BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Masterful should be banned from this site

Opening ArgumentFirstly, it's important to note that as a debate site, certain comments (that we all may view with varying degrees of acceptability) are bound to be made; this doesn't necessarily mean that on the basis of these comments alone, that the person saying them should be banned. In fact, it's to be expected that certain debates will be controversial or contentious to *some* people; this is absolutely normal for a debating website, and no topic should really be off-limits if we are to ensure that that this site remains active and open to all types of people. It's also standard for users to frequently get into heated arguments either in the debate comment section or forums. Another thing, is that 'trolling' on this site is eminently common, and indeed most of the time fairly harmless. From what I have seen, the user Masterful has initiated and participated in what could be considered some controversial debates, but so have I: [1.] http://www.debate.org...And other users on this site:[2.] http://www.debate.org... [3.] http://www.debate.org...[4.] http://www.debate.org...[5.] http://www.debate.org...[6.] http://www.debate.org...[7.] http://www.debate.org...[8.] http://www.debate.org...If Masterful was to be banned for trolling alone, then it would naturally make sense to ban other users who do--if not, it would simply be unfair. And if we did, then activity levels would decrease and people would likely be afraid to discuss topics that they otherwise would not elsewhere. What this site provides is a place to be debate whatever you wish with anonymity; it is an outlet in which to express your thoughts, or simply experiment with different debate topics--ones that you may not even personally agree with, but just want to explore a little. So, given this, there is no legitimate reason for Masterful to be banned--presuming that Pro is referring to a permanent ban.'This is slavery, not to speak one's thought.'-Euripides
Masterful should be banned from this site

Masterful should be banned from this site for being contently anti-Semitic,, racist, disrespectful to handicap people, ignorant of children and just down right cruel to anyone who is not white. With disrespectful post such as "Jews should be made into soap" or "Retarded people should work in coal mines" this type of behavior warrants permanent banning from this site. This type of behavior should not be tolerated and hateful speeches should be removed and their author banished. Give me any reason why Masterful should be allowed to remain here to post vile comments on debates??
Conservatives should be catagorized as "Back Woods"

My room for argument is that I am Conservative and am not back woods. I don't know why you say that I am not white, because I am, but I'm not racist at all. Yes, of course I read the link. It had nothing to do with anything. I don't get where you are saying that all Conservatives are racist and back woods. And of course we are biased. EVERY political party is biased to their own beliefs. No offense, but you may be the worst debater I have seen on here.
Conservatives should be catagorized as "Back Woods"

I am not back woods at all. In fact, I would like to move into a big city and get out of the back woods of southern Indiana. Ed Bassmaster? Who the heck is that? And when you use a source, make it credible. Yours doesn't even have any evidence, much less credibility. And the point about making decisions based on just being what the GOP says is right is not true. I could be categorized as liberal in a few areas, mostly education. And Conservatives aren't racist. If we were racist, why did a lot of Conservatives like Herman Cain? And I am not a hick, but I have nothing wrong with them. Most of my family in West Virginia could be classified as hicks or back woods, but I am not, and I am a Conservative. Therefore, your claim is wrong.
Conservatives should be catagorized as "Back Woods"

First of all, I would like to recognize that you are back woods in the worst case. You remind me of Ed Bassmaster. Do you happen to know him? Never mind that. Let me tell you something about your people. They are very thickheaded in their views, careless about the feeling of others, and only can take one side in an argument. You just can't see the other side, or even hope to do so. All conservatives are complete derps. Derpy derp derps. http://en.wikipedia.org... They forgot to add conservatives. This brings me to another point. You are so bias on any decisions based on political party. Most back woods people are this way. If someone does not think like you will completely reject the idea without anymore thought. Conservatives are all just racist, back woods, hicks. Are you going to side with the racists? Hicks? More importantly, Derpy back woods people?
This debate will not result as a tie.

Please note that the voting record is not relevant to the debate, its who argued their side better. Despite the fact that this should NOT be how you determine the winner even if the voting record DID dictate who won, I should still win. Example: **Debate ends. **Score: 0-0. Con proved point vote Con. **Some people vote. **Score: 0-3 **Now its not tied. Vote Pro. **Score: 3-3. **Uh oh, its tied again. Vote Con again. **Score: 3-5 All the way to infinite. To refute right down the post: I said: First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Con. To vote Pro is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie. He said: I can reword this as follows: First, I'd like to point out that because it is impossible to predict the future to a certainty, you should vote Pro. To vote Con is to say that he can undeniably prove beyond a doubt (which he still hasn't done) that this won't end in a tie. What he fails to understand: Actually, you cannot. As the Pro, you have to give reasons to believe you. I do not have to prove the polar opposite of your stance. I only have to prove that your stance is innacurate. For example, if you argued "All Ice Cream is Red" I wouldn't argue "All ice cream is NOT red". I would give examples of how SOME ice cream is red, but not all - therefore negating the resolution. To parallel, I talked about how your absolute "WILL! " proves my point. And the fact that you acknowledge this as a valid point, and seek to 'cancel' it means a Con vote. Next contention: I said: "My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie. " He said: ". .. that a procedure that has not started cannot end, and therefore, [not] yield results. " What he fails to understand: When the debate ends, voting procedure begins - and is a tie. 0-0. Vote Con. Next Contention: I said: A tied vote results in a tie. .. .. . He said: While I do agree that if the result is, say, 10-10, I will have failed to prove my point, I did not state that not tieing was impossible. What he fails to understand: Actually, you did say tieing was impossible. lets read the resolution "The debate will not result in a tie". That means that it is impossible for this debate to end in a tie. .. except if it ends in a tie. .. which my opponent conceded 5 lines up. Vote Con. I believe I won all the voting issues.
This debate will not result as a tie.

And it will nullify this argument, because he is also unable to predict the future to a certainty (his certainty being, this debate will end in a tie). Also, because neither one of us can fully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this debate will (or will not) end in a tie. The true outcome will not be decided until voting ends. If the debate is not a tie, I have proved that the debate will not end in a tie. Vice-versa for my opponent. Therefore, until the voting has ended, nobody can prove beyond a doubt that this debate will (or will not) end in a tie. We will have to wait and see. I also uphold my contention on this statement. .. "My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie. " . .. that a procedure that has not started cannot end, and therefore, [not] yield results. Now to address your points. 1) If an admin shuts down the debate right after we vote, that would be unfair to me as my point would be proven, but I will have lost (see below). Also, you cannot tell if I have voted or not, and vice-versa. "If both of us vote, and no one else (1-1), the debate is a tie. " This is untrue. Who's to say I will vote for myself? I can vote to you, technically losing the debate. But since my point has been proven, people may see that and vote for me. So I'm taking a gamble here - I may win the debate, or lose, depending on the speed of voting. If we both vote for you, and someone votes for me, the result will be 1-2. One of two things can happen now: A) Switch my vote, making me win 2-1, and proving my point that the debate will not end in a tie, thus making even more people vote for me to ensure my victory. B) I can hope that a couple people will realize I have proved my point, and vote for me, making me win 3-2. 2) While I do agree that if the result is, say, 10-10, I will have failed to prove my point, I did not state that not tieing was impossible. Such a statement would resemble: "This debate CAN not result in a tie" or "It is impossible for this debate to result in a tie. " However, my contention was: "This debate WILL not result as a tie. " Therefore, I imply that though it may be possible to end the debate in a tie, [I am certain that] it will not happen. This also proves that I have not conceded to any of your arguments that pertain to the exact statement at hand. So for my final note: Voters, as soon as you see that this debate is not tied, you are inclined/obligated to vote PRO. It doesn't matter who is winning, as long as it is not tied, I have proven my point, "This debate will not result in a tie".
This debate will not result as a tie.

I accept his definitions. I'd like to address one specifically "result": "to terminate or end". Now, lets replace "result" with its definition. The Resolution reads, This debate will not **terminate or end** with a tie. My opponent seeks to refute my claim by talking about voting procedure. What he fails to understand is that voting procedure and the actual debate are two wholly different things. This "debate" ends when I post my final argument. The second it ends, the vote count is 0-0. This is a tie. Furthermore, his soccer example is not analogous, because unlike points in a soccer game - which can be scored in game, and are therefore a part of the game - people on debate. org cannot vote during the debate - in fact, they cannot vote until the debate ENDS - making voting procedure a wholly different aspect. Now on to more contentions. 1) Admin shuts the debate down after me and you vote. Its possible the Admin will remove frivolous debates like this to save server space for the new debate. org. If both of us vote, and no one else (1-1), the debate is a tie. Note: My opponent has to prove that this is completely impossible to win. If he cannot prove why the Admin cannot do something completely within his power, vote Con. He has to prove beyond any possibility that the Admin will NOT shut this debate down. No matter how likely or unlikely, he has to prove beyond a doubt that this is impossible. 2) People vote for us equally. If 10 people vote for you, and 10 people vote for me, its a tie. My opponent recognizes this fact when he says "THE ONLY WAY, THEREFORE, THAT THIS DEBATE CAN RESULT AS A TIE, IS IF AFTER ALL VOTING HAS ENDED, THE SCORE IS TIED. " My opponent has said that this debate WILL end in a tie - no possibility of uncertainty. So - by his own statements - my opponent has to prove why it is impossible at all for this debate to have equal votes. Which he conceded.
This debate will not result as a tie.

I accept my opponent's definition of "tie" and thank him/her for contending. I start Pro with a definition for "result": Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This reï¿½sult Audio Help /rɪˈzʌlt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-zuhlt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used without object) 1. to spring, arise, or proceed as a consequence of actions, circumstances, premises, etc.; be the outcome. 2. to terminate or end in a specified manner or thing. –noun 3. something that happens as a consequence; outcome. 4. Mathematics. a quantity, expression, etc., obtained by calculation. 5. Often, results. a desirable or beneficial consequence, outcome, or effect: We had definite results within weeks. —Idiom6. get results, to obtain a notable or successful result or response; be effective. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1375–1425; late ME resulten (v.) < AL resultāre to arise as a consequence, L: to spring back, rebound, equiv. to re- re- + -sultāre, comb. form of saltāre to dance (freq. of salīre to leap, spring)] —Synonyms 1. flow, come, issue. See follow. 2. resolve, eventuate. 3. conclusion, issue, end, product, fruit. See effect. —Antonyms 3. cause. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, ï¿½ Random House, Inc. 2006. [end] If you would look at definition 2 (the definition we will be using, if my opponent agrees), it states: "to terminate or end in a specified manner or thing. –noun" My opponent states: "My main contention is that the second any debate ends on debate.org, the immediate vote score is 0-0 - a tie. Therefore, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden, as the debate will immediately be a tie." I ask my opponent: How can the voting procedure on this debate END in a tie, if it has never STARTED? At 0-0, no voting has taken place, so it has not started. Because of this, it cannot end, and therefore does not yield a "result". A result, consequently, will only be shown after all voting has ended. Now you may wonder, what about such things as say, a soccer game that ends 0-0? Well, the scoring has not ended, but the game has, so this is the final result. You may now conclude that once this debate is over, the votes (or lack of) present right away are the final result. However this is not true. In a finished 0-0 soccer game, there is no more opportunity for scoring, since the game has ended. After a debate, on the other hand, there is always opportunity for gaining votes. Therefore the results are always changing. The only way, therefore, that this debate can result as a tie, is if after all voting has ended, the score is tied. My statement was not that the debate CAN end in a tie, it is that it WILL. Therefore, voters, at long as the debate is not tied, you have no choice but to vote PRO, as I will have proved my point that the debate is not tied. It is now up to the CON to prove that this debate WILL end in a tie.
This debate will not result as a tie.

Definitions: Tie: a state of equality in the result of a contest, as in points scored, votes obtained, etc. , among competitors: The game ended in a tie. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Here's what my opponent says "I will prove that after this debate has ended, it (the debate) will not result in a tie. " Burdens =================== Aff: To prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is impossible at any point in time for this debate to have an equal number of votes (as per my "tie" definition). Neg: To give one viable scenario at any point in time after the debate has ended in which a tie could result on this debate. =================== My main contention is that the second any debate ends on debate. org, the immediate vote score is 0-0 - a tie. Therefore, my opponent cannot fulfill his burden, as the debate will immediately be a tie.
The Problem of Evil is an invalid argument

I will explain why the argument falls apart. I will use the book of Job to illustrate the true character of God and explain why the problem of evil cannot be an effective argument to prove that God has a contradiction in character. 1st point only give one possibility and reject the rest. God might be willing but it doesn't mean that he cannot do it. We have to consider that he won't do it yet. "If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent." Once again, the logic doesn't follow. God was not willing to help Job at that given instant because he was teaching him something through pain and suffering. When Satan challenged Job's integrity, God said "very well, here you go.." Sometimes, even parents allow their children to suffer in order to teach them and help them improve as individuals. Notice that at the end of Job's trial, God gives him back twice as many blessings than he had before. This implies that: 1) God has a will to overcome evil 2) God uses evil so that good can be accomplished and once that happens, he mercifully removes evil. 3) His removal of evil from Job demonstrates that he is still all power, all knowing, and all good With that in mind, there is no contradiction in God's character
The Problem of Evil is an invalid argument

Resolved: The Problem of Evil is an invalid argumentDefinitions Problem of Evil, otherwise known as the Riddle of Epicurus-- this will be defined as the following: “If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to Then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing Then He is malevolent. If He is both able and willing Then whence cometh evil. If He is neither able nor willing Then why call Him God?” (1) God -- The God we'll be discussing is Tri-Omni, so omnibenevolent (all-good), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipotent (all-powerful), as well as the first cause. Essentially, our debate will involve the Christian God. Exists -- have objective reality (2) Framework and BurdensPro and I have both acknowledged that the question of whether God exists has no truth value. Neither of us can categorcially prove whether God does or doesn't exist. However, we will be evaluating the merits of this argument with respect to the God as defined above in order to come to a concusion based on a preponderance of evidence. Thus, the person who best proves their case, on balance, will be the winner of this debate. Note that we are not making any assumptions walking into this debate, and thus both debaters will be require to elucidate their cases and cite their sources.StructureRound 1 is not for acceptance. Pro will begin his arguments in the first round and post "pass" in Round 3. Any deviation from this rule will merit a forfeit unless the debaters come to a compromise. Sources(1) http://tinyurl.com...(2) Google define "exists"
If your name starts with m your amazing

My name starts with M. . . . . . . Reckt! ak jfgkl;a jtioak jr;h;aijth ajf soihtrajtrja;ojrg ;ihsrtg;isj;io jrt shhrtai ojrtia ji;rth ;iaj; ightarht;j ioajiot ;jiajt ija ijrtiaji tjioajurth i am the one
Skateboarding makes u cool

what i ment was that the other people not the skaters and ur nerd friends think its wierd but u think is still kool but dont thinks its worth telling people cuz they tried and failded at it would make them feel wierd but if i impress people with like a tripple back flip to a pop shove it any one will think ur kool. ok so just wearing the clothes might make u kool but also not but if u can really skateboard it will make u kool.
Mythology should be taught in schools.

Thank you for your input. I would just like to rebut your point on the fact that mythology is "irrelevant to the life they are living". So many things we live and and see everyday are because of mythology. For example, the Amazon river is named after a race of warrior women, and anyone studying geography is often required to know why places, rivers or mountains got their names. On a social level, not knowing how certain things such as the Olympics, Nike, all the planets, the stars and even the continents all got their names will undoubtably make you seem ignorant. As you can see, mythology is around us everyday, even when you may not even realise it. Valentine's day is coming up, and a character from Roman mythology is sure to be hanging in the windows of shops and on greeting cards!
Mythology should be taught in schools.

I assume you talk about teachings in public schools? Really why teach kids things irrelevant to the life they are living. better teaching them about something that actually matters. You think it gives insight to different cultures? There are plenty of other things to tell you about different countries(example: learning about the ACTUAL country itself). Its a waste of time that could be spent on teaching kids something that actually matters( math, social studies, science, language). Mythology is a waste of time as is learning about religion.
Mythology should be taught in schools.

Learning about mythology in schools is becoming increasing popular all over the world, but many consider it to be unnecessary; a waste of time. Personally I do not believe that mythology is useless, as it really gives us an insight into cultures from many different nations. A lot of the stories they tell, clothes they wear, and manners by which they live their lives are greatly influenced by mythology. Mythology not only gives us an insight into general culture, but art, theatre and music as well. Mythology is deeply embedded in thousands of different cultures, and I believe that not learning about it in schools would be a definite loss.
My Group of Hypothetical Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

<"FORMAT/RULES: 1. In round 1 both debaters shall present their hypothetical band line-up. 2. All band members must be referenced by at least a Wikipedia source. 3. All band members will be generally recognised as dead. Conspiracy speculation will not be given credit, Tupac and Elvis are dead, Paul McCartney is not. 4. Bands must contain exactly four members and no more. 5. The band must include a drummer, a bass player, a vocalist and one other instrument. Musicians can also be singers and multi instrumentalists are allowed as long as these roles are permanently filled. 6. We will debate drummer vs. drummer, singer vs. singer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole. 7. Con may choose to start debating in round 1 or wait for me to begin in round 2. 8. We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes (rights reserved) in discussing the merits of our bands and the individuals that comprise them. 9. Obviously in a debate like this, a lot of our points will be based on opinion but we should attempt to back up our opinions with reliable sources that reaffirm them."> And #10 -- a band member can't be on both teams. In essence, what this means is that whoever takes this can't pick any of the people I picked. Copy and pasted from: http://www.debate.org... -- it was obviously the idea of feverish, so yeah.. Mine: Drums: Keith Moon -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Bass: John Entwistle -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Guitar: Frank Zappa -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Vocals: Jim Morrison -- http://en.wikipedia.org... So, uh, yeah....