BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Titanic was Switched with the Olympic

The 'Olympic' did have something of a bad track record in her younger days, running aground and colliding with 'HMS Hawke'. After this collision the 'Olympic' was brought back into dry dock for repairs to be carried out. This brought both the Titanic and the 'Olympic' together for the last time. Some people believe that this is what then happened: The 'Olympic' was quite badly damaged, it would cost an awful lot more to repair it than was first thought, and, it would delay the launching of the Titanic by months. So, what could they do? They needed a reliable ship, and needed it for 10th April 1912. With time rapidly running out they decided it would be easier to do a botch job on the 'Olympic' and concentrate on the Titanic. But it was already too late. With days to go before sailing day the Titanic was not yet ready, and the 'Olympic' was still sitting barely sea worthy in dock. It is here that the unthinkable happened. Bruce Ismay and J. P. Morgan, realise that if the Titanic does not go to sea on April 10th they are going to have serious money problems soon after with refunds, this was something they could simply not afford, especially when the price of coal was at an all time high due to the coal strikes. White Star needed all the money and coal they could get. Getting in Captain Smith they told him the plans. They were going to cancel all other White Star Crossings for a week surrounding the Titanic sailing, so that they would not have to pay for coal, also, those passengers affected by this would be offered a cheap ticked on Titanic so that White Star made money on it. Captain Smith was paid a lot of money if, on the 5th day he would sink his ship, everyone would be safe, as they would make sure ships were in the vicinity of the accident. Smith agreed. Meanwhile in the dock, the 'Olympics' lifeboats were being offloaded and placed on the Titanic, and vice versa, any object with the Titanic's name on were put onto the 'Olympic' and again vice versa. This is my first debate so do not go hard on me plz.
The Titanic was Switched with the Olympic

I, the master historian of this website, hereby open up this debate for challenging. What Are We Debating?For a while now, I have learned of a conspiracy theory that I believe is totally wrong and want to rebut it. The theory goes that the ocean liner RMS Titanic was switched with her older sister-ship, RMS Olympic. The reason being that the Olympic had a collision with the warship HMS Hawke and its owners, the White Star Line, believed that the liner was financially ruined, so they decided to switch the two ships and ram the Olympic into an iceberg in order to collect insurance money on what was thought to be the Titanic.I am debating that this did not happen while Pro must debate that the Olympic was switched with the Titanic.No trolling and no semantics.Round 1 for an introduction.
should people be allowed to sue fastfood restaurants

I'll repeat: he question you set forth is "should people be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants?"... You ask "what is the point if you and many people sue fast-food restaurants and you lose consistently?"- The point is that we are exercising our FREEDOM to use the court system, which is supported by our tax dollars, to hold a party accountable that we believe has wronged us...and what evidence do you have that people are filing all these pointless suits and losing? You said that I and "many people" sue fast-food restaurants...I've never done so...I'll assume you were just making a hypothetical. You then go off topic into "if you need to point the finger"- I'm not pointing a finger...you are...at fat people. (this whole thing about diets is off topic and irrelevant) Finally you end with "it is not mcdonalds fault so don't be annoying and sue someone that is providing what you want."- I agree that people should not file annoying or frivolous lawsuits, however that is very different than saying people should not be ALLOWED to bring lawsuits against fast-food restaurants. Someone can think that tenants shouldn't be allowed to sue their landlords because most of their suits are frivolous, but we'd all agree that a tenant's right to sue their landlord should not be taken away from them for the simple fact that not all tenants file frivolous suits. Bottom line- People SHOULD be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants. For example, what if you slip on a broken tile in a fast food restaurant and break your arm...don't you want to be ALLOWED to sue that restaurant for the damage they have caused you (medical bills, pain and suffering)? To answer your latest argument: Saying that people shouldn't sue frivolously and TAKING THAT RIGHT away from them are two very very different things.... My point about someone slipping was that if you slip AT THE FAULT OF THE RESTAURANT...like a said in my example, "if you slip on a broken tile"...the broken tile is the fault of the establishment...they have to, by law, put up a sign or in some way make the patrons aware of the danger on their property.
should people be allowed to sue fastfood restaurants

My opponent says that people should be able to exercise the right to sue restaurants. He also said that they shouldn't be suing them frivously. Yet people do that. They sue McDonalds and they lose. So they sue them again and they lose, and again, and again, yet they lose. If that does not annoy you then what does? Also my opponent said that if you slipped and broke your leg at a fastfood restaurant, you would sue them to get all of your medical bills paid. That statement is out of order. If you slip, that is your own fault. It is ridiculous to sue someone for slipping at their property. That is like saying I will sue someone for tackling me and breaking my arm at a football game. Things like that happen and it gets annoying when you get sued for the same thing for 6 years. The only people happy are the lawyers that get paid for this and then you have to pay court cost if you lose so stop wasting your money and vote for Con.
should people be allowed to sue fastfood restaurants

You are going off topic... The question you set forth is "should people be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants?"... You ask "what is the point if you and many people sue fast-food restaurants and you lose consistently?"- The point is that we are exercising our FREEDOM to use the court system, which is supported by our tax dollars, to hold a party accountable that we believe has wronged us...and what evidence do you have that people are filing all these pointless suits and losing? You said that I and "many people" sue fast-food restaurants...I've never done so...I'll assume you were just making a hypothetical. You then go off topic into "if you need to point the finger"- I'm not pointing a finger...you are...at fat people. (this whole thing about diets is off topic and irrelevant) Finally you end with "it is not mcdonalds fault so don't be annoying and sue someone that is providing what you want."- I agree that people should not file annoying or frivolous lawsuits, however that is very different than saying people should not be ALLOWED to bring lawsuits against fast-food restaurants. Someone can think that tenants shouldn't be allowed to sue their landlords because most of their suits are frivolous, but we'd all agree that a tenant's right to sue their landlord should not be taken away from them for the simple fact that not all tenants file frivolous suits. Bottom line- People SHOULD be allowed to sue fast-food restaurants. For example, what if you slip on a broken tile in a fast food restaurant and break your arm...don't you want to be ALLOWED to sue that restaurant for the damage they have caused you (medical bills, pain and suffering)?
should people be allowed to sue fastfood restaurants

My opponent said that people should have the right to sue fastfood restaurants. First off, what is the point if you and many people sue fast food restaurants and you lose consistently? Second off, if you need to point the finger, point it at diet programs. Some diet programs do not help you lose weight. If you spend all of this money on a program that doesn't even work, then you should try your best to at least to get your money back. Finally, is it actually fast food that makes people fat? I can eat 3 double cheeseburgers, 1 large fry, and a large drink and still weigh 110 pounds. It is how active you are that also puts a factor on if you gain weight. So if that is the case then it is not mcdonalds fault so don't be annoying and sue someone that is providing what you want.
should people be allowed to sue fastfood restaurants

I do not believe that people should sue fast food restaurants. Lets start with the two reasons why people should not have the capability to sue fast food rerstaurants: 1) People sue because they eat a hamburger and get fat. 2) There is something in their food and they get disgusted. For those who gain weight go to weight loss programs, yet they don't lose weight. So instead of those suing fast food restaurants because they got fat, sue the weight loss programs because the program did not work and you spent alot of money to do that. And for those who want to sue fast food because they had something in your drink, go inside and ask them for annother one plain and simple.
Resolved: Lannan13 should be introduced into the DDO Hall of Fame.

Alrighty I'm arguing that Lannan13 deserves to be in the DDO Hall of Fame.Contention 1: Lannan13 has done great things/Subpoint 1: Debates I have, as of the point that I am typing this debate argument, participated in 250 debates. Out of those debates I have been declared victor in 141 of those debates. My debate record is 141-83-20. (http://www.debate.org...) I have done great things in the world of debate like defeating Imabench (http://www.debate.org...), Mouthwash (http://www.debate.org...), and even my opponent here. (http://www.debate.org...) In the DDO Debate Leaderboard Rankings is where my work really shows. DDO Debates Completed- 6th overall. (http://www.debate.org...)DDO Debate Wins- 12th overall. (http://www.debate.org...)DDO Losses Overall-6th overall (http://www.debate.org...)DDO Percentile- 99.95% (in tie with RationalThinker)You can see here that I have put a serious amount of debates into this site.Subpoint 2: VotingI'm currently on the DDO voting committe set-up by the Bladerunner administration and led by Whiteflame. I have put a ton of votes into this website and have prevented many debates from going unvoted on. I, at the time of writting this argument, have 1,004 debate votes and I rank 6th on the voting leader board. ( http://www.debate.org...) Subpoint 3: PollsThere has been debate on wheater or not that I am the king of the polls section (the opponent to that title is Yay). I'm currently the leader of the Poll votes with 5,421 polls voted on. (http://www.debate.org...). In poll topics I am 12th on the list with 110 topics (http://www.debate.org...). I am 16th on the list for Poll answers with 477 (http://www.debate.org...)Contention 2: MafiaIn my 2 1/2 years of being here, soon to be three in December, I have been in countless mafia games to the point of having dreams were I dream of playing mafia and being on DDO. (http://www.debate.org...) I am also known on DDO for being 'that guy' in mafia. In Kyro90's mafia game I outed myself as being scum then told everyone who the mafia was. (http://www.debate.org...) I was then sortly banned from all mafia games. On Airmax1227's term the ban was lifted and I was then able to play mafia again where I better myself. I'm known for mafia, just ask the people who were in the game and are still around; Airmax, Budda, TUF, etc...Contention 3: Forum PostsMy opponent states that I waste time playing the Last Comment Wins thread and mafia, but this is untrue. I have spent time in every forum and have posted productively in each. I have over 11k forum posts.Contention 4: Memeriable things.Besides what I have already listed I am memeriable for many things. Like Kansas Fried Chicken. Everytime I see KFC I instinly put Kansas Fried Chicken. I am also known for being a conservative as I am constantly attacked by Liberals for my views on Gay Marriage and Torture. I'm so known for being a Conservative that even Hall of Famer Mikal stated that I was a notable Conservative in his couple's thread.
Resolved: Lannan13 should be introduced into the DDO Hall of Fame.

I will make a simple syllogism as my only argument.P1: If lannan13 doesn't deserve to be introduced to the HoF, then he shouldn't be introduced to the HoFP2: Lannan13 doesn't deserve to be introduced to HoFC: Lannan shouldn't be introduced to HoFDefending P1: this is easy. If one does not deserve to be introduced to the hall, then it is considered "immoral" and would not be allowed by most people, including the moderator.Defending P2: This is a bit harder. However, if you look closer at the hall of fame, everyone has something special about them that allows them into the Hall of Fame. Danielle produced ideas, as Airmax said. Bluesteel has insanely good debating skills and he's insanely good at mafia. Innomen "is a man known for his rationality, his wisdom, and also for fundamentally changing the position of the presidency of DDO."Even Izbo10 is put into the Hall of Fame for his insults toward people that ultimately bought forth his ban but also the Trial System. However, Lannan13 has nothing. Good debating skills? Not exactly, as we can note from his rather lowly elo. Spreading a meme across DDO like Koopin's "Dance magic dance" as well as "kfc"?? Nope, nada. Really good at mafia? I don't think being good at mafia is all it takes to get into DDO. A smart man who posts cool stuff on the forums or spread ideas? There is nothing that suggests otherwise. Just to give an example, even flipping to a random page of posts, we see Lannan13 spending tons of posts in mafia, so he's definitely not the philosophical/deep-thinker type. [1] In addition, he also spends his time surfing DDO and trying to win the unwinnable "last comment wins" as well as "101th post wins", showing how he really uses his posts. [2]In conclusion lannan13 is just far too normal. There's nothing that suggests he should be introduced into the Hall of Fame.Speaking of Hall of Fame, on a completely unrelated point, we should really get GCL into there. She almost made it! Next time, Marie, next time! :D[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...
Resolved: Lannan13 should be introduced into the DDO Hall of Fame.

Rules burden of Proof is shared. First round is acceptance and defintions by Pro and Con will begin their Contentions. Round 2 is Contentions and Rebuttles by Pro and Con will make his Rebuttle and Conclusion. Round 3 is Rebuttles and Conclusions by Pro and Con will end the debate by saying "No Round as Agreed upon. "No semantics. No Trolling. If any of these points are violated then all seven points are forfeited by that person. Lannan13- This user (. http://www.debate.org...)DDO Hall of Fame- The DDO Hall of Fame can be seen here. (. http://www.debate.org...)DDODDO- Debate Dot Org
More Desalination Plants in California

I cannot find any way to try to explain my points any more plainly. What I keep noticing is that you are basing your arguments on "what-ifs". what if you're wrong? What if you're right? We do not know, but we do know what has happened in the past, and that should help us to improve the future. Enough said. To the voters, if you think the situation should be handled logically, and not based on hunches, I urge you to vote con. Thank you.
More Desalination Plants in California

For a year and a half! I live in Northern California, and we have currently been using the Sacramento River. We have been in a drought for about two months and people were having problems. A year and a half! And you may be right about the drinking hairy man water, but the difference of drinking water that a hairy man has bathed every two years and drinking water that a hairy man has bathed in once a week. A very big difference! And when you pee and drink it, it may work for a little while, but when you drink water you use a lot of the water for nutrient uses in your body. And you didn't answer my number 2 question. "2) What would have Texas done if the drought stayed." So I'm done, think about it. You got the floor.
More Desalination Plants in California

The state of Texas got their water from the lakes and rivers flowing throughout the state. Also, like it or not, you probably already have drank water a big hairy man bathed in. Water is a nonexhaustable resource, meaning we reuse it because we cannot create new water, so if we were not going to reuse the water that we have used, we would not have any water left to use. Reusing water has worked for so long that they are even doing it in space. People turn their pee into water and use it. It is purified, it is safe, and it works. Your turn Pro.
More Desalination Plants in California

And my answer is this; do boats need 35,979 feet of water to move. I will go back to your recent idea of water treatment plants. It is a good idea. Except with that method you may end up drinking the same water that a hairy man bathed in. Think about it. Would you want to drink the same water that a hairy man bathed in? This is a question for all of the voters. Would you want to drink the same water that a hairy man bathed in. And about a voluntary regulation, what are you going to say " people of California, the is going to be a drought, so volunteer to not use as much water". People know that there is a drought in California. It hadn't rained for over a month. So if people were going to volunteer to not use as much water, they would have a long time ago! And I have two questions for you. 1) Where exactly did Texas get their water for a year and a half? 2) What would Texas had done if the drought stayed. Now you think about what I said Con, ok. " Now I pass the microphone over to you"
More Desalination Plants in California

My question is simply this; how is the water in the ocean being wasted? People use the ocean water for sea salt, transportation, etc. I wouldn't call that wasting. Also, I was not inferring that we set regulations that would force people to limit their water usage. I only propose a voluntary regulation. I am from Texas, so I will use the approximately one year to a year and a half drought that we just got out of not very long ago. Texas is a coastal state, but we didn't start making desalination plants that could emit harmful emissions while in use that could further ruin the air we breathe. Sometimes it just takes time, sometimes it takes more. But, it is not necessary to spend a lot of money and resources to build something to fix one problem, and possibly cause another one. Just think about what I am saying Pro. I pass the microphone over to you. Whenever you're ready, then fire away!
More Desalination Plants in California

Or people could learn to waste less water, create more water treatment plants in order to clean and purify the water that has been used, therefore that water can be used again. It happens all over the world; it works just fine for them, so why not California too? Just because they are on the coast of the Pacific Ocean does not mean they have to use the water from the ocean. That should be a last resort. There are things people could still do right now that would work a lot better than that.
a persons perspective is subjective

Sorry I have such little time. Ok so my opponent"s whole last argument is in response to me saying that someone"s perception of something can be objective. Now for someone to have an objective perception of something they would have to have to let emotions or bias affect the perception. For example if someone feels a bias towards saying things are made up of atoms, and then this person says something is made up of atoms, then his perception isn"t necessarily wrong since it"s a fact things are made up of atoms. Now, my opponent provides the definition of subjectivity which is, based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. But this definition is more unreliable than definitions provided by merriam webster which I provide which is, based on feelings or opinions rather than facts. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Now in order for someone to have a subjective perception, their view of something would have to be based on opinions rather than facts. Now this does not necessarily mean someone can"t have emotions toward something, but only that their perception may not be based off it. Therefore my opponent's whole case has been refuted. Now my opponent brings up the point that without emotions we wouldn"t be able to make decisions, but that does mean that someone couldn"t make perceptions. Here I provide the study my opponent is talking about. "A few years ago, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio made a groundbreaking discovery. He studied people with damage in the part of the brain where emotions are generated. He found that they seemed normal, except that they were not able to feel emotions. But they all had something peculiar in common: they couldn"t make decisions. They could describe what they should be doing in logical terms, yet they found it very difficult to make even simple decisions, such as what to eat. " . http://bigthink.com... The only thing this study proves is that someone can"t make decisions, but someone could still make perceptions since the people can still explain things logically. "Any decision you make is a subjective one" Notice how my opponent says decisions, not perceptions, thus trying to strawman my argument. "You will always be subjective before even getting to objectivity which makes a persons perspective subjective. " My opponent essentially saying that someone needs to have a subjective perception before coming to an objective perception which is proving my point that there are objective perceptions, even if it came later.
a persons perspective is subjective

I understand what my opponent is referring to when he speaks upon objectivity and that humans can be objective with the use of tool or not, objectivity still exist, and yes you can"t have one without the other, that is like water and ice but that is not in question here, the argument here is that a persons perspective is subjective in every aspect , I am not stating that objectivity is an illusion but that any subjects we choose anything, we speak on or anything that a person does is subjective and that any use of subjectivity in any aspects of our life even on subjects that might be objective is still truly a person subjective perspective for the lone fact that we used subjectivity to get to there. If that alone does not make our perspective subjective then maybe the following will intrigue you; The point of the article was to show how taking some damages to some parts of the brain especially the parts that are required for emotional functionality, will have the effects of humans not being able to make choices from minor situations to important decisions which in turn shows us that if you disable our natural emotional function it makes us non responsive. We rely on the parts of the brain that regulate emotions to make choices. I have an interesting link showing and explaining how many parts of the brain we have for emotions or emotional functions genetically integrated in our brain and without those parts we cannot function, here is the link . http://www.cerebromente.org.br... Here is the definitions of subjectivity based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive Now if subjectivity is to due with feelings , emotions and instinct then my argument is valid when I speak about our emotional connection and the way we make decision which is all about subjectivity. Our brain is obviously built to be subjective at every turn, even our perspective yet, you argue the fact that we can make objective statements "that chair is made of atoms" but how did you get to that decision? Was it a triggered memory or smell etc. any decision you make is a subjective one, no matter the circumstances you will always be subjective before even getting to objectivity which makes a persons perspective subjective.