BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

"Actually, you CAN cheat and expect no consequences. I've cheated plenty of games by going on their hack websites, and I beat the game easily with no consequences." Maybe for single player, now what about multi-player? "Then hire good judges" The problem is that con failed to show exactly what a good judge is. I hired good judges based on high rank and i found that a few were biased. In my debate "Belief in Christianity is rational" (1), i hired Ragnar who has an ELO rank of 4,438 to vote on it and called him out for making a logically invalid vote. He changed his RFD about 2 or 3 times. The following is his reason for voting against me: " I do agree with pro that people can accurately repeat long poems through memory, but depending on decades (or longer) of a game of Chinese Whispers to give the truth of what happened, then write it down, well it seems highly dubious (not rational), even more so when we see clear evidence of overlapping (yet different) material resulting from it. If said game of Chinese Whispers had no flaws, than there would have been no need to ever write it down, if it has flaws than it's not rational to trust the results after 40+ years." Not once did i ever say that oral transmission has no flaws as Ragnar claims. Furthermore, i already addressed that even if it was flawless, there would be a reason for the disciples to write it down. I presented evidence for why oral transmission is not like the game of Telephone, but Ragnar still holds to his view that it is. This is an example of a person with high ELO but exhibited poor voting. This is proof that ELO does nothing to boost your experience as a debater and as a thinker. "My opponent has not managed to show that the elo system does not encourage people to debate better, and as a result become a better--a good--debater. I think he meant to show the elo system's inaccuracies and how elo does not show whether you're a truly good debater or not, but that was not part of the resolution." The resolution at the top is "ELO doesn't make you a good debater", this refutes Con's claim that the resolution is that ELO does not encourage people to debater better. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org...
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

"In a game, you cannot cheat and expect no consequences."Actually, you CAN cheat and expect no consequences. I've cheated plenty of games by going on their hack websites, and I beat the game easily with no consequences."The problem is not debating, it's simply that most of the time, users fail to make a thorough analysis of the debate and that leads to poor voting."Then hire good judges.My opponent has not managed to show that the elo system does not encourage people to debate better, and as a result become a better--a good--debater. I think he meant to show the elo system's inaccuracies and how elo does not show whether you're a truly good debater or not, but that was not part of the resolution. Truth has failed completely to show that elo does not make you a debater, and I've shown that, similar to a video game, this "Elo" is similar to the score, and the system of debating is such like gaming, there is no way it can't encourage you to debate better and better.VOTE ME.
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

The comparison doesn't match. When playing a video game, you are required to completely depend on the game to become better. The best way to improve playing video games is to make observations and find patterns (1). Sure rank might determine if you are a good player in a video game, but debates are not video games. In a debate, no one is checking to see if you actually are well researched in your subjects vs. just looking them up as you debate along. In a game, you cannot cheat and expect no consequences. "easier opponent to a more difficult opponent" What defines an easier opponent and what defines a difficult opponent? Their approaches to arguing topics, their knowledge of how logic works and the evidence they give. " beat the troll masters, then Rap-battle masters" Since these are completely subjective, these aren't considered "Debates." That being said, ELO would be inconsistent if you want to intellectually debate someone on topics which require logic and evidence such as "Is the big bang a scientific theory?" Like I said, ELO doesn't imply that you are a good debater. Many factors have not been ruled out for why someone has low rank. Even though I have a low rank, there are several people who consider me a pro debater. "Not only that, with debating, you make new discoveries. You find out what the Cosmological Argument is. You get to know how to avoid committing the No-true-Scotman fallacy, as well as finding your opponent's flaws and arguments. As you research on, you find more interesting information, and as you gain more elo, you become a better debater, a good debater capable of explaining their topic deeply with great critical thinking skills. " You should be doing that before the debate starts, not during. The problem is not debating, it's simply that most of the time, users fail to make a thorough analysis of the debate and that leads to poor voting. Sources: 1. http://www.theguardian.com...
ELO doesn't make you a good debater

" With video games, you need practice for your body and mind to adapt to the pace. With a debate, you don't. You can research and plan your arguments ahead of time and do just as well as or even better than others."And you can plan your video game strategy early by watching walk-throughs and ask others who've played the game. The point is, people are encouraged by the system of elo. Why are games addictive? Playing games gives a sense of achievement, and has many "hooks" that make your brain want to play the game more. [1] Just like games, debating has many of these elements that video games has. Always, you can improve debating, going from an easier opponent to a more difficult opponent, always striving to make it to the front page of the leaderboard, then beat the Elite Four, then beat the troll masters, then Rap-battle masters....the possibilities are endless. As long as you're not the best in debating, you are always trying to improve, looking for better ways to word your arguments, thirsting to win and obtain a better "elo", a sense that it measures your skills. Of course, it is not always accurate, but it gives a sense of achievement and encourages you to go on. Not only that, with debating, you make new discoveries. You find out what the Cosmological Argument is. You get to know how to avoid committing the No-true-Scotman fallacy, as well as finding your opponent's flaws and arguments. As you research on, you find more interesting information, and as you gain more elo, you become a better debater, a good debater capable of explaining their topic deeply with great critical thinking skills. In conclusion elo makes you want to go on and see how good you really are, or how good you really can be. It is a goal, a sense of achievement, and even though it might not extremely accurately represent how good you are, it gives a vague sense of how good you are, especially the elo gained from defeating highly-skilled debaters. We should keep the elo system, there was a reason it was invented.[1] http://www.video-game-addiction.org...
If you talk with Cleverbot, you are lonely

I disagree. It is possible for a person who chats with Cleverbot to have friends, family, and maybe a BF/GF. In fact, you are never truly lonely because there are a lot of people that you can interact with. (Unless you live somewhere with absolutely no one around.) Pro will post his/her argument for the end of Round 1. Round 2 are the rebuttals. Good luck.
Creationism should be banned from science classes

Creationism should never be banned from science class, Furthermore, It is a crime that creationism is so rejected in our society. Creationism should not just be mentioned as a silly idea that some people believe. The fact is that the earth was created, There is no other explanation. The odds of any facet of this earth creating itself or existing by chance, In scientific terms, Is beyond the realm of scientific possibility. The exact odds are somewhere along the lines of 4x10^300. The fact is, Evolution is nowhere near fact. Which is why, Even after hundreds of years of searching, They have yet to find a transitional fossil. The idea that no serious scientists back this idea is also ridiculous, In fact there are several. Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, And Ralph Seelke to name a few. Most scientists that have accepted and backed the ID theory have been hushed and immediately discredited, Which is why you likely haven't heard of many of them. Not unlike Mary Schweitzer, Who happened upon proof that the earth could be no more than 6, 000-8, 000 years old. Soft tissue found in fossils that were supposed to be 70 million years old. (she was soon after fired hmmmm. . . ) Finally creationism even to those who don't believe it, Is no more ridiculous than an entire beautiful earth making itself impossibly by accident. In your response, Kindly enlighten all those reading with some of the facts that prove evolution definitively. For the time being, I will stop at this, It's a shame that today's generation is getting this garbage shoved down their throats. I would venture to say that 90% couldn't even tell you why they believe the THEORY (not fact) of evolution. THAT is the definition of indoctrination.
Creationism should be banned from science classes

Teaching creationism is in school science classes is only ever the indoctrination of children. Our children have the right to understand that some people have different points of view (however stupid). However, They also have the right to be taught what's true in school. Science is the study of the natural world and therefore natural and factually correct information is the only information that should be taught. Religious education classes are where creationism should be taught. Students should be given the right to learn about what some people think and why they think that but they must not be taught creationism as if there is any scientific support for it or as if it is a legitimate explanation of origins. Creationism quite frankly is totally ridiculous and wrong. No serious scientists in any large number support the idea. Those who do are practising bad science. This is because in order to practise science properly one has to start by looking at the evidence and then make a conclusion about that evidence. However, Creationists start from a world view of "I already know the answers- God did it" and then they look for evidence for their claim while disregarding any contrary evidence. Therefore, Teaching creationism in school is not only teaching children nonsense but also teaching them bad science since they are not taught the proper scientific method or world view. Finally, Creationism should be banned from school science classes because it puts ridiculous theories like young-earth on the same platform as evolution. It thus makes the sides seem equal when they're not. Ken Ham is not equal in scientific credibility to Bill Nye. This thus delegitimises true science and presents a misconception to children that there is actually a debate about this in science - which is a downright lie. Creationism is nonsense. But some people believe it -fair enough. Teach kids what some people think. But (if you'll pardon the pun) for God's sake keep it out of the science class!
It is reasonable to believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event

My opponent has proposed that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is an accurate historical event, and in defense of this resolution he has purported to demonstrate that a certain list of facts are correct - ones that will be the focus of this debate. I will agree that if these facts are correct they demonstrate a powerful case for the resurrection of Jesus, but I deny their actual validity. To begin, he asks of me to comment on each fact he has supplied and demonstrate my naturalistic explanation. I will comply to such wishes but not go into too much detail. =================== List of historical claims =================== I will respond to each point according to the numerical order my opponent has employed: 1. I will agree that a man known as Jesus of Nazareth was likely crucified and buried. This fact in of itself is not unique in any significant way. 2. I will agree that it is likely that Jesus' disciples truly believed what they preached was true. 3. I will agree that Paul "suddenly changed", i. e. converted. 4. As I stated in #3, likewise for James. 5. It is generally accepted that the gospels claim the tomb is empty, but it is another thing to claim that this point lends credence to Jesus' divinity. You will have to demonstrate what is unique and true about this contention. If you've noticed, it seems that I have conceded many of your points. This is simply because I find their acceptance to be distinct from proving your cumulative-case argument; I'll provide my alternative explanation in the next round. First, onto you.
Guantanamo Bay detention center should be closed

Wow away-from-keyboard really ruined this argument. I have not generalized all terrorists as Muslims and vise verse, just like in the majority religion in America, Christianity, the Islam religion has different branches or echelons. Like how Methodism and Proletarianism is a more calm and modern edition of Christianity while Baptism and Catholicism are hardcore and old fashioned, Islam has similar branches. Although they all have the same basic beliefs they each deviate into their own ( kind of like every other modern religion! Whoah! Cultural education!) When you attack a country you should be treated as an enemy soldier, no doubt about trials and other shenanigans and such utter pissery but have them hanged for assault, after all valuable information has been exhausted from them of course. Capitalist punishment after thorough interrogation is what we should be doing in Guantanamo Bay, and it is hopefully the future. Now don't you come at me with your equal liberalistic nonsense, they all had the EQUAL chance to say "no" and back away. But they all chose yes, now they MUST pay! They gave up their human rights when they became war criminals! And since I have the last word I must say, farewell.
Guantanamo Bay detention center should be closed

Good job generalizing all terrorists as muslim. That is very stereotypical and not correct. Also, everyone has god given rights and the prisoners should have the same rights as an american citizen under the constitution. They are US prisoners and should be given the right to a fair and speedy trial. They should be treated like ever other prisoner. A terrorist is like a murderer. But if a murderer was robbed of rights it would be all over the media and would be a big deal, but since these are terrorist nobody cares about their rights. Also the prisoners are only suspected terrorists and hardly any are ever charged with an actually crime. and no i do not believe they should get a free way out, i believe they should be held in a federal prison, and the Nuremberg trials dont even relate. Those were war trials and the prisoners were put on trial and had rights, at Guantanamo there are no trials and nobody has rights. It is time to close Guantanamo
Guantanamo Bay detention center should be closed

You cannot say these people have any rights! They gave up their rights when they assaulted and attacked the country with the strongest military and federal control in the world! When 9/11 came around they weren't citizens anymore, and most weren't even ever American citizens! They lost their rights when they gave them up to attack us. I admit the treatment should be better, but if you pay attention to the news they are all trying to kill themselves anyway! Their religion dictates they must do something morally un-justified in almost every corner of the globe! They aren't regular infra structurally society scumbag, they are war criminals and can't be treated like others in federal prisons. They didn't just loiter, or drink and drive, or assault someone, they attacked a country under their own intentions. They started war, therefore they should be treated like war criminals. I don't see why they should get a free way out if they did the wrong, now they HAVE to pay the price, these are like the Nuremberg trials and confinements, no one complained about them, why now?
Guantanamo Bay detention center should be closed

The prisoners are treated terribly at Guantanamo Bay and few are ever charged with a crime. there is no reason these people cant be held in a federal prison. They would be protected from torture and have the right to a trial. Susan Crawford, a judge at Guantanamo admitted that they tortured a suspected member of 9/11 attacks and could not try him anymore. close Guantanamo and protect human rights.
White students in CA should NOT pursue STEM majors because of overwhelming Asian students in STEMs

Well hey. Things are getting harder. I started Algebra in JH. my parents didn't start it until HS. and their parents never learned it at all. so of course our kids are going to learn it even sooner. It's just the way things go. the good thing is that if you catch them young enough you can teach hem almost anything and their minds will mold right to it. IDK. I know its a depressing thing. But kids are tough. Just push them to be the best they can be. things will be alright. and whos to say they even want to get into STEM? maybe they don't. but if they want to I think you have to at least get behind them and support that decision. I mean I'm white. and I'm an engineer. and quite frankly I don't work with any Asian people. I live in Florida of course. maybe its different in California. Maybe you are blowing this Asian invasion out of proportions a bit? I mean something must have triggered this thought process? what happened with you that made you feel this way?
White students in CA should NOT pursue STEM majors because of overwhelming Asian students in STEMs

"I just don't understand your argument. When life puts difficulty in front of you are you going to sit down and cry or are you going to break through it or die trying?" Cry. No. I have a condition where I can"t cry, physically"Just kidding. I'm talking about the future generations. I wouldn't have gone to a UC if that mentality wasn't in me, you have to have it actually, but I"m not sure I'll have it in me to discipline my children to achieve perfect scores every time (literally) throughout school, nor would I want them to be that obsessive about grades and school, which will be 10x what I went through. To prepare my kids for the demands of the future UC would absolutely deprive them of what I would call a traditional American upbringing. You know going to ball games, little league, bbq's, actually talking about shnit. It will be much less of the one I had. But maybe that"s what our government has positioned us to have to do. Maybe the American way is going out the window. Times are changing and demographics, whether you admit you pay attention to them or not, influences the way we raise or kids. I hope we get to the point where becoming an engineer or a doctor won"t require calculus in elementary school, but that"s where were heading, and I guess I don"t want my kid doing calculus in elementary school, let alone middle school. I had a professor (in College) from Hong Kong who said he and all his friends were doing what we were studying in 4th grade! What? There"s no way I"m making my kid do that.
White students in CA should NOT pursue STEM majors because of overwhelming Asian students in STEMs

While I agree with you that we are becoming a minority I disagree that we should tuck our tails between our legs and run from the challenge. This is why we need MORE white kids going into STEM fields. not less. You are basically saying white people should stay out of the largest, best paying, highest growth field of study that there is. Besides. Look at history. the vast majority of the greatest scientists, mathematicians, engineers, inventors. the vast majority of them were white. are you going to deny the world another Archimedes? another da Vinci? another Hawking or Nash? Yes. Asians are talented but white people are extremely talented in these fields as well. and if history is any indicator they are extremely creative and inventive at solving problems and creating new ways to look at things. This is not the time to sit down and hide in the corner and let other people surpass us just because its difficult. now before you haul off and start calling me racist. I am just saying white people are at least as talented as Asians in these fields and it would do our children a great disservice to steer them away from these fields. same with other races. although the topic is Asian vs white so I will decline to get into other races. I just don't understand your argument. When life puts difficulty in front of you are you going to sit down and cry or are you going to break through it or die trying?
White students in CA should NOT pursue STEM majors because of overwhelming Asian students in STEMs

Projections of UC demographics in the next 10-20 years will have minorities (mostly Asians) making up over 70% of the UC student body. As a common sense approach to raising children, and having attended a prominent UC in the last five years, I would not want my child to be one of the only Caucasian students in his courses throughout college (like I was), nor be one of the only Caucasians in his respective job. Just like an Asian student does not want to attend a school or be in a job that is 70% Caucasian. With Asians only being 12% of the population, there is no reason for my child to have to be a minority and undergo the racism that minorities are notorious for expressing towards whites in this country.
White students in CA should NOT pursue STEM majors because of overwhelming Asian students in STEMs

If you have attended a UC for a STEM major in the last ten years, the majority of classes you sat in were predominantly Asian (i.e. well over 50%). With the amazing emphasis on STEM education in Asian households in CA, and the overwhelming hiring trend of Asians by STEM businesses in CA, would you encourage your children today to pursue a STEM career despite ambitions (however naive at their age) to become scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.?
Harry Potter would beat Voldemort in a battle

Hello HarryPotter, Harry vs. Voldemort -"he doesn't need help from people he can win all on his own." > Do you have any evidence to support that? The phoenix hurt the snake's head in book 2. Plus, the Sorting Hat also gave Harry the Sword of Gryffindor. This shows that he does need help attacking Voldemort. -"Harry potter can defend himself, ..." > I stated that Harry can't defend himself THAT well. He has a lot of luck on his hands and let him survive for a little while. Before he dies, of course. I was JOKING with the peeing. But really, he doesn't have courage to do Crucio (see book 5) > Some of my contentions flow through. As the reader, you can see why Harry would not beat Voldemort in a battle. He needs help from Dumbledore or other characters to fight his fight. For example, the Battle at the Department of Mysteries. He needed Dumbledore to save his skin. He basically wanted other people to die for his sake so he could live. Although this may be offensive to fans, I just hope that you, as the reader, will truly understand why Voldemort would beat Harry, even when J.K. Rowling made Harry win. Voldemort will beat Harry like he did in the Deathly Hallows. Please do not favor Harry because you like him more but truly understand why Voldemort will win. I still wish Happy Holidays to all readers. Vote Con. Rubric: Before the debate: Pro After the debate: Con Conduct: You choose Convincing arguments: Con Spelling and Grammar: Con Sources: Tied Sources: http://harrypotter.wikia.com...