BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Networking

I would also like my opponent to know that I am very new to this and apologize for my shortcomings. Concerning arguments: On much deliberation concerning the merits of certain social networking sites, I realize that factors are present in the process of communication via internet that allow for not only a "good" interaction, but also a "better" one. When in a conversation with someone on a social networking site, one is presented with the opportunity to think before he speaks(that is type). This website is a prime example, when a person enters a debate he is not forced to respond immediately but can search for evidence with which he can make his point or points(assuming he knows how to do this). One is given the opportunity to speak freely with peoples of other nations, though it could be argued that this is not better by my opponents definition of the word, it is much less expensive and far easier due to the easy accessibility of online translators. It is easier to be more eloquent when given the time to consider what to say or post. Again will I apologize, for due to the shortness of time, I must post this now.
Social Networking

OVERVIEW I finally got a new computer, and so this is my first debate in a while. I thank Pro for making such an interesting debate, and I hope he will not forfeit in any part. As Con I shall be proving that social networking via Facebook, Twitter, etc is worse than face-to-face interaction and socializing. I do not know how Pro wants the layout to be—but I am assuming that he wants me to first accept it and not provide any arguments. DEFINTIONS Because of the fact that Pro did not provide any definitions I shall be the one in which hands out the definitions. As defined on www.dictionary.com Social Networking: the use of a website to connect with people who share personal or professional interests, place of origin, education at a particular school, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com... Better: Of superior quality, or excellence http://dictionary.reference.com... Good: Morally excellent http://dictionary.reference.com... Worse: More unfavorable http://dictionary.reference.com... Interaction: Reciprocal action http://dictionary.reference.com... Socializing: Make fit for life in companionship with others. http://dictionary.reference.com... Good Luck, Pro
English as the only official language in the world.

This is a wonderful site, very interesting and keeping you occupied, so after reading a couple of debates, I wanted to start my own and I decided the topic of the debate should refer to my favorite daily topic and hobby - languages.What I would like to stand up for as an argument is that in a near future, the English language should be the only official language in the world. By that, I mean there should be a law in all countries that should say that everybody should need to have the English language at least as a second mother tongue and with time, the language has become so widespread that the world doesn't need interpreters, so that people don't misunderstand their fellow foreigners and overall so that the globe becomes a more united, cosmopolitan and friendly place.I must say that my native language isn't English, so I haven't got a special attitude towards it, nor that I feel oppressed of speaking an Eastern European languages with little to 6 million people. I am starting this debate purely of linguistic reasons.History has knows a lot of cases when people not only want, but need to speak the same language, even when a lingua franca has been already established (i.e. Russonorsk language - an unique mixture of Russian and Norwegian, which has become a neutral language of its own, being used by Russian and Norwegian merchants of fish that could not cope of having to learn at old age a completely new language, but rather mix their two languages in an effort of understanding each other the most efficient way possible).I would be glad if a similar language passioné like me do that debate with me, I am looking forward to it :)
English as the only official language in the world.

I will do my best to counter the points he has made. I agree that Chinese would be harder to learn than English, but to most Asiatic populations Chinese is easier to learn because it is more similar to their native language than English. Chinese also has a higher growth rate than English, at 1277.4% compared to 281.2% for English (1). I am sorry that I misunderstood your argument, however my point remains basically the same. Making English the global language would give an unfair advantage to all native English speakers since they would be more skilled at English than most other people (there are obvious exceptions, for example your English is excellent), and would not have to learn a new language. If everyone speaks English, there is really no need for other languages, leading to a loss of culture and tradition. While that last statement may seem contradictory to my argument for Esperanto, English is an ethnic language that has a geographic base of speakers and a culture tied with it. While it may seem like a disadvantage to Esperanto that it does not, it is actually better because since it has no cultural or historic ties to any one country, it is less likely that Esperanto would render other languages useless like English possibly could. Esperanto would also give everyone an equal chance to learn a new language and would not favor any particular country/group. Although my opponent argues that Esperanto would be harder for most of the population to learn than English, research has shown that it is possibly four times easier to learn than any other language (2). In Esperanto, every letter has just one sound; every sound has just one letter representing it. The emphasis is always on the next-to-last syllable. So once you learn the alphabet, you can pronounce anything you read, and you can spell anything you hear. And you can learn the whole system in a few minutes. Compared to most languages, Esperanto's grammar is extremely simplified R13; stripped down to the bare necessities. Verbs have only six endings. Esperanto also gives you prefixes and suffixes that you can use to multiply your vocabulary and cut down on the number of words you have to learn. My opponent argues that the global language should be based off of English in order to appeal to those who already speak it. Esperanto has several related words in English (bona -> bonus, alta -> altitude, feliĉa -> felicitous). About 70% of Esperanto vocabulary is directly or indirectly derived from Latin roots, many of which also appear in English. Another major chunk is from Germanic roots (hundo, hound or dog). So English speakers should be able to understand a good part of the words with little trouble. I agree that since English is so widely used it may seem like a better option, however I believe that Esperanto would be better still since it does not favor any group, has no culture attached to it, and is the easiest foreign language to learn. I look forward to the conclusion of this great debate! Sources: 1: . http://net-lang.net... 2: . https://www.google.com...
English as the only official language in the world.

My argument will be in two parts: Why the official language of the world should not be English, and why if any, it should be Esperanto. Why the official language of the world should not be English- English ranks third in number of native speakers, after Spanish and Mandarin Chinese (1). It also ranks second in overall number of speakers, after Standard Chinese (2). This means English would not be the easiest language to teach to the world. Language is an important part of culture, without individual languages each country would lose some of its traditions. A global primary language may make the world a more cosmopolitan place, but it would also make it a more monotonous one. Why if any, it should be Esperanto- I propose that instead of having English as the primary language of each country, we should have Esperanto as the secondary tongue of each country. This way, each country gets to retain their cultural heritage while having a means to communicate with the rest of the world. Esperanto was designed by linguists to be easy to learn by all populations, as it incorporates various characteristics from a wide variety of languages. Esperanto has been proven to be one of the easiest languages to learn (3). Esperanto fulfills all the upsides of having a global language without any of the downsides of having an ethnic global language. It is for this reason that I believe that if any language should be instituted on a global scale, it should be Esperanto. I look forward to my opponent's response! Sources: 1: . https://www.cia.gov... 2: . http://www.ethnologue.com... 3: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

== Rebuttal == I reject the source Pro presents. The source is a Wikia, thus can be edited by anyone and everyone. The theoretical argument I presented preempts any such sources, since it shows: (1) inequality is immoral, so these rules only result in spread of immorality, and (2) the contract I signed is an unconscionable one [1], which allows me to *reject* the rules like in many court cases. [1] While you can set up any rules, under unconscionable contracts, judges must *not* enforce these rules and must reject the validity of such contracts -- while you can set up such rules, judges must not ascribe to them, as established in Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy and Harry v. Kreutziger. [1] As for the Supreme Leader issue, I'd like to note some observations. OV1: The image does *not* appear, therefore can be discredited as a source. OV2: Even if the image did appear, it's not a credible source since images can be edited, photoshopped, etc. Even *if* it were valid, it would, at best, establish that Pro is a friend of the Supreme Leader, not necessarily the "best". OV3: Pro *drops* my argument that the term "best" is subjective, and fails to establish an objective criterion for the same, thus you can presume Con. == Debate Theory == I will establish on my theory shell using the stock issues, and shows how my position that judges must vote Con is superior to Pro's objections. 1) Inherency The counterplan I presented is for voters to halt the debate and presume Con by default. The structural inherency that causes harms to the plan -- common debate conduct requires equality, and Pro has violated common debate conduct. This shall cause harms outlined under "significance". Attitudinal inherency also allows the plan to fail, since common attitude is that unconscionable contracts are to be rejected. 2) Harms The harms are outlined by the theory shell. Such a debate is inherently unfair. Equality is the prime objective against morality, and the right to equality is fundamental. I value morality, thus my criterion is equality. Inequality necessitates a branch between right and wrong, thus all concepts of morality are determined by equality. Violating equality explicitly by Rule 37.1 is sufficient reason for the implication to stand. The implication: vote Pro down. You can vote Con because the resolution contradicts rule 37.1, so we can prefer the resolution over rules due to to linguistic understanding. You can vote Con because there was no explicit translation, meaning English text is superior. You can vote Con because equality hinges all morality, and this is a Violation of all standards for equality. 3) Solvency The CP is perfectly pragmatic to implement, and destroys the unfairness behind inequality and an unconscionable contract. Presume Con for all dropped arguments, so the CP can be > than the plan for failure to fulfill burden of proof. As such, I urge a Con vote. As a sidenote, I am *waiving* rule 39, which states "All of these rules apply only to Con", since this is an unconscionable contract. As such, both sides must *waive the final round as per rules*. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

s://i.imgflip.com...; alt="" />Rebuttals:A- My previous Source says that As instigator, I may set up ridicolous rules that must be followed. Thus , Con Must follow the rules, And i have complete power to make Ridicolous rules.B- Also Covered, My Source says That I have complete power to set up and enforce Any rules.C- Again, My source says I have complete Power To Abuse my advantuges.D- However, My source says it's bot a Violation, And I can set up rules.1. I provided Inage evidence That Kim Jong Un is my best friend.
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

1) Rule 30 Pro *drops* all my objections to noobsniping. I showed the *evidence* from the definition that it wasn't a noob snipe. I did not start this debate to inflate my Win/Loss record. *I* challenged Greatkitteh to this, so this isn't a "snipe" either. Pro asserts I "laughed at his face". I wasn't mocking him. Such an accusation is considered severe. If Pro needs to resort to insults, I recommend he report me and close my account, since mocking is insulting. I maintain I did not mock him. Pro drops my evidence, so presume Con. 2) Heil/Genesis There are multiple debaters that argue against God -- does that mean they are Genesis? Now, Pro is accusing me of being a multi-account of Genesis. I present a solution: Contact Airmax and ask him if my IP is the same. While I *could* be anyone epistemologically, Pro still commits negative proof -- until Pro *proves* I am Genesis, it fails. Multi accounting is also severe, so such an accusation is severe misconduct. I am severely disappointed at Pro's frequent insults and accusations. 3) The Topic Pro has to provide *complete* evidence that the Supreme Leader is his best friend -- all Con shows is that they have a common goal. BOP is on Pro, and Pro is shifting BoP with the "no one knows who his friends are" arguments, which is logically fallacious. 4) Rule 18 As I said, rules can be violated if they are incredibly unfair, as established by this argument. This is dropped, so extend unconscionability. == A Note on Sources == Pro's source is linking an instigator advantage link, which is irrelevant. The "instigator advantage" is just a +25 Elo granted to the Instigator if the Instigator of a debate wins, thus is irrelevant to all arguments presented.
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

I will defend my Case this round, And rebutt next round. as per the rules, con must waive round 5, unless con has a serious Kritik battle.1) rule 30Every Noobsnipe sees Two things1. There is the Noobsniper2. There is the Noob.Con, Has, Noobsniped before As seen by irrefutable Evidence, Even drawing a comment that said: "Talk about a noobsnipe". There also, As con would admir, Has beem numerous accusations con noobsnipes. Con is the noobsniper.I also, face a siginificant Disadvantige in the numbers. Con, Although it cannot be shown, has power to Shut down AOW Chats, While I am the 3rd newest Member. Con also Is A Moderator in the ddo wiki, I do not have an account.So con, is the noobsniper, and i am the noob.There is evidence that Con has Noobsniped before, And doesn't hesitate to do it again. Con also, Did Not accept a debate that said "Upon request: Kim Jong Un is my friend" Because Con thought It would be hard. In fact, Con has Laugjed in my face, As seen in the comments.Con refused to acknowledge this is a Serius debate, And admitted to laughing and has a history to noobsnipe. Con also has Enormus power in the ddo wiki, And can shut down AOW messages, While I have none and is the third newest member, Meaning con, combined with The ELO gap, Has big advantiges, Andis a Noobsniper debating a Noob. In Other words . . . Con Is Noobsniping.2) BOPCon has repititively Argued for atheism, Meaning for gensis, Con is the perfect hideout. Con also, Almost never polls,meanig gensis can be offense, And Tejas could be a Different account, Scouting people.3) Kim Jong Un is my best friend.There is a Rule saying "Do NOT be dennis rodman". So, Con is not Dennis rodman. It is also Probable that, I have a Ablility to go to north Korea, Because Guam Is close enough. Guam is also Snall emough for private Airports, Thus, Itnis probable that I saw dear leader.I also, Open expressed Frusturation with Guam, Like Kim Jong Un. So, Kim Jong Un and I Have a Common goal. Since dennis rodman is Not con, No One knows Who Kim Jong Un's friends are.But, I Have evidence next round, That will say Kim Jong Un is my best friend.4.) rule 18Con's rebuttal Itself, Is a Violation of rule 18.Sources:http://www.debate.org...;
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

== Rebuttal == 1) Rule 30 The definition of "noobsnipe" is up for debate. Pro provides us *no reason* to think I have "noobsniped" except the Elo difference. What is a "noob snipe"? It is a term within DDO, and I shall, therefore, use Airmax's guide as a source: "A term used for when an experienced member debates a noob (and wins) just to inflate his Win/Loss Record." [1] I'd like to present the following observations: OV1: I *did not* accept this to "inflate my win/loss record," and unless Pro proves otherwise, the accusation of noob sniping fails. OV2: This is not a noob snipe even otherwise. What is a "noob"? A 'noob' is "a person who is inexperienced in a particular sphere or activity." [2] Pro has failed to establish an *objective* criterion for who is considered "inexperienced". It is impossible to prove anyone, even Pro, as *objectively* inexperienced, since "experienced" is generally subjective. As such, I have not violated Rule 30. 2) Heil/Genesis This commits the fallacy of negative proof. [3] I need not prove that I "am not" Genesis or Heil -- unless proof is provided that I *am* Genesis or Heil, you presume not by default. [3] Secondly, the rule says nothing about certainty, so even abductive justification (such as this) suffices. 3) Actual Issue Once more, Pro commits a fallacy of negative proof. [3] The BoP is definitely on Pro, so if I have no background knowledge, I have to presume not. My impact here is that the term "best" is inherently subjective, thus, with lack of objective criterion, nobody can be someone else's "best" friend. OV3: BoP is on Pro to prove that the North Korean Supreme Leader is his *best* friend. I needn't show anything, much less that he "hates [Pro]". OV4: Pro just shows that the Supreme Leader is his *friend* -- not his "best" friend, as the resolution shows Pro has to prove. 4) Rule 18 My theory shell covers this. There is abuse with the rules, thus the rules can be challenged. Consider this debate as a contract between me and my opponent -- upon accepting, I signed the contract, thus making me follow the rules and resolution. But this contract is problematic -- it is an "unconscionable" contract. This means that at least *one* of the rules is unfair. [4] My theory shell establishes this. Even *if* an unconscionable contract is signed (as I did by accepting and as established by Rule 18), it is invalid by nature of the contract. [4] Cases such as Lloyds Bank Ltd v. Bundy [5], and Harry v. Kreutziger [6] establish this. [4] Finally, that is the purpose of the shell -- critique an unfair or unconscionable rule. Conclusion: The shell still stands, and I have established that I must win. As such, vote Con. == Sources == [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] http://rationalwiki.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://www.bailii.org...[6] http://www.canlii.org...
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

Impressive try; Tejas, But I have a few tricks still up my Sleeve. Arguments: 1.) Rule 30. Con Has Not k'ed Rule 30, Thus Con agrees on it. Thus, If 1.Con Has Noobsniped 2.Con did Not No-Scope his Noobsnipe Then Con Forfeites On Seven Points. Con, (1) As of now, has 4000-5030 ELO Points. I (2) Have 2000-3000. Thus, Cin roughly Doubles my ELO, Counting it as a noobsnipe. So, Con has noobsniped. Con also, Did not "No scope" the debate. Con has made multiple Comments concerning rules, Meaning Con Knew The rules. Con Has also Saw My First attempt to this, Meaning Con has prepared, And did not "no-Scope" his Noobsnipe. 2.) BOP Con also did Not Kritik to two Rules: Rule 16, And Rule17. Con also, Cannot Indefinately prove He is not Heli OR genesis. Again, Source 2, (2) Proves that con had Multiple debates About atheism, Which Is A sufficent cover for someone like genesis. Although I do not have to Press on, Con Must provide Inrefutable proof that Con is NOT heli or genesis. 3.) Kim Jong Un IS My Best friend. This Argument is stalemate. Although I Must provide Inrefutable reason why Kim Jong Un Is, Con does not know my real name, Much less If Kim Jong Un Is my Best friend. However, My Profile Shows That (1) I Have repeatively Defended Kim Jong Un and the regime, And (1) Even had a debate About How North Korea isn't that bad, Which I won. Thus, Kim jong Un would likely be my friend For Defending his regime. In the Other hand, CON cannot provide Evidence saying that Kim jong Un hates me. 4.) Rule 18. Con missed a rule, Rule 18. I have written evidence up there That it said "Upon accepting, You agree to all the rules". Thus, Teja's ARGUMENT IS ILLEGAL. P.S. Please don't kick me out of AOW, Younger senpai ;~; Sources: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... I am 1, Teja's profile is 2.
Upon request: Kim Jong Un Is my best friend

== Case == OVERVIEW: The burden of proof lies on Pro. The resolution is a fact claim, thus is not a plan topic. This indicates that Pro must show the resolution as definitely true. Rule 37.1 states “Con should concede this debate to Pro. ” I argue that: (1) this rule is abuse of debate resolutions itself, and (2) has immense negative theoretical and moral impact. As such, we must prefer the resolution over the rules. Debate Theory: The rules are abusive, since they grant a victory for Pro on acceptance. I’m advocating that the nature of the creation of this debate itself is a reason to vote Pro down. Basically, Pro tries to guarantee his victory on acceptance -- this is abusive. This theoretical argument is topical, since I can object to the rules by challenging them. I argue that due to the abusiveness of Rule 37.1, prefer the resolution. The shell’s postulates: there is a breach of equal grounds for both debaters to argue by this debate. Under standard debate norms, both debaters must have equal grounds for argument, without any unfair advantage, since that would result in inequality, which is morally impermissible. A - Interpretation - Resolutions and rules must be crafted to allow both sides to have equal grounds for argumentation. B - Violation - Rule 37.1 is an explicit violation of A, since it says Con loses by default, which means there is no argumentative front for Con. C - Standards Such a debate is inherently unfair. Equality is the prime objective against morality, and the right to equality is fundamental. I value morality, thus my criterion is equality. Inequality necessitates a branch between right and wrong, thus all concepts of morality are determined by equality. Violating equality explicitly by Rule 37.1 is sufficient reason for the implication to stand. D - Impact - The implication: vote Pro down. You can vote Con because the resolution contradicts rule 37.1, so we can prefer the resolution over rules due to to linguistic understanding. You can vote Con because there was no explicit translation, meaning English text is superior. You can vote Con because equality hinges all morality, and this is a Violation of all standards for equality. The alternative to moral loss is to vote Con, and discard all possible arguments Pro may present after rejecting Rule 37.1. Conduct is critical to any debate setting, and standard appropriate conduct holds more weight than the rules. The shell is sufficient reason to vote Con and prevent this abuse. Don’t let Pro argue that it was my decision to accept -- even without my acceptance, the abuse would have still stood. Another debater could have accepted this, and resulted in them losing. The abuse would impact them. Morality means treating all with fairness and respect, and only I have succeeded in proving that true.