BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

I will not contradict myself in this debate. I affirm the resolution, "I will not contradict myself in this debate." contradict- to assert the contrary or opposite of http://dictionary.reference.com...... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant for this debate, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A question may not result in an inherently self-contradictory answer. If this is the case, Pro wins.
Parallel parking should not part of the driving exam

To be clear, my opponent is asserting that in no case should parallel parking be part of the driving exam. He says it should be learned on a case by case basis. This case by case basis is going to be composed of entire cities (New York City, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, Topeka, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Gotham, etc.), which gave me an idea. Instead of looking at all the cities where parallel parking is a common thing and saying "Screw you guys, we're not going to teach your kids how to parallel park just because we don't have parallel parking in Smallville," we can require certain counties to require parallel parking. When my opponent says that other parking will be available in these cities, hes saying that you can pay $15 an hour to put your car in a parking garage (keep in mind, he cited this as something challenging. I lol'd). Also in New York City, sometimes you have to push cars while you're parallel parking. Can you do that without taking a test on it? http://www.city-data.com... Also, I don't know what his problem is with deaf people, but they usually don't want to talk because they're not so good at pronouncing words. Deaf people are perfectly capable of parallel parking and walking long distances from the parking garage. Did we really have to be like that? So to conclude, areas around big cities would have more benefits from teaching all their citizens to parallel park and my opponent is mean to people who don't want to talk.
Parallel parking should not part of the driving exam

I do not believe that parallel parking should be required. Just like how learning how to navigate in a parking garage is not required, complicated areas are most of the time not even part of the driving exam so why would I need to parallel park? More often than not, there is parking available and we do not need to parallel park. If you don't know how, go park somewhere else and walk. If you can't/dont want to talk, then learn to parallel park for convenience, but I don't think it should be required for the exam.
The Bible is the Greatest Book Ever Written

Negative Case: Responding to ObjectionsIn his last rebuttal my opponent argues that I did not use the term "great" appropriately. "great (adj) - denoting the element of something that is the most important or the most worthy of consideration."There are two things that come to mind.1. if "most important" specifically mean "influence on culture/literature/etc." then my opponent is simply begging the question.2. if not then my use is totally valid.Picking 1. would be dishonest since the formulation "most important" is and has to be open enough for interpretation to have any serious debate. If he insists that this is not the case then there would neither be any other book a possible opponent could have proposed nor would there be a point in debating this.Therefore I reject my opponents query that "great" necessarily has to mean "influential" (in the senses Pro uses).Positive Case: Why Giraffes Can't Dance is The Greatest Book Ever WrittenIn the latter part of his rebuttal Pro contests that "...is not harmful" is a good criteria for evaluating books and art in general.I don't see why "causes the waging of war" is a criteria for good literature, if anything I think it is a sign of bad literature. I stick to my criterion and insist that the whole point of literature is peace, love and beauty. Better to promote these things only a little overall than causing a negative balance.
The Bible is the Greatest Book Ever Written

I disagree with your "The less people are killed because book, the greater it is" analysis. For the purposes of this debate, "great" is not defined in terms of conforming to morality or doing less harm. Greatness is simply a different term for influence or importance. If the Bible influences people to wage war, that only serves as proof of its greatness. Is the goal of art really peace, love, and beauty? I would disagree. "Giraffes Can't Dance" is probably a fine book, but it has not influenced culture at all, to my knowledge. Since Con has not accepted the terms of what "greatness" constitutes, this debate seems to be futile.
The Bible is the Greatest Book Ever Written

IntroductionHello people of DDO! I thank Phenenas for giving me an opportunity to take part in this debate. Here I will contest the resolution "The Bible is the Greatest Book Ever Written". To do so I will first of all apply Arnold Isenbergs' analysis of art criticism from his 1949 paper Critical Communication to the resolution and then put forward my own criteria for a good/ great book.For a small summary, these are the important criteria my opponent used to propose the bible as the greatest book ever written:- The bible is the widest spread book- It has/had huge influence on:1. Western societies2. People3. Literature/Art/etc.The Subjectivity Of ValuesIn this paper Isenberg argues that any art criticism is essentially divisible to three parts:1. The Value Judgement"The bible is the greatest book"2. The Substantiation"...because it so influential"3. The Norm"Influential books are great"But here's the problem. It is hard to agree on norms, after all we want to know why we should think that way, too, similar to ethical norms. For example the works of H.P. Lovecraft are arguably good books, yet they fulfill none of the above mentioned criteria.My Personal CriteriaSince I am an atheist I could argue that the veracity of books is a criteria for greatness, however that is disputable, too, since Lovecraft's books are not really in accordance with reality either. For this reason I will pick one single criteria most people would surely agree with:The less people are killed because book, the greater it is.It completely misses the point of art, literature and philosophy if you start killing people because of it, instead of admiring its beauty.Therefore I nominate Giles Andreae's book Giraffes Can't Dance (2) ConclusionIn this opening statement I made a case for the subjectivity of value judgements and proposed "...is not harmful" as the most basic criteria to call a book "great". If you agree that this is what any good piece of literature should at least fulfill then you should vote Con.Sources(1) Arnold Isenberg, Critical Communication (1949)(2) The picture is taken from http://www.amazon.com...
The Bible is the Greatest Book Ever Written

The Bible influenced human society more than any other written work in history, especially in Occidental cultures. At least 2.18 billion people in the world claim to be Christian - almost an entire third of the population. Christianity is widespread to nearly every country on the Earth, due to those who try to spread the gospel. The Bible, in all its versions and translations, has had around 5 billion copies sold in history, crushing all competition for the best-selling book of all time. In Western civilization, the Bible's work can be seen in everything from the way laws are structured ("Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." -Romans 13:1), to work ethic ("For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." -Second Thessalonians 3:10), to the tradition of marriage ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." -Genesis 2:24) was molded by Judeo-Christian morals. The Bible has influenced countless other works of literature. It is, without a doubt, the most-referenced and most-quoted written work in history. Most lines from it have been analyzed and cited in arguments because billions of people believe that those words came directly from the Supreme Being. 85% of American households own a Bible; no other work of literature holds such a majority. Even trivial phrases used in it have passed down as classic proverbs: "No peace for the wicked", "A fly in the ointment", "Fought the good fight", "Turned the world upside down", and of course, any exclamation with the word "God" in it. Many common names in Western culture have, for years, been taken from the Bible (John, Luke, Adam, Mary, etc.). This is not to say that the entirety of the Bible appeals to everyone. Some of its less popular quotes (i.e. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." -Leviticus 20:13 and "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." -Ephesians 5:22) have been glanced over, but just because there are many parts of the Bible which are unaccepted by modern society doesn't mean the huge amount that has been accepted should be ignored. This is not to say that everything in the Bible is true. I am not a Christian, and I do not accept the Bible as truth, but I acknowledge that it has changed the world more than anything ever written. SOURCES: http://www.gotquestions.org... http://www.pewforum.org... http://newhopeforliving.com... http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...
We should have lab rats in labatories

8k, 72 hours to post, 7 point- systemThis debate is for Whiteflame. If you are not whiteflame you cannot accept. If you do, points will go to me. Defintionslab rat: A laboratory rat is a rat of the species Rattus norvegicus (brown rat) which is bred and kept for scientific research. Laboratory rats have served as an important animal model for research in psychology, medicine, and other fields.labatories: a room or building with special equipment for doing scientific experiments and tests Rules1. No forfeiting2. No trolling3. No posting arguments in first or last round4. If you are not over the Elo of 2000, you cannot vote5. If you do not follow thse rules, you lose.Sturcture1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals, Mini Arguments4. Defending Case, ConclusionLets have a good debate Whiteflame! http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Children given access to their records

Okay, as an argument was not offered by my opponent, I will make the 1st argument. Children should NOT be give access to their records for the simple fact that they are children. Children are often too naive to understand why they have been separated from their parents, and might wish to be reunited, when it would actually benefit them to stay separate as the parent is a bad influence/unable to bring them up and provide for them. Whether children are given access to their records should not be compulsory, as suggested by the title. Some children may not want to know their parents, so to tell them bluntly is not in their interest. It should be a decision taken by the child. On decisions, an adult can make a more informed decision than a child about whether they want to be given access to their records, as they are more mature, and they know how knowing their biological parents will affect their life. I hope my opponent will respond...
Universal Basic Income

IntroMurdoc kindly responded to my public plea for a debate, and I am grateful to him for making this round possible. This topic is also of great personal interest to me, and so I am happy that this was one of the two Murdoc identified as ones he was willing to debate. In order to ensure quality judging, I have set a voting ELO threshold at 3,000. Comments are required and the select winner system is in force. The voting period lasts 14 days. This is a re-do of the original debate: http://www.debate.org...TopicThe United States ought to provide a universal basic incomeDefinitions- Universal Basic Income: an unconditional cash payment which the government pays monthly and universally to all adults throughout their lives. The monthly payments must be sufficient to meet the socio-cultural subsistence minimum of the community in which the recipient resides [source: adapted from a definition by Prof. Matt Zwolinski]- Ought: moral desirabilityRules1. No forfeits2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. For all resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Pro must post his case in R1 and waive in R510. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)11. In each round, both debaters will wait until at least 48 hours have elapsed on the argument clock before posting their arguments (the only exception being the first two speeches, which should be posted as soon as possible)12. Both debaters' first speeches will be identical to the ones they posted in their original debate (linked above)13. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case; Pro generic RebuttalR3. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic RebuttalR4. Con generic Rebuttal; Pro generic Rebuttal and SummaryR5. Con generic Rebuttal and Summary; Pro WaivesThanks......to Murdoc for the debate. Looking forward to a discussion on a wonderful and fascinating topic!
Strengthening US Immigration Regulations

1) "Education for the children of illegal immigrants constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion." While the average college student debt is around $29,400 for borrowers in the class of 2012. That money could be used to fund college students who are citizens of the United States. (http://citizensforlaws.org...) 2) If we don't enforce illegal immigration or strengthen current regulations, it will inevitable make it easier for terrorists to come into the United States undetected. Conclusion- We should strength immigration regulations for illegal immigrants.
Strengthening US Immigration Regulations

Then the numbers that you had previously stated about the cost of sending illegal immigrant children to school are invalid too and your first premise is gone. While we can, technically, stop illegal immigrants from coming into the United States, it is virtually impossible to prevent high school children to drop out. We might as well support those that are actually motivated enough to pursue larger goals in their lives. If we lower the regulations to become an American citizen then the "issue" of illegal immigrants will be done with. By making something illegal we are essentially spreading the word that it can be done no matter what laws we put in place. If others have done it then it can be done. Deporting illegal immigrants is doing us no good. Instead it is costing us money and time that could instead be invested into other issues. "It"s not the immigrants, but the taxes, spending and entitlements (most of which immigrants don"t even receive) that have drained the economy dry." http://reason.com... My original statement meant that they are working in conditions that others wouldn't want to work in. Poverty in America is at an all time high and it is most definitely not due to the thousands of men and women that are working two to three jobs to support their families on the bare minimum that employers are offering. It it also these same men and women paying Social Security taxes that makes up for most Americans who are collecting unemployment checks as an easy way out. http://reason.com...
Strengthening US Immigration Regulations

1) Whatever the costs may be, it is invalid because those citizens are here legally. "The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that the average immigrant without a high-school degree will, over the course of his or her lifetime, impose a net cost -- above and beyond any taxes he or she pays -- of nearly $100,000 on U.S. taxpayers; this cost does not include the cost of educating the immigrant"s children" http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... 2) One can also argue your source is an appeal to illegitimate authority. Let me restate my argument - if we have an open immigration policy, it can open the door for terrorists to come through without a background check. If we do not regulate and remove illegal immigrants there is a possibility it can happen. If they know they can come and won't be deported for overstaying their visa or just coming in without going through immigration, they will be inclined to do so and come in. If we allow them to stay we are rewarding them for committing an illegal act which is simply unfair. 3) If a person in the United States is trying to support their families, do you really believe that they will limit their possible job opportunities and they won't even "think of trying" if they have to bring in an income? As they age, they will have very limited skills, there is not much they can do once they hit an age where they will become a liability for employers. Also, our economic need is plummeting because we are importing poverty. The percent of Immigrants and their family in poverty is almost double to those who are native born. http://cis.org.... They are actually taking jobs from Americans rather than supporting our economic need. http://www.fairus.org.... 4) ". According to the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2002 illegal-alien households imposed, in aggregate, costs exceeding $26 billion on the federal government while they paid $16 billion in federal taxes -- thereby creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion per year at the federal level" http://www.discoverthenetworks.org...
Strengthening US Immigration Regulations

1) The children of illegal immigrant that actually want to learn to improve their skills, english and education cost us $52 billion and yet the children of our own legal citizens that choose to drop out come in at a $154 billion price tag which would have benefitted our economy as well. http://all4ed.org... 2) One could argue that your second premise commits a straw man fallacy unless your view is that all illegal immigrants are terrorists. Instead of opening the borders to terrorists, reforming our immigration laws would not only save us billions of dollars in deportation costs but also would keep our economy stable and keep immigrant families together. http://immigration.procon.org... 3) Our country has a great economic need for the labor that illegal immigrants provide. They work through long hours, low wages and dangerous conditions that legal citizens would not even think of trying. http://immigration.laws.com... Conclusion- We should not strengthen immigration regulations for illegal immigrants.
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

Now. .. Popups and ads that fly across the screen are decidedly *not* the same thing. A popup opens in a new window or tab; the ads that fly across your screen, while they may look like a new window, are contained within the same one. In the same experiment discovering that they did not interfere with page reloading (seriously, try it! ) I also discovered that they are not blocked by pop-up blockers. Given this and the fact that they don't show a new tab at the top of my screen or a new window on my taskbar I think its pretty clear that they are quite different from pop ups. Back to my case: -flying ads are annoying when they appear and to the person to whom they appear. no one else is effected by them at any other times -since talking ads can be avoided, one has the impetus to turn off the sound every time they visit a website where they expect to encounter one. this is annoying -if one forgets to turn off the sound, not only will one be annoyed with the ad, but one will be annoyed with oneself for forgetting to turn off the sound; anyone else in the room will also be annoyed. Since philosophical's contention about filesize depends on opening two separate browser windows, which doesn't occur, I still consider the point dropped. And as for the flying ads being separate from the talking ads (and thus having no filter) this is also an unsupported assertion. The flying ads are just as attached to the site as the speaking ones (you don't see them popping up when you visit other webpages, do you? ) In conclusion, I find that, while all ads are annoying, speaking ones have further reach and actually manage to control the user even when they are not present. For this reason they much more annoying.
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

BELLE: "I would like to remind my opponent that he is arguing for "ads that fly across the screen" and not pop ups." Yes, they are the same thing. BELLE: " I would also like to remind him that I asked him to back up his claim about slowing down people's computers with facts and he has not done so. I consider that contention dropped." Are you serious? This is common sence. It doesn't need any proof. If you have more than one browser up at a time,your computer has to seperate its data between the two. Those who have bad internet systems, have to suffer from waiting a while longer than they should have to. Again, not a problem with sound ads. For more info on this, check out the second link. http://answers.yahoo.com... http://www.surfsecret.com... BELLE: "I also think he would be interested to know that I preformed a test- I reloaded a page in which I had encountered a "fly across the screen" ad and had no problems whatsoever" My opponent seems to think that because she has a fast computer, that every one else convienently will too. However, this is not the case. Some people have slow computers where ads can interfere. BELLE: (next paragraph for LOC) My Opponent talks about annoyance in the moment, however, I don't understand what she is trying to get across here. Speaking ads are "in the moment" just as much as the pop-up ads are? Belle: (porn) My opponent says there could be pornographic sounds. However the speaking ads are attached to the site which only allows certains speaking ads. On this site there are only three speaking ads, and no more. However they pop-up ads don't have to go through a filter. While most of them are evony ads, I still have come across a porno ad when visiting DDO. Last my opponent says that I have left contentions of hers unrefuted, however this is untrue. It is actually quite the opposite. See round two. Thanks! phil