BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Would Force All Governments to Become Totally Transparent

My opponent has no understood my arguments. He continues to attack the candlesticks without considering the entire home, let alone the dining room or anything else. The fact of the matter is that there will be sacrifices; we must choose between a new, better way of life and the one we have now. To get there we may have to alter our core values in exchange for a more efficient, open and informative way of life. No more will politicians stand before us and lie to our faces. No more will we go to war without knowing the facts. No more will big business influence our governments to choose profit over people. The people have spoken; ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. What of the CIA? The secretive organization has been nothing but a roadblock to democratic reform throughout the world for a half century. He talks about the danger of nuclear proliferation, despite me already informing him that this is against the definitions introduced initially. Even so, just having non-vital details of weapons programs will help open the diplomatic dialog and even reducing arms, as would be the case with North Korea's nuclear program. As it is, as present, nothing more than a diplomatic bargaining chip based on the inconclusiveness of evidence collected by Western intelligence agencies. How could Kim Il Jung play off Western fears when their knowledge of his program is crystal clear? But there is one vital point my opponent makes; why should countries stay in the U.N? Simple; because their residence would accept nothing less. There is such an untapped torrent of longing for an open society free of corruption and political deception that people would be egar to remove any politician that stands opposed to such an obviously beneficial measure. What have we discussed in this debate? We have compared apples and oranges. My opponent has sold you both, but has not told you that inside they are rotten. I have offered you half of each; you can see inside the fruit and know its quality. I have told you the benefits of truth, of the logical extension based on freeing information that we have a right to. My opponent has chosen to attack inconsequential manifestations of this measure rather than address the fundamental shortcomings of his position. When deciding who to vote for, remember that clarity always beats black-outs. Truth always beats lies. Accessibility always beats red tape. Thank you.
In general, Sonic Customers should not feel obligated to tip Sonic servers

For many years, customers in Western European cultures have felt inclined to tip their servers. We've reached a point in society where tips are expected; if not expected, then outright demanded. Some restaurants include an automatic gratuity fee. Some servers react harshly to not receiving what they believe is "owed." I'm sure I could provide countless examples of unjust behavior which many of you would be able to relate to.Nonetheless, I'm here today to discuss the fast food restaurant officially known as "Sonic Drive-in." [1] Because I firmly believe that tipping servers at this restaurant is unjust and unwise, I strongly affirm the position that Sonic customers who eat at Sonic should not feel obligated to tip Sonic servers.================================================================|Debate Rules|================================================================By accepting this debate, the Contender agrees to abide by the following rules:#1. The First Round is strictly for 'acceptance only.' The debate will officially commence in Round 2.#2. Any disagreements regarding definitions are to be resolved in the comment section before Round 2 commences.#3. I reserve the right to add additional rules before round 2 commences, should I detect any issue that inhibits the purpose of this debate and/or the act of debating on this website.=========================================================================================================================================|Sources:|=====================================================================[1] http://www.sonicdrivein.com...
In general, Sonic Customers should not feel obligated to tip Sonic servers

Finishing UpThe arguments have been mostly argued and fleshed out so I'm going to make this round short and just lay out some final points and counterpoints in a simple fashion. 1. While an appeal to tradition and authority is not full grounds for making something right it does play a role in our social interactions with people. I am not using social norm as my entire case but rather one factor that adds to the case as a whole and strengthens it. I reaffirm that Sonic workers type of work does indeed warrant a tip.2. I never said that since they're expecting a tip they deserve a tip. I said that due to the social norm and their pay status as tipped workers not giving them a tip would be considered rude. They may or may not expect a tip but the combined factors of their work and their pay status and the social norm of politely tipping says that they should probably receive one. 3. I know Sonic employees are paid a paycheck but I think that tipping slightly is better than not tipping at all. PRO gives no real argument for why a simple dollar or two should not be bestowed upon a Sonic car hop.4. PRO's "trump" source from the Sonic Corporation gives NO JOB DESCRIPTIONS! It just gives a list of positions. My source does indeed highlight actual job DUTIES and DESCRIPTIONS. PRO's does not. Therefore his claim about car hop's work is unfounded since his source does not support it.5. I still affirm that Sonic workers work is above the cut of an average fast food place and below the cut of a sit down restaurant. Sonic workers deserve a small tip for their work as they do indeed bring your food to you and clear it away at the end, they interact with you on a more personal level than fast food places normally do and thus, due to the aforementioned points deserve a small tip for their work.6. The atmosphere of a drive-in is more personal and friendly than normal fast food places, the environment is your own car, you have someone come straight to your window, greet you, ask you if you need anything while they deliver your food. This personable atmosphere is the type of atmosphere that deserves a tip. It is similar in fashion (yet not the same as a sit down).7. Sonic workers are labeled as tipped workers for a reason.8. PRO dropped the Unethical Behavior points all together and I will interpret that as a concession.Sonic workers should indeed deserve a small tip for their work.Thanks for a great debate! It was fun and interesting to be sure.
In general, Sonic Customers should not feel obligated to tip Sonic servers

CON'S CASE I. Social Norm CON’s argument is a non sequitur via an appeal to tradition. Just because something is the social norm, that does not make it good. If the service is adequate, we should not be expected to give extra money. Adequate service IS what we’re paying for in the first place. Tips should be given when the server goes beyond what we're already paying for. CON says that IF Sonic services are utilized properly, customers can be waited on. However, in this debate, we’re discussing general Sonic services. CON is effectivally conceding that Sonic servers generally don’t do enough work to warrant a tip. II. Minimum Wage CON insist that because they are expecting a tip, they should be given a tip. So what? People undeservingly expect a lot of things in life. The fact remains that Sonic servers generally do not enhance the quality of the service given. III. Some Tips > No Tips CON says that Sonic servers should at least receive something. They do receive something: A paycheck from their employers. MY CASE 1. Work CON’s argument does not stand. Sonic also employs Crew Members. Crew members do everything CON’s source mentioned. My source trumps CONS since the description is provided by the Sonic Corporation itself. At best, there are merely times when Car Hoppers might assist Crew Members. CON says that there are differences between McDonald’s and Sonic. That may be so, but the fact remains that McDonalds servers essentially hand you your food while performing simultaneous duties. As for the comparison between Sonic and Applebees, the link I provided last round ([6]) shows that the responsibilities of an applebees server do not compare to what you see in the video I provided in R1. 2. Benefits CON asks to know where the cut off for tips are, but this has been pointed out throughout the debate. Customers should tip when the servers enhance the quality of the food or services. As shown by my R2 source, real waiters/waitresses engage in many tasks that enhances the quality of the food/services. 3. Unethical Behavior See above points!
In general, Sonic Customers should not feel obligated to tip Sonic servers

Members of Debate Dot Org (DDO), today’s debate boils down to three things: Work, Benefits and Greed. ====== Work: | ===== First, I submit to you, members of DDO, that servers at sonics simply don’t do enough work to warrant a “tip. ”. Pay special attention to the youtube video I provided. [1]. This, members of DDO, is a Sonic server . . . or rather, a Sonic “carhopper. ” Their job is to bring the food/drinks customers order out to their vehicles. However, that’s just it. This is the entirety of their job. To travel small distances with a tray of food/drinks in their hands. The problem here is that mostly anyone is capable of this task. My opponent might point to the fact that many Sonic car hoppers (such as the one in the video I provided) have to use skates to deliver customer orders, but this too does not a warrant customer tips. In addition to the fact that skating over small distances is a task a great deal of people are capable of performing, one ought to question how “skating” benefits the customers. Skating neither enhances the quality of the food or the service to the customer. It is simply a gimmick and nothing more. In essence, car hoppers simply carry the customer’s order out from the restaurant to the customer’s vehicle or table. Unlike servers at higher class restaurants (i. e. Olive Garden), a car hoppers work is pretty one dimensional. They aren’t expected to refill drinks or meet every whim of a large group of people. ======= Benefits| ====== Second, I submit to you, members of DDO, that Sonic servers are already provided a wide range of benefits regardless of whether they are given a tip. [2] Most notably is the benefit of employers adjusting their salaries to fill in for any gap between the amount of money they’ve been tipped and the amount of money required by minimum wage laws. In essence, if severs already receive a wide range of benefits and are still protected by minimum wage laws, we as customers should not feel obligated to tip them. ====== Unethical Behavior: | ====== Lastly, there is the issue of unethical behavior. As a poster in comment section hinted/jabbed at, there is a well known issue of individuals of the African American community and their hesitance towards tipping. This cultural stigma has resulted in deplorable behavior against African Americans [3]. The tipping culture simply contributes to this. [1] . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.job-applications.com... [3] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

A1: My opponent is incorrect in his judgment. My opponent's claim that I beg the question is wrong because I am arguing the morality of multiaccounts based on ToS, I am arguing the morality of using multiaccounts to fix votebombing with more votebombing. Thus, this point cannot be dismissed. A2: Throughout the entire debate, we have been talking about multiaccounts for the purpose of fixing vote bombing, not for actual debating, thus the audience should dismiss this point. However, my opponent has no outstanding reason why 2 accounts are needed when 1 is just as suitable. A3: My references to admins and the ToS do not beg the question because my point was to show that there are alternatives to resolving vote bombing issues other than the creation of multi accounts. This has not been addressed, my point stands. B1: In that case, you can make a new account when the hacking or violation takes place, then have it closed. Thus, you are not owning multiple accounts at any time. B2&3: Incorrect as my opponent started by making points about popularity and how multiple accounts would benefit. My arguments stand. C: I have responded to "Topicality" but my opponent did not understand it. I assumed his "cross application" in the next round meant a concession. To clarify though, his argument rests on the assumption that owning multiaccounts is justifiable, which begs the question. As per his scenario, he should only have one account. Should that account be compromised, he no longer has that account. He can make another one to apologize and ask admins for aid. He gets another account back, his temporary one is unjustifiably held, and should be closed by the admin. This situation works just as well. My opponent has failed to find a single justification for owning multiple accounts. All alternatives I suggested work as well. I negate the resolution.
Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

In the miniscle characters remaining, I will crystalize the important arguments in this debate, and then summarize the round. (a la LD Debate 2AR) In the first contention (C1), part A, Kleptin's only tangible argument is refering to admins and the ToS, which must be disregarded, since the point of this debate is to prove that admins need not be used. He is using his own "strawman" type of fallacy. C1, part B, stands. The point I made was misconstrued by Kleptin. I am simply stating that any and every account ought to be treated equally. Some people will only go online as frequently as (theoretically) I would on my second account, meaning that both accounts are, in the eyes of the site, equal. C1 part C stands for the same reason that C1 part A does. In the debate realm, we think hypothetically. (See my comment for more clarification if needed) This means that arguments relating to the real world system should be ignored. C2, [ONE] By comprimised, I mean hacked or unwillingly violated. This is the exact term that Phil used when we discussed my "Racist Debate". Nevertheless, cross-apply the C1 part A defence. In the rest of C2, there is really no relativaty or significance. The amount of activity on a website isn't what you are voting on in this round. The issue that you as a judge must look at is my C3/O.V. This was ignored by Kleptin both times, and proves to be my greatest defence. I only have to prove one scenario to be just to win your vote, and here is one of many: 1) Sam is a good DDO'er. He never bothered anyone, always voted with just RFD's, and was a good sport in lost debates. One day, his account is hacked by a neighbor. The neighbor posts porn and racist comments all over his profile and debates. He cannot post an apology or explanation on DDO, since his password was changed. Good thing he had a duplicate account, which he uses to replace. He posts an apology, and has his neighbor arrested. Thus, you affirm.
Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

My response will take on the following format: I will first state the point that my opponent makes (as he has organized in his last response by number and letter) and will show the logical fallacy. 1A. [ONE]- Equivocation Fallacy. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Knowing the right direction is logically irrelevant. Vote bombing is an immoral act regardless of the way it is done. 1A. [TWO]- False. A new account used for counter vote bombing could be used for outright vote bombing as well. This point is moot. 1A. [THREE]- False. Moderators and admins exist, there is no need to take matters into your own hands. This is violation of the TOS. B. Strawman Fallacy . http://www.nizkor.org... Obviously by "good" account, I mean one that is only used for counter-vote bombing and by "bad", I mean one used for regular vote-bombing. My point stands and my opponent's irrelevant rebuttal about relativity should be dismissed. C. False. The Cleaner method is more effective because it follows the TOS to correct injustice. Furthermore, a moderator deleted account has all his votes removed from all debates. See 1A[THREE] 2. [ONE] My opponent has been unclear about the definition of "compromised", I define it as "banned". The new account would only be used to notify moderators in case of emergency (new emails are easy to make, new phone number is not required). If you are banned, you should not return at all, as per TOS. 2. [TWO] And most of them are inactive accounts. 2. [THREE] Site popularity is determined by activity. My opponent's proposal would yield even more abandoned accounts. Inactive members make no difference and my opponent's point is moot. My opponent conceded his third point and I have countered all his others. The resolution is negated. Thank you.
Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

1) Justifying Vote Bombing A. [ONE] Ahh, but three rights make a left, and it is important to know which direction you are going. [TWO] If that wasn't enough to convince you, than remember that if someone is counter-vote bombing, they are definitionally NOT vote bombing. [THREE] Even then, if a person is vote bombed, and then votes with the other account to balance it out make it seem that nothing happened at all, thus justifying the voting. B. My opponent does not define nor warrant what a "bad account" is. In fact, who are we to decide if an account is "bad"? It is unfair. ReganFan is an example, he thinks that any non-conservative user is a bad one, whereas some Liberal users think vice versa. There is no way to measure what a bad account is, making his argument fall. C. Though the cleaner method can sometimes work, it does not always. Moreover, it will never work as effectively as the counter-voting method. Just like how diluting something is less efficient than removing it entirely. 2) Internet Security [ONE] This is not true. If someone's account is compromised, the account will still exist. Even when closed, email addresses and phone numbers are permalinked into accounts. This means that you would have to make an entire new email and phone number to link to the new account, which, for some members (which is all I need to prove as the resolution states) is impossible or non-pragmatic. [TWO] There won't be any practical bandwith problems, taken that there are tens of thousands of users on DDO. [THREE] In fact, stemming off of argument two, allowing more accounts will increase site popularity, since people tend to join bigger/better organizations and websites. 3) Topicality/Overview Cross-apply this to the entire case: I only have to prove one situation in any of these contentions to affirm.
Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

1. Justifying Vote bombing A. Two wrongs do not make a right. Engaging in counter vote bombing is still vote bombing. B. Allowing people to make alternates would make it harder to distinguish bad accounts from good accounts. C. Vote bombing can be countered legitimately with the "Cleaner" method, in which many people vote fairly on each debate, watering down the bias of vote-bombing. 2. Maintaining Internet Security My opponent's point is meaningless. One can easily construct a new account once the first one has been compromised. There is no reason to have two at once. Having excess unused accounts will lead to bandwidth problems. 3. Topicality Whether or not the resolution is affirmed depends on my opponent's arguments. None of my opponent's three arguments are good enough reasons to allow multiple accounts, or to even add leniency to the rule. ***** Why should this multiple account rule be as stringent as it is? 1. It helps reduce the number of unused accounts on DDO 2. It levels the playing field and makes it easier to deter malicious wielders of multiple accounts. 3. Applying leniency makes the line too blurred, forming a slippery slope in admin or moderator judgment. They are busy enough as is and are the only ones who can ban accounts anyway. The above three reasons, combined with the fact that none of my opponent's arguments adequately justify excess accounts, negates the resolution. Thank you.
Resolved: Possession of Multiple DDO Accounts is Sometimes Just

This is just a fun and unstructured debate. I affirm. 1) Justifying Vote-Bombing As the status quo provides, there is not a current system of voting that prevents vote bombing, otherwise known as the act of unfairly voting on a debate. Because of this, allowing a separate account to fix these injustices is at least fair, taken that it is uncertain how many people can or will take place in the voting. If DDO actually got around to editing the "Votes" tab, then there could at least be a sense of public shaming that might prevent this, but as it is, multiple accounts are the simplest and most effective means of preventing and balancing vote bombing. 2) Maintaining Internet Security The points in this argument are two-fold. First, allowing multiple accounts lets users stay secure in their internet identities, and second, they have a place to go if one account is compromised. Since the growing threat of stalkers and internet hunters in conjunction with an extreme decrease in internet security thanks to companies and organizations like Google (and if it isn't google, then it is pending purchase from google),plagues our society, allowing multiple accounts is wise and beneficial to the internet and real-life community. Also, when an account is hacked or compromised, the likeliness of returning to the same account is low at best. Things change when you're account has been toyed with, believe me, I know. Because this, like stalkers, is a growing threat, we must affirm this debate. 3) Topicality Like I explained in the title of this debate, I'm not saying that all people should be able to own multiple accounts, or that it is just 100% of the time. I just think that it should not be a strict law on the site, simply because there are so many, so frequent, and sad situations where people get banned for doing something completely justifiable. It is for these three reasons that I affirm.
The virgin birth is supported by science

All of of my previous comments were relevant. Science is explanations for natural things. The virgin birth is supernatural. You are trying to discredit the bible by saying that a virgin birth is scientifically impossible. It is scientifically correct that the virgin birth is impossible, science disproves god as well. You're basically saying " hey this apple tree isn't real , does anybody have any scientific evidence that the fruit can exist?" .. In conclusion the virgin birth = scientifically impossible . Science = logical sense of the brain. The brain=irreligious.