BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That it is possible to give an objective vote for any given debate

My opponent and I will be debating whether or not it is necessary to bring one's personal opinion into a vote when voting on a debate. I have the BOP in this debate to show that it is not necessary, that is, that the vote for any given debate can be objectively derived. Structure will be as per normal for DDO debates. First round is acceptance. Some definitions: Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Debate = a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Specifically, the context for this debate is debates hosted on the internet domain "debate.org." Vote = the allocation of points to debaters through the voting process on the internet domain "debate.org." Note that I do not need to show votes on debate.org are objective, only that it is possible to give an objective vote. Oh, and when voting ... try to be objective!
Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere

My opponent's response was extremely unclear. I'm not really sure what he/she is trying to convey however I will refute his points to the best of my ability."But when you say that you're not, not giving gay rights. You aren't."I think my opponent is trying to say that when I say I am giving them rights, I am not. My opponent provides no justification. I don't really understand t message he/she is trying to convey. I advocate that we should use civil unions. I believe in "separate, but equal". I don't see a problem with this. They get their recognition for committed partners in love, and straight people get their recognition."They only want the right to marry and love each other. Like every one else in the world. "So because they want it, they get it? If I want to be president, I get to be president? Yes they are like everyone else but they do not deserve a "marriage", for it is a recognition of something else. You can not get recognized for something you do not do!" Gays put up those petitions for one reason! And it's to gain rights and marry. They would not have all these petitions. Of they had those rights they would not be petitioning and become violent. "I don't see an argument. Just because they put up petitions doesn't mean they get to marry. It just shows they want to marry. If gay marriage was legal, there would be petitions put up against it as well. As I have clarified numerous times they can still get rights through civil unions. So if I want the right to go kill someone, and I violently protest, I should get this right? I am not advocating that this is correct, just that it's not a valid reason to give something. "Also, people who are not gay and married adopt! Adoption agencies are looking for more people to adopt and that's a per"Adopting does not correlate with procreation. They are two totally separate things. I'm sorry for I do not really understand my opponent's message.Conclusion:My opponent has basically no arguments for gay marriage. All he states is that they are people and they deserve rights. However, as I have stated numerous times throughout this debate, they are people and do deserve rights, but not marriage! Marriage is something that does not currently coexist with the homosexual population in most places today. My opponent completely drops my second contention that states that many countries have an extremely high religious population and an extremely small gay population. He provides no justification as to those countries should allow gay marriage. My opponent has no response to the fact that giving gays rights defeats the purpose of marriage because marriage won't be a recognition of carrying on life, but rather a love commitment. Due to the fact that my opponent has little to no arguments, dropped a whole contention, and provides blanket statements with no evidence, I urge a CON vote. I urge you vote on who provided better arguments, not what you believe.
Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere

But when you say that youre not, not giving gay rights. You aren't. They only want the right to marry and love eachother. Like every one else in the world. Gays put up those petitions for one reason! And it's to gain rights and marry. They would not have all these petitions. Of they had those rights they would not be petitioning and become violent. Also, people who are not gay and married adopt! Adoption agencies are looking for more people to adopt and that's a per
Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere

Thank you for approving of my picture! I approve of yours as well lol. Anyway, gay marriage Gould be legal because gays are just people. They should have the same rights as everyone else. Gays do nothing to hurt society. People love gays. Of they don't hurt our society.. Or do anything wrong except find love I'm the same sex why is it bad they have the same rights as everyone else. We gave blacks the same rights as us.. Why not gays?
Gay Marriage should be legal everywhere

Traditionally in this country, marriage has been defined as a religious & legal commitment between a man and woman, as well as the ultimate expression of love. Homosexual relationships are increasingly gaining acceptance in this country; however, these couples have not been permitted to marry. Some states have considered a new form of commitment called a "civil union", which essentially is marriage without using the word "marriage". Many politicians have said they are against gay marriage but think it should be left up to the states to decide. However, the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that if one state makes a law, other states must recognize it. Thus, if one state allows a gay marriage and that couple moves to another state, the other state must recognize that marriage. This in effect allows one state to make same-sex marriage legal in the entire country. Many politicians are calling for amendments to their state constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Many areas of the country such as San Francisco have performed marriage ceremonies in defiance of the law. Lost in all the legal battles and political maneuvering is the basic question "Should we allow gay couples to legally marry?"
John McCain is the Best canidiate for Democrats and Republicans

I believe John McCain is the best canidiate for both the democrats and republicans. i also think the democrats biggest fear is a republican taking office and the Republicans (and i can back this up because RepublicanView is a republican and its my biggest fear) biggest fear is a Democrat taking office. For both sides i believe John McCain is the best Canidiate for the job as president. I'll say it now, please anyone on the Republican side dont debate and say he's not conservative enough to be a Rep. president, because that is something that will help him, and Dems. dont argue that he's not good enough just b/c he's not a democrat, and RON PAUL supporters all of you in a classification of your own dont just say paul is better, b/c there is no way in hell he will even make it to the November so Paul supportors please refrain from clicking "accept debate" button. i want a serious contender... And Pauliacs dont turn this debate into "paul is a serious contender"...ok So again whoever accepts give me a better canidatate for both the Dems and Republicans...simple enough???
John McCain is the Best canidiate for Democrats and Republicans

James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Benjamin Harrison, Warren G. Harding, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, were all senators before they were President. There are some pretty impressive names on that list who became president. So does being a Senator really hurt him in his possibility in being a President? i think not. Now the notion McCain isnt a economical guy is a wrong notion. the statement "he clearly had no idea what was being addressed" is obserd and false. McCain has admited the economy isn't his best policy but does that mean he isnt prepared. hypothetically if Adam Sandler was a good actor but he didnt fake cry well does that make him a bad actor? McCain bold solutions to stimulate the American economy, believes taxes should be low, simple, and fair and has a track record of commitment to these principles, and he believes America's economic progress requires that the federal government abide by the same standards of common sense and fiscal restraint as hardworking families. John McCain does know what he is talking about when he addresses the economy. Now its not that i dont want to hear what all the Paul supporters are preaching BUT i want a serious contender. Paul has 6...6...6...delagates so far compared to Romney's 92 and McCains 97. (as of February 4th) Now anyway. McCain appeals to both Republican and Democratic voters. McCain, has the experience and knowledge to be a commander in chief for our country while at War in Iraq. This War is essencal for our national security. McCain will lower taxes and simplify them. McCain can secur the border and furthur do what will make our country as safe for us, the people, as can be. and he will protect the second amendment. Now he appeals to dems to...McCain wants to utilize alternative energy sources...we have to end our dependence on foreign oil and McCain is going to go gung-ho and just drop fossil fuels, but he will utilize more clean, efficent energy...But the thing that most appeals to Dems is his ability to compromise and reach across the aisle to get things done, and that is what gives him my support. McCain wont be stubborn (like i believe Romney would) to uphold conservative values, rather he will get things done to help our country, rather than fight with a liberal congress like Bush had to... The big thing is McCain will get things done wjish is the number one priority in our situation. and you dont have to back a Democrat, you can defend Romney or Huckabee if there there who you think is the best choice for both Dems, and Republicans for President.
John McCain is the Best canidiate for Democrats and Republicans

Well, I just now saw that you had "Ron Paul supports don't debate because he won't make it to November" Opps. Which is wrong by itself because there is a chance he could run as an independent or a libertarian since he still has hoards of cash. Plus, just dismissing a candidate because you don't think he will still be around seems to be a cop-out. Does Mike Huckabee really have a chance either? But we can ignore those points for now. I like John McCain and I have met him in person. He even agreed to be in a video for my school's paradoy news website: http://hub.ou.edu... But he does have one flaw that troubles me. When he says he isn't an economy guy, he is completely serious. When Ron Paul asked him about his opinion about the president's working group on financial markets, he clearly had no idea what was being addressed. So it's not so much McCain himself I don't like, but his disadvantage is that he is a senator. The last person we had that went from being a senator to president was JFK, almost a half-century ago. The reason is that senators don't have management experience, which is vital for being the president. You at least have to concede that Romney and Huckabee have more experience in the executive branch, which would make them more prepared to take office. Now I could go off on why Ron Paul is the best candidate, but you don't want to know because....err....I can't think of why. Next round I'll try to come up with arguments for why a democratic candidate would be best. Furthermore, you never gave any reasons WHY John McCain would be the best candidate.
Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

I'm glad my opponent acknowledges that there is nothing to salvage. After all, he hasn't made a logically coherant case yet. His case has been: 1) I don't like you (and then accuses me of being egoistic) - round 5 2) Fairytales - round 4 3) I think I'm right - round 3 4) Fairytales (involving someone I don't like) - round 2 5) My interpretation of history - round 1 For a detailed discussion of his specific points, see my arguments above. By contrast, in round one, I said: 1) Laziness a part of human nature 2) Technology builds human qualities None of that has been rebutted or engaged with, therefore both stand. I have also shown why both are absolutely relevant to the moot, and why they destroy any arguments pro could potentially bring up. The burden of proof is on pro in this debate, and as I have said so many times before, he has substantiated absolutely nothing. When pro says he craves a more mature opponent, what he really craves is a stupider opponent who does not refuse to accept the assumptions on which he builds his case. It isn't about age, it's about which of us had the stronger argument. In this case, pro had no argument and didn't respond to mine. Therefore, how can voting pro be rationalised in a debating context? I would like to return my opponent's wishes of a nice day, and hope that he comes to appreciate the difference between a cause and a symptom. It's a pretty important distinction. His case is based on the ignorance thereof, so this isn't me being egoistic. I'll leave it at that.
Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

I will try to salvage nothing. My opponent has a young tempered ego and misses the point of my topic entirely. I leave you to your laziness Con, and I hope it gives you all the quality in your spirit that you feel it promotes. I must say that I was hoping for someone with more intellect, more heart, more life experience, less vocabulary, less arrogance, and less ego. You have left me unsatisfied and craving amore mature opponent. I leave it at that. Have a nice day.
Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

I find it very amusing that my opponent has accused me of "speaking in riddles," then immediately resorts to using a cryptic parable as the only way to substantiate his case. He doesn't reinforce his points, he doesn't attack mine . .. and yet he claims it is I, not him, who is missing the point of the topic. This debate is about whether, not how, technology is killing the quality of the human spirit. If my opponent did not mean to moot this, then he should have chosen a different topic. Pro for anything killing anything must show the causal link between one thing and another. So far my opponent's examples have all been cases of how technology is a manifestation of laziness, not the cause (again, recall that laziness has been defined as the opposite of the quality of the human spirit). I have always maintained that technology is an arbitrary tool, and laziness a vice independant of technology. That's not adolescent. That's not a debating tactic. That's not a riddle. That's a rational response to your case. To call it adolescent, a smart debating tactic and riddlous is to hope that voters will cave in to your emotive language. Voters, don't fall for the trap. Pro has not yet provided substantive analysis for anything. In this last round, my opponent goes so far as to ask voters to resort (by his own admission) to their feelings surrounding a story he just made up. I guess he has abandoned his old "logic and experience" line of attack, relizing that it wasn't going to work! The story is, first of all, illogical. Causation is implied, not demonstrated. I claim that the quality of life experienced by the two people in the story is unpredictable. You cannot say in advance that someone's spirit will always react negatively to technology, or vice versa. In the same way one cannot say how one will react to non-virtual experiences. Secondly, laziness can still exist in both people, but only one can manifest it. That is not to say that laziness is a symptom of technology. Rather, I contend that the use of technology is a symptom of laziness. Remember, I do not need to prove anything, as I have already shown that pro has the burden of proof to carry. Third, your gut instinct has nothing to do with this debate. Plenty of people have the gut instinct that they should commit suicide, and we applaud them when they do not. The same applies here. You can't use something as subjective as a gut instinct to qualify something as objective as my opponent's own topic. As I thought, pro's case has gone no further, and he still makes the same emotional, irrational and illogical appeals you heard in round one. My opponent still claims I misunderstand his topic, yet does not even contend with my arguments for why I do not. This debate is simple. Either vote for pro, who clearly doesn't know anything about debate, or vote for me. That's not ad hominum, that's supported by the facts of the argument above.
Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

Con talks in riddles like a child and misses the point of my topic entirely. Con tries to breakdown my topic into a form that can be manipulated in his favor. Smart debating tactic, but adolescent in nature. You attack most of my statements as irrelevant, when your argument has very little to do with my actual debate topic. This debate is not about the causation or manifestation of laziness due to technology. This debate is about how technology is killing the quality of the human spirit. You defend laziness and think it is necessary to survive! I would like to propose a mental experiment to prove my point. This experiment will involve 2 extremes of man. One that has only ever used technology and one that has never used technology. 1st man - This man ever since birth has never left the walls of the building he grew up in and has used nothing but technology to live his life. Never had any contact with the outside world except through technology. 2nd man - This man since birth has never been confined to the walls of a building and has never seen or used technology. Has only had contact through in the world through real life situations. Observe these 2 men for 30 years. Now mentally sit these 2 men in front of you and ponder who you would believe to have a higher quality of spirit. If you honestly believe that the person living through technology has a higher quality of life and spirit... Then by all means, vote for Con. But if you feel that actual contact and experiences in the real life world create a higher quality of character... Then vote for me. But, if you do feel that there is no difference in quality between real life communication and experiences, as opposed to technological communication and experiences... Then I feel sorry for you. And you are the exact kind of spirit that influenced me to start this debate. Thank you for your time.
Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

Con says in round 2 - ""Is my spirit any more "killed" if I play Dungeons and Dragons or Chess over email? Is online debate or facebook really more harmful than physical debate or chatting? If so, that's what you need to substantiate."" Yes, the human spirit is more killed hrough these means of expression and entertainment than to do he said activities in real life. I have clearly stated this not only in my topic headline, but in my argument as well. I give good logical reasoning by which any intelligent human being can rationalize this conclusion.. A.) Technology gives humans the option to do things with little or no action = True B.) Without technology humans are forced into action by desire or survival instinct = True C.) Without technology humans have 2 choices.. Choose laziness and die of starvation and thirst or choose action and survive. D.) Conclusion - Without technology humans do not have the luxury of laziness and therfore are forced to action through survival instincts and desire alone. Here are a few moreexampls of my point... Humans could not just twist a key and push a gas pedal to me from point A to point B before technology. Humans could not just sit on a couch and stare at a box with moving pictures in it before technology. Humans could not just push a button and talk to another human before technology. Sitting and talking to someone develops for more in the spiritually and mentally than chatting with someone online. If we were having this debate in person it would have a far greater quality in all aspects, other than this version of it online. If you were chatting with people on facebook for your whole life and never once spent time with them in person.. You would have a much lower quality of a relationship. Think about this. Understand this. Only then will you see the point of this topic. I'm sorry Con.. but you lose. And I personally can understand your generation's view. And yes, it does matter how old you are. You would realize this in a real life debate. How a person presents themself, how they speak, how they mble words, their show of confidence or lackof, etc. All these things matter. All of these things measure quality. Online communication measures very little and therefor is of a less quality than real life. I want to thank you for your time Con and for taking up this debate as my challenger. I look forward to your response.
Technology is killing the quality of the human spirit.

I must state that I expected my opponent to be from the youth generation. Anyone from this generation has no bearing to measure how different it has been through the decades. Humans are not lazy by nature in my opinion. Lock a human up in a room and he will beg to be released. He will beg of this so he can use energy, express imagination, and be part of the world around him. I will prove that technology makes us lazy through logic and intelligent reasoning. If there was no technology think of how you would entertain yourself and the human qualities it would bring. In my opinion it would be extremely difficult for Con to do this given his young age. If you did not have a television, what would you do? Stare at a wall because you are naturally lazy? No, I wouldn't bet on it. If you did not have a computer, what would you do? Watch television? Can't. Listen to the radio? Can't. You would be forced to look inside yourself in order to find ways of entertainment and expression. This path alone promotes the growth of human qualities. Nobody ever said that the growth of human qualities was more fun. Humans are persuaded to make choices based on personal enjoyment and the truth is that technology is very enjoyable to most humans. And in being so enjoyable, it persuades us to choose technology over the less enjoyable manual route. It is like modern day magic or magical devices, and humans love magic. Technology makes us lazy because it gives us options that were not there before. Options that would not exist without technology. So, your opinion of humans being lazy by nature has no bearing here.. Because even if humans are naturally lazy, they would be forced to action through things that are more important than laziness in life. Self entertainment, providing food, providing shelter, and providing other resources for self, family, and/or friends that are needed for survival. Technology let's humans do these things with very little action involved, and humans will choose these options because they are more enjoyable or free up more for future enjoyment. Technology makes us more lazy because it gives us the option to be lazy in many situations. Regardless of our human nature, without technology we wouldn't be as lazy. I prove my point through logic and life experience. And just to clear this up Con. This topic is not "Technology makes people lazy". But I will humor you, as the subjects are indeed linked.