BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Forfeiting without explanation is a conduct violation in DDO

"I have a debate to which someone accepted the challenge, made a brief statement in which the contender announced s/he would be taking a position which was not responsive to the question proposed for debate. Subsequently the contender forfeited the next two rounds." The instigator could ask the contender to take the required position, so simply say its not a troll debate and give the required arguments for his side. Simply saying "I give up" is better than forfeiting. "Clearly by his or her conduct the Contender disapproves of the debate topic and accepted the challenge to keep the debate from going forward. Now the topic is quite probably not a very good one and if that is the case such a factor should be considered in evaluating a participant's forfeiting." I am sure that most members who want to change resolutions or definitions would post in the comments rather than accepting the debate. Even if that is the case, forfeiting is not justified. Even a definitions debate is better than no debate. "Another argument I will make in regard to this is if the Contender enters a debate in bad faith as demonstrated by his or her either not posting an argument that is forfeiting or posting something which clearly fails to address the topic-- then I think the Instigator should have the option to cancel the debate. " That way, instigators who are losing the debate can easily cancel their debate and maintain their ELO. While there are many troll debaters on this site, due to vote moderators there are no troll votes, therefore even if a troll debater accepts the debate, the instigator should go ahead with his normal arguments, point out the fact that the contender has no arguments that relate to the resolution and try their best to make their stand clear. With forfeit, these kind of things can't happen.
Pick your own debate - 1B

I will be choosing the first resolution - pertaining to art. I will assume any thing pertaining to the legality of music censorship takes place in the U. S. , or a first-world country. I think most would agree that places like Saudi Arabia don't allow as much leniency as America, and that this triviality shouldn't concern this debate. So onto the argument! ===== Freedom of Expression ===== As we all should know, the freedom of expression is vital to everyone. It also applies for musicians. They should be allowed to publish their music even if it's considered explicit. Because we should be allowed to voice our opinions and sentiments, musicians should be allowed to do so. ===== Conclusion ===== While I realize my opening argument is short and brief, I have no idea what direction my opponent will go. Therefore, I give him quite the opening ground to develop his counterargument, and I'll haul *ss from there.
Pick your own debate - 1B

Well this is certainly interesting. I'll accept the challenge simply because I like your format. Given that you're opening this debate with the Pro Position, I'll structure my topics and arguments so that I have the Con Position on each issue. Issue #1 - Art Topic: Musical artists are free to publish any music of their choosing regardless if that music is considered obscene or "bad for children." I'll take the Con position and say that musical artists have a responsibility to their audience, and in some cases, their music should be censored. Issue #2 - Religion Topic: The Catholic Church Should Hold True to its Traditional Social Values (ex. anti divorce, anti abortion, women should always stay at home with children etc.) I'll take the Con position and say that the Catholic Church should modify some of their traditional beliefs and adopt those that are more suitable for today's society Issue #3 - Social Issues Topic: Gay people should accept Civil Unions as a valid recognition of their relationships, and not seek the term of Marriage. I'll take the Con position and say that gay couples are entitled to the same terminology as straight couples.
Pick your own debate - 1B

If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes my opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics he wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subject. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three positions my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - The "1B" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
Resolved: It really do be like that sometimes

I honestly don't see how to argue it really don't be like that sometime, But I love a good debate Terms: "It really do be like that sometimes" This memed line references just how life is like that sometimes, How it has it's up and downs and overall a random outcome. Specifically, Life is not random. It is how you make it to be. For example, If you fall down a stairs when doing a Fortnite default dance, It's probably because you were not using the stairs the way they were supposed to, I. E: walking and not performing Fortnite memes. If you get your tongue stuck on a metal pole during the winter, It's probably because you licked it, And not because life be like that sometimes. I counter this topic with a saying: "What goes around, Comes around. " You get everything you deserve, And I mean everything. Always. Eventually, You will have to suffer for every imperfect movement you make. If you trip, You probably weren't looking. If you get arrested, You did something wrong. If life, As your narrative goes, Has a personality, It would be to administer retribution, Always. Rather that life being like that sometimes, One would argue, You be like that sometimes.
Resolved: It really do be like that sometimes

Yesterday, I fell down the stairs because I was doing a fortnite default dance for the TikTok when I said "It really do be like that sometimes" That is why I affirm the following resolution: Resolved: It really do be like that sometimes I offer the following definitions: It: It is a 1986 horror novel by American author Stephen King. Sometimes: Not all the time, But some of the time To uphold the resolution, I hold the Value of Memes highest in this debate To uphold my value, I use the criterion of Pepe the Frog Contention 1 Sex Contention 2 420
The Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

" From that same link you can say that Al Gore, Edward Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and many others in the Democratic Leadership were liars as well?" There are two differences between all the people you listed and George W. Bush. In round 1 I said President Bush lied to the U.S. Congress and the American People. All the people you mentioned were given misinformation by the Bush Administration. John Edwards falls into that category as well. Another is that all the people you mentioned are currently against the war. Out of curriosity, I wonder if my opponent can provide proof that Haliburton has lower prices than all other companies that make weapons. If Klashbash cannot, then he doesn't have any real argument to my logic. In that case, it's an obvious Pro ballot. There is a reason why "Bill and Walmart" doesn't apply to Cheney and Haliburton: Cheney has LOTS of stock in Haliburton, and he is Haliburton's former CEO. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton which makes Cheney rich for two reasons: reason a) Cheney's stock is worth more. reason b) his tax money doesn't pay for these contracts, China does. My evidence about Bush lied about nuclear weapons was to fullfill the burden of proving that Bush lied about two things, not his greed. That is a burden that Klashbash reminded me that I had. That is why his rebuttal that my evidence about the lie about the nukes not applying to my argument that greed and connections didn't apply. My source for saying that at the time the war started that he didn't have evidence of Saddam Hussien being connected to Al Queda is actually from a documentary, called "Why we fight." My source for the yellow letter was from a CNN report made either several months ago or a year ago. In this debate I had arguments and my opponent tried to counter them with his logic. It should be noted that he stopped using his counter argument of fallacies and so he failed to counter in round 1. I have successfully rebuted most his counter arguments from round 2, leaving my arument with a lot more beef to it than his. For this reason it is an obvious Pro ballot. If my opponent doesn't give evidence that Haliburton is the cheapest weapon making company than there would be no reason to vote Con. Once again, thank you, Klashbash, for accepting my challenge.This was one of the funnest debates I was in.
The Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

I apologize for not providing proof that the Bush administration lied about: a) Sadam Hussien's connection to Al Queda. b) Sadam Hussien having nuclear weapons. First of all,a few years ago Bush admitted that his administration had no evidence that Saddam Hussien had any connection to Al Queda. In terms of the nukes, the evidence the Bush administration had about them was in a fake letter, called "the yellow letter. " We now know it is fake because it had lots of false names and dates. The Bush admiatstration could have spent a few minutes on Google to check it's legitamacy, and find out all the evidence was false. My argument about Daddy Bush's holy mission doesn't apply to my thesis, so I'll drop it. I appologizethat in round 1 my arguements weren't crystal clear. Here is my abrieviated logic: 1. The Bush administration lied to us about Iraq, so they must have had there own reasons to start the Iraq War. (proven). Reasons: 1. Vice President Cheney has lots of stocks in a company that makes weapons for wars,Haliburton, got richer because of this war. Cheney is one of themost powerfull Vice Presidents in U. S. history, and very pro war. This is why Cheney was a big factor in the starting of the Iraq War. His getting richer off of Haliburton stocks would have been an obviose factor in his position. 2. One of the reasons that Hussein was a threat to Bush's self interests was his greed for Oil. Bush who has money and connections in big oil, wanted his share of the oil in Iraq. I stand ready for the next round.
The Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

NOTE: I firmly believe that George W. Bush is perhaps one of our worst presidents. However, I could not resist in debating SPF as his arguments are too shaky to ignore. I ask the judges to please vote for whoever was the better arguer. Let us proceed then shall we? "GREED: 1.One issue about Iraq is Oil." Yes… and? "2.Bush is well CONNECTED to Big Oil. (Daddy Bush has lots of money in Big Oil, and for Bush junior, theres allways the Oil Lobby.) 3.Haliburton is a corporation that makes weapons for wars. Cheney was Haliburton's CEO, and has enormous amounts of stocks in Haliburton. 4. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton durring the Iraq War, making Haliburton, and Cheney(who has lots of stocks in Haliburton) richer." Guilty by mere association is not a legitimate argument. "CONNECTIONS: 1.Bush is well connected to Big Oil." You're repeating yourself. You've already presented this premise in #2 of "Greed." Once again, guilty by association is a logical fallacy that assumes mere association substitutes for evidence of conspiracy. "2. Bush senior's failure to get Sadam Hussien has made that Bush Junior's holy mission." This is an unsupported assertion. Prove it. "3. Cheney and Haliburton." This is guilty by association yet again. Give it a rest. "The Bush administration lied to the US Congress and to the American people about two things: A) That Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queda. B) That Saddam Hussien had Nuclear Weapons." These are unsupported assertions. The burden of proof is on you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bush administration deliberately misinformed the American people. The fact that his administration may have said one thing, but it turned out to be false, does not prove it was a lie. There are other plausible explanations such as being mistaken. Since you asserted that the Bush administration purposely distorted the truth then I'll ask you to back it up with evidence.
The Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

My argument is simple,the Iraq war was started by greed, and connections. GREED: 1.One issue about Iraq is Oil. 2.Bush is well CONNECTED to Big Oil. (Daddy Bush has lots of money in Big Oil, and for Bush junior, theres allways the Oil Lobby.) 3.Haliburton is a corporation that makes weapons for wars. Cheney was Haliburton's CEO, and has enormous amounts of stocks in Haliburton. 4. Many contracts have been made to Haliburton durring the Iraq War, making Haliburton, and Cheney(who has lots of stocks in Haliburton) richer. CONNECTIONS: 1.Bush is well connected to Big Oil. 2. Bush senior's failure to get Sadam Hussien has made that Bush Junior's holy mission. 3. Cheney and Haliburton. FILLING IN THE GAPS: The Bush administration lied to the US Congress and to the American people about two things: A) That Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queda. B) That Saddam Hussien had Nuclear Weapons. So, it is fair to assert that this administration started the war in Iraq. The reasons I listed above show causes of connections and greed for this war.
atheism must be truth, for theism to exist

22. its the way i move my head that lets me know music is petting me 24. the world is nowhere, and i am home so my parents house or a gay club is not to far from the ladies i can undress with my mind 18. people laugh at you when you do stupid things, like believe in god, we know this.. and its not nice to disbelieve unicorn believers when you are not certain the bible is true, like the unicorn believer havnt seen unicorns 21+22. truth will kill you or set you free, i might be satan, ow wait you are a unicorn believer, then i am human, but not your favorit 24+25. i tell the truth, my word is truth, i am not god 26+27. not sure 28. etc.. the truth about god is that god is a lie belief=be lie knowledge=truth, opposite of belief hm to reject the idea of god is to be god, not the slave of a man made god a limit is the awarness of an upgrade
Popular Vote Should be Instituted for the Office of the President

The Electoral College, established on September 6, 1787, is a grand hallmark of the American election process. Before I begin, I would like to explain how the Electoral College works. The system is based off that each state receives as many electoral votes as it has senators and representatives. There are a total of 538 electors. In order for a nominee to be elected president, the candidate must receive 270 or more to win the majority. This system fair and practical for the nation. It allows such larger states as California, Texas, New York, and Florida to have a greater say over smaller states as Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, Alaska, and Kentucky. I say that this system is much more effective than the popular vote.
Popular Vote Should be Instituted for the Office of the President

The electoral college, while a staple of the Presidential election process and highly ingrained into history and tradition should be retired in favor of a popular vote. There have been times in the history of the United States where the electoral college voted in a president that failed to obtain the popular vote. This disconnect between what the people want and the way the system currently works can be rectified by instituting a popular vote to determine the President of the United States of America.
Popular Vote Should be Instituted for the Office of the President

" I say that this system is much more effective than the popular vote." Define Effective. If by effective you mean it allows for the election of a president that would not have otherwise won via popular vote tally of the people - then I would agree. However, not everything must continue as is because of tradition. Voting is done by the people, yet in a state where one holds a dissenting vote, no say do these people have when all electoral votes are given to the victor. Thus it becomes a game for politicians and limits the amount of time they must spend in certain states and guarantees the importance of other states. If the popular vote became the way Presidents were elected it would take the focus off of the party and shine it on each individual's ideas, means, and abilities.
evolution should be taught as an idea. not a fact.

I strongly believe that as it is the overwhelming scientific consensus, and there is a lack of rational opposition to it, it should be taught as fact until the event that a better theory comes along. This is the nature of science. Religion has no theories, in any meaningful sense at least. As a theory, evolution is based on hundreds, if not thousands, of scientific tests, and we can be reasonably sure that it is the most accurate theory. This does not mean that if the scientific consensus changes to another theory as the one with the most evidence supporting it, it would be foolish to stick to evolution, as that is more the nature of religion than science.
evolution should be taught as an idea. not a fact.

There is no adequate proof of the origin of life. an evolutionist would believe in beginnings. But we all know life doesn't come from nothing. And something everyone should know is that Darwin based part of his theory on spontaneous generation. Our fossil record is our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred and it lacks any transitional forms, only fully formed when first present. So again. There is not very good proof of evolution. So why should it be taught as fact.
evolution should be taught as an idea. not a fact.

No observation of macroevolution ( when a species turns into a new one) has been observed. This is briefly documented by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. If evolution is a real process, then how come we have no recorded observations of it happening. Current leading evolutionist, Jeffery Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently stated: "... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzchansky's claim about a new species of fruit flies, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed." Though I am religious, don't automatically count me out. I was taught and I do believe in respecting other's beliefs and ideas. That is exactly what evolution is. A belief and/or idea. I do believe it should be taught, but not as a fact because we have no absolute proof of this. Only theories.
We should ban all immigrants from the United States

I can no longer put off debating you so I'm going to make this worth the wait. Have you noticed that literally everyone you linked is of a Hispanic descent? Also, your first link doesn't work but enough about that. Let's discuss why your points are rubbish. 1. 1st off, the reason why Texas has so few crime by illegal immigrants is because if they are spotted under Texas law they probably will be deported back to let's say Mexico as they do not want to risk publc safety. How are they a public safety risk? Ask Sweden and Germany how mass immigration has gone on for them! 2.To answer your question on 'How can you lead a criminal lifestyle if the country you are running away from commit more crime than you do?' Well to put it simply that doesn't stop you from living a criminal lifestyle, just may make it slightly harder. Oh and by the way, the definition of 'immigrant' according to the United Nations is 'The term migrant can be understood as "any person who lives temporarily or permanently in a country where he or she was not born' so therefore the drug smugglers who make 'trips back and forth' as you put it. ARE STILL IMMIGRANTS! (It's also in the name 'illegal immigrant'http://www.unesco.org...3. To answer section 2a, most of these illegal immigrants have ended up in jail while the '4 in 5 whites and 1 in 3 blacks' I stated ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN IN JAIL as I explained. Just because you commit a crime doesn't mean you'll go to jail. By the way, the numbers are 177,960 out of every 11.2 million will end up in federal prisonhttps://edition.cnn.com...4.2b can be answered by stating the following fact. Foster care system, enough said5.2c is also very easy to answer, if you want to live off the state without working for it. Being unemployed is the way to go, but for those who want to help our economy, we will give them jobs. And to answer your second point the maths actually add up. If we give the jobs taken up by illegal immigrants (3% of the population) and give it to the 4.1% unemployed population of the US. We could comfortably make up those numbers. Oh, and don't give me rubbish how 'we don't want the jobs that illegal immigrants have' we all have to work for a living and none of us want to do it so how do you get the idea that some people are the opposite?http://www.pewresearch.org...6. To go back to the subject of drug cartels of course they would flood to low-income areas. If you go back to my previous round argument you will notice that the 'drug cartel map' are majority of the time, in areas with an income below national average of $59,039https://www.businessinsider.com.au...
We should ban all immigrants from the United States

1. I'm not saying that all illegal immigrants don't pay tax, I'm saying that they have a lifestyle that is criminal by our standards. For example, Central Americans (Mexico,El Salvador,Guatemala and Honduras especially) are responsible for 74% of all illegal immigrants in the US and do you know how many of them commit violent crimes? 12 percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences. Why are we allowing this to be allowed exactly despite only making up 13% of the US population.http://www.foxnews.com...2. We weren't talking about you or even about ADHD. I suggest you talk about the topic but anyway, 'who hasn't commited a crime?' let's see here um... 2 in 3 black people and 4 in 5 whites! Yes I'm talking jail statistics so this number is probably lower but oh well. Would I deport a child because of their parents? Yes of course I would and I would also deport the parents as well. As I said they are criminals by ILLEGALLY entering the US and should be treated as such and the economic benefits to illegal immigration? Well sure it may be good for the rich and the immigrants but what about us? 'The 50-75,000 jobs given to DACA eligable illegal immigrants' (1) has to come out of someones pocket and that pocket is out of true native Americans. So to replace them simply give jobs to the 4.1% of Americans who are unemployed. (2) Easy fix!(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) https://www.bls.gov...3.3a is as you said just 'purely opinion' and that opinion is wrong. Maybe you should ask their victims how that theory has worked for them! Oh and by the way, the reason that may come up is because of like you said trying to stay low and just rebuild their lives and that may work for 'civilians' but not for the drug cartel or the hitmen or mafia ringleaders who flood into the US like crazy would say otherwise and as I proved, facts back me up here as well but I might as well. I would also like to say that you reasoning for this crime wave by migrants is true. The reason why they are poorer is wrong. It's because of these drug cartel leaders and have you notcied that 'low income' is associated with areas that drug cartels thrive in? Coincidence? I think not.https://www.businessinsider.com.au...