BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Don't Like You

There is a reason why I can't stand you but I just can't put my finger on it. All my life I have passed by you and just get this urge to repel. I just can't take it and really don't like you. That is all I have to say. No hard feelings but your just not my type of person. Maybe someday we could be friends, but for now I just don't see it happening. Good luck in your future and have a nice pleasant day. (I was just being sarcastic with that last sentence.) Really though, have a bad day. The End
Debate.org's "coming soon" additions will be a good thing.

Case in Point. I will not further add to my points but maintain them as they are. These additions share traits with social networks, and all take away from the main purpose of this site, which is debating. They go hand in hand. If the debating deteriorates, then the sites reason for existing diminishes as well. These updates will only distract users from the debates and focus in more on themselves (SN). Thus, they are a bad thing for this site. In other places, not so much, but here they have no place. A final reminder to the reader: as I said in the beginning, your voting is not determined by your own feeling on the additions, but on which side proved their point better. Any influence my opponent or I has on had on your opinion is only a by product. Darth_Grievous_42 Out.
According to the American Heritage dictionary, the contender in this debate is NOT an idiot.

Logical-Master! Alright lets do this! I will be using your first definition. Idiot - A foolish or stupid person. Notice the "or" sitting in there. Thus I will limit the definition to "foolish" and explain to you why my life has been foolish. Making me an idiot, under your definition. Foolish - 1.resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech. 2.lacking forethought or caution. 3.trifling, insignificant, or paltry. A. I spent 8th grade through Sophmore year of highschool playing an online MMORPG called Final Fantasy 11. This resulted in a horrific rift between me and real life friends. As well as an amazing distancing from everything that mattered to me. Not only that but the over 10,000 hours i played that game for did not help me in any way shape or form. Except maybe to reduce my eye sight to its now 20/80 status. Which leads me to my second point. B. I have been driving since I was 14 years of age under Montana State law and for the majority of that I have had a vision of 20/80. This has been foolish in the sense that because I have not been wearing glasses I have put others lives in potential un-needed danger. C. To my third point. I spent approximately 13 years of life in school. While I think school is very good I don't think it benefited by life as much as it could of. The wise choice in my opinion would have been to have advocated for some form of either home schooling or more advanced study. Thus over 13 years of life were spent in a foolish manner. D. Under the definition of foolish I feel my entire life up to this point (a.k.a right before college) has been spent in a very "lacking forethought" manner. Thus my life has been spent up to this point in a foolish way. Therefor the majority of life has been spent in a foolish manner. Therefor I, am an idiot. E. "My argument: Because my opponent is capable of using debate.org, he/she cannot be labeled by either of these definitions." >> On the contrary. I am wasting my life at this point and not putting in possible forethought to what negative consequences this will have on my life. I am not sure what will happen in the future because of this debate and I have not thought about it! This makes me foolish. This makes me an idiot. You my friend, are currently debating an idiot, under the American heritage dictionary.
According to the American Heritage dictionary, the contender in this debate is NOT an idiot.

First, I'd like to present the definition of idiot which is provided by American Heritage dictionary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This idï¿½iï¿½ot (ĭd'ē-ət) Pronunciation Key n. A foolish or stupid person. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that out of the way, the job of the contender will be to prove that he/she is an idiot according to either of these definitions provided in the American Heritage dictionary. My argument: Because my opponent is capable of using debate.org, he/she cannot be labeled by either of these definitions. I now stand ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
Debates are informal on Debate.org

I turn down my opponents concession, He did actual work in this debate and thus I would request that no one vote. If he had conceded without doing research then he would not learn and understand our community as he does now. Thus I would like to request that any and all votes be left as 0pts to Pro, 0Pts to Con, and instead leave a tag to a place for new debaters! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- @Pro, even if you had made your case and not conceded my response would look like this: Contentions: Debates encompasses all Debates on DDO: Because the resolution draws ties to all debates on DDO my opponent must show that all debates are informal, that means any debate provided by me below would require justification showing it is actually informal: [1]http://www.debate.org... Very formal, points made and displayed while still retaining a fun topic. [2]http://www.debate.org... Formal and fun to read, Covers points and is organized. [3]http://www.debate.org... Formal and thought provoking. [4]http://www.debate.org... Formal, point clear and concise. [5]http://www.debate.org...- Australias./1/ Formal and organized [6]http://www.debate.org... great topic, formal, clear, concise and fun! [7]http://www.debate.org... Very formal, points made and displayed. [8]http://www.debate.org... Interesting altogether, very formal, and much more serious then voldemort and dumbledore... [9]http://www.debate.org... Interesting, formal, and organized. [10]http://www.debate.org... Organized, formal, and very thought provoking. [11]http://www.debate.org... Interesting topic, formal, and clear. [12]http://www.debate.org... Not my favorite topic, But still clear and concise! [13]http://www.debate.org... Points are clear and formal. [14]http://www.debate.org... Very formal, one of my FAV debates! [15]http://www.debate.org... Love this debate, clear, concise and formal. [16]http://www.debate.org... Good debate, formal, points are clear. Burden Of Proof: My opponent must show that all debates on DDO are informal, if they fail to do so then they lose today's debate. Today's debate is evidence that debates can be formal, rules and functionality supports this consensus. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Im glad however that you looked into it and found that the site is formal in nature and thus I hope to see you contribute to other debates! PLEASE DONT VOTE IN MY FAVOR, VOTE NULL AND LIKE INFORMATION FOR NEW DEBATERS!!! here is my link: http://www.debate.org...
Debates are informal on Debate.org

I accept, here are my questions:Are you Fatihah? Fatihah said the same thing and refuses to debate because he loses and then blames the informativeness of DDO, so it would make sense that he would make a new account to be able to debate.Are you hoping for any specific set of rules outside of what was stated? such as PF rules and limitations or LD?Just confirming, you stated in comments that Debates means All DDO Debates, Correct?Can I wish you Good luck here?
Debates are informal on Debate.org

Acceptance RoundFor Convenience, Debate.org can be Referred to as DDO. Please read the following very carefully:Definitions (To avoid confusion)Debate.org: This very SiteDebate: As in Debate.org Debates (one member challenges another to discuss a topic, pointing out facts and arguing points to support their side of the argument. Each debate is made up of 1-5 rounds in which each member can post their arguments and rebut the arguments made by their opponent. Once both sides have posted their arguments, the members of the community vote for the winner. [1])Informal: Not following a format like Opening-Argument-Rebuttal-Conclusion, and/or Throwing a paragraph instead of very clear pointsSource: [1] http://www.debate.org... What's an Online Debate?DetailsCurrently, the title says it all. If you have any more questions, either post in the comments, or in Round 1. I will answer your questions in the comment section or Round 2.Rounds1. Acceptance Round, Do not start your arguments! Simply Say “I Accept” and ask additional questions that you might have2. Original Arguments ONLY3. Rebuttals for Round 2’s Arguments, And NO MORE than 2 new arguments4. Rebuttals for Round 3, And NO MORE than 2 new arguments5. Rebuttals for Round 4, NO NEW ARGUMENTS, Closing StatementsRules1. To make this a fair debate, The Contender should not rebut the points the instigator made in the same round. They should only rebut points made by their opponents in the last round.2. If either side forfeits, The Instigator/Contender should not bring up new arguments, add to them, add any additional references, or Rebut arguments made by the other side.3. Do not personally harass your opponents, or make offensive statements or jokes.4. Remember to use Common sense.5. If either side Makes arguments in Round 1 or 5, they will and have to be ignored.
Atheists are completely lost.

Let me outline what an atheist really is. An atheist is any individual that does not believe a god or gods exist. First, let me say you cannot even take this position with the amount of information we currently have. Second, most atheists argue against organized religion, not monotheism or polytheism as general theories. What is a God? 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. synonyms:the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god" Throughout history these "Gods" have taken on many forms. Science has obviously debunked many religious theories. However, none of this supports the notion that all monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs are wrong, or distant from reality. Atheists have grown into a different monster these days. They don't argue against the right points, and because of that they do circles in religious debates for hours. Scientific Views No science, in any form, has ever uncovered anything to dispute monotheism and polytheism as general concepts. You may dislike the current interpretations, but to throw these ideas away solely because of that is ignorant and not in-line with reality. Atheists are not rational thinkers. They put a wall up and refuse to even study monotheism or polytheism as theories for the origins of life. I think we need to seriously step out of the box on this one. Physics does not come into conflict with a monotheistic or polytheistic view. Evolution does not conflict. However, it may conflict with the Bible, but you cannot link atheism strictly with one sector of monotheistic or polytheistic beliefs as an atheist denies all forms. Atheists tend to have a very narrow view of alternative views, labeling them all as "magic" or something similar. That's fine, and I can see the logic in that. However, to say that you "disbelieve" in the existence of a god or gods is ignorant. At most, you could say that you are unsure. Atheists should realize how much of their own belief structure is pure speculation, just like any religion. I will save the rest of this for round 2.
DDO should have a debate category for "Environment."

To clarify, I am not claiming that an 'environment' category is the most crucial thing DDO needs, simply that there should be one. Also, I don't think it would be necessary to relocate current or past debates, but to give a home to future debates. There are some topics that come up more frequently than others. By my count, there are six debates within the first five pages of debates that would fit in an 'Environment' caregory. "Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.""How is globalization affecting caterpillar?""Animal Cosmetics Testing"""This House Believes that Air Pollution is one of the biggest threats in the 21st Century""Businesses should charge extra for bags.""Tomatoes are vegetables"Granted, one of those are mine but regardless! Most of them were in a miscellaneous topic, so if a new DDO member came a long looking for some green action (not entirely unlikely), there should be a concentrated place to look.
DDO should have a debate category for "Environment."

Just because these three categories are their own, it doesn't mean that Enviroment should. Health, Misc, Philosophy, Place-Travel, and Society all can support the Enviroment theme. It would be too much hassle to make the new category, and then move a bunch of debates that fit with the new theme into the new theme. They shouldn't waste their time on that, they have too much other things going on, like moderating this site better.
DDO should have a debate category for "Environment."

My problem exactly. Topics such as "Which is more important: the environment or the economy?" "Is industrial development more important than protecting the environment?" "Is organic food better for the environment?" and "Is ecotourism more beneficial or detrimental to wildlife and our ecosystem?" all end up in misc or something else, but they're all environmental topics. If "fashion," "travel," and "cars" have their own topics, "environment should have a topic also. Animal rights, environmantal protection, and the existance of global warming are all considered big issues [1] that could fit under the category of "environment." [1] http://www.debate.org...;
People planning to buy a new car who belive in capitolism should buy a Ford not a Chrysler or GM car

My opponent is pretty much saying that because GM and Chrysler are government-run, they will be able to beat Ford and give everybody bad deals. The thing about a capitalist society is that once this happens, another company will be able to come in with better goods and sell them. The logic behind capitalism is that people get to buy whatever they want if they think that it is a good deal. So it's not that they should buy a Ford, it's that they should buy whatever they want. That's the great thing about America. They probably don't want to buy one though, seeing as they have so many less people, and eventually government is going to have to let it die. http://money.cnn.com...
People planning to buy a new car who belive in capitolism should buy a Ford not a Chrysler or GM car

Capitalism: "an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled for profit rather than by the state." [1] Why do you believe that capitalism will not survive? If it dies, then it will be reborn once people realize its benefits over whatever other option they have come up with. It will never be truly gone. You say that Ford has played by the rules. They have. But what does that have to do with it? In a capitalist society, people buy whatever car they believe is the best deal for them. If a capitalist thinks that a GM or Chrysler car is a better deal than a Ford car, then he or she should buy the GM or Chrysler car. The other question is whether or not we should give them bailouts. We shouldn't. But as long as our tax money is going into these cars, why not buy it? It's not like it makes much of a difference. That is what capitalism is about: Getting the most profit. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
People planning to buy a new car who belive in capitolism should buy a Ford not a Chrysler or GM car

As I watch our Govt nationalize and socialize and subsidize virtually every aspect of our lives, I have come to the conclusion that capitalism can not and will not survive much longer, but then again that is most likely the plan in the first place. I can not prove that capitalism is under attack but actions speak louder than words and I see nothing that the current administration is doing with regard to economics that even resembles capitalism. Ford has played by the rules. Ford has not accepted any kind of bail out. With GM and Chrysler about to receive a never ending bottomless pit of taxpayer money to prop them up indefinitely regardless of whether or not they make cars people want and buy puts Ford in an impossible position to compete. Ford has to make cars that people want and Ford has to make cars that people will buy or they will go bankrupt do to lack of profit. GM and Chrysler on the other hand don't have to worry at all. They will make what ever the Govt tells them to. If it is a complete failure so what, The govt isn't going to let them go under. But poor old Ford, they have to play by the rules or they are dead. There will be no bailout for Ford, they will just disappear and all that will be left is govt run GM and Chrysler. You will be forced to buy what ever they make regardless of whether you like it or not. Buying a Ford will keep freedom of choice alive in the auto industry. Buying a Ford will reward Ford for playing by the rules. Buying a GM or Chrysler is rewarding failure. Buying a Ford will send a message to govt that we don't want what some self serving self righteous pampas politician thinks we should drive car. Ford deserves to be rewarded for sticking it out and not taking the easy road like GM and Chrysler. If Americans who believe in freedom of choice and capitalism want the auto industry in America to make cars they want, buy a Ford. Buy a GM or Chrysler and promote socialism and the govt takeover of all auto industries. Ford can't compete against a govt owned business with a never ending bottomless pit of money. It is unfair, UN-American and anti capitalist to allow GM and Chrysler this disgusting and vile advantage over Ford.
People planning to buy a new car who belive in capitolism should buy a Ford not a Chrysler or GM car

"Con equates capitalism to the process of making cheese? con also considers the rules by which capitalism function are also irrelevant but anyone who intends to invest must operate by them so how can they be irrelevant. " By certain logic, one can equate anything to anything. The rules can be irrelevant when they are not what this debate is about. "Cons assumption that we will have a better President is pure conjecture and wishful thinking. It does nothing to support his argument. As far as I know and hear Obama is the greatest President that ever lived, he has been compared to God. What makes con think Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It is very possible that it is Obama's plan to drive Ford out of business and create a govt monopoly of the auto industry and nationalize it so it can dictate what kinds of cars will be built from now on based on what govt policy wonks think is best for you. " What, are you saying that it is possible to have a worse one? Oh no. .. . If that is Obama's plan, then there is little we can do to stop it for the next several years. We can only HOPE that these bills are not passed. "Con fails to explain how capitalism is to survive if some businesses are forced to play the rules of capitalism and others are afforded a bottomless pit of money with no risk of going out of business. " The pit is not bottomless. It only lasts as far as it takes for us to realize that Obama's plans are stupid. Once that happens, the pit has a bottom: the top. Capitalism would bounce back once the people realize that it's better. "The government doesn't have to 'force' GM or Chrysler out of business. I thought Gm and Chrysler had to stay in business? Or the entire economy would collapse. Which is it. " What? If GM or Chrysler went out of business, then life would continue. We should let them die. "No, I wouldn't. Then what would you have us believe? " You're PRO. I'm CON. You just tried to defend yourself against one of your own questions. I never said you did anything. I would like you believe that capitalists should buy what they want, no matter what it is. "No, I don't. Then what does promote competition and capitalism? " You're answering questions you asked me. Why? Greed and need promote capitalism, which promotes competition. "Because we would have a better government who learns from mistakes. I hope. Con Hopes. This does nothing to advance his argument. " That's what you said, not me. Are you debating me, or are you trying to debate yourself? I can't refute arguments you make against yourself. "Con 'hopes' it will all go away. Not a very convincing argument. " Don't you hope it will go away? Besides, this is irrelevant. In conclusion, by the very concept of capitalism, capitalists should buy what they want. End of story.
People planning to buy a new car who belive in capitolism should buy a Ford not a Chrysler or GM car

"The logic behind cheese is not "the curd of milk separated from the whey and prepared in many ways as a food." Con equates capitalism to the process of making cheese? con also considers the rules by which capitalism function are also irrelevant but anyone who intends to invest must operate by them so how can they be irrelevant. "After Obama's term runs out, we will have a better president, one who we can hope will let the company die. People are going to realize how wasteful this is, and choose somebody who knows what he or she is doing." Cons assumption that we will have a better President is pure conjecture and wishful thinking. It does nothing to support his argument. As far as I know and hear Obama is the greatest President that ever lived, he has been compared to God. What makes con think Obama doesn't know what he is doing. It is very possible that it is Obama's plan to drive Ford out of business and create a govt monopoly of the auto industry and nationalize it so it can dictate what kinds of cars will be built from now on based on what govt policy wonks think is best for you. Con fails to explain how capitalism is to survive if some businesses are forced to play the rules of capitalism and others are afforded a bottomless pit of money with no risk of going out of business. The government doesn't have to "force" GM or Chrysler out of business. I thought Gm and Chrysler had to stay in business? Or the entire economy would collapse. Which is it. "Con would have you believe that this is fair and pro capitalism." No, I wouldn't. Then what would you have us believe? "He would have you believe that giving one entity all the advantages of endless govt subsidies promotes competition and choice." No, I don't. Then what does promote competition and capitalism? How can anyone planning[sic] to start a new auto company possibly succeed against a govt run business that can never fail and undercut them at every level?" Because we would have a better government who learns from mistakes. I hope. Con Hopes. This does nothing to advance his argument. Con "hopes" it will all go away. Not a very convincing argument.