if memory serves me correctly), and has great taste in hats (well, maybe?). Sure he has some problems like his addiction to cocaine but give Nancy Drew some time. Most importantly, I am writing this half jokingly so any contenders must be light hearted about the topic at hand. Thank you.