BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Need To Complete 3 Debates Before Voting

We have the system in place so that people who are voting are engaged members of the community who are actually know how debate works, are able to properly anaylze the arguments, grammar, and logic of the debaters. I present two potential problems with eliminating the three debate rule.1.) Groups of friends could just create accounts to vote for a debater, givng immense power to people who would do such a thing.2.) It would leave debate.org more prone to people getting votes with stirring emotional speeches not backed up by evidence if the voting crowd can't appreciate the logic of debateThese two problems would directly violate DDO's front page statement."Debate.org is a free online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate online and read the opinions of others. "To respond to my opponent's argument about a more limited field, I provide this analogy.I am taking a survey as to whether Americans will vote for Candidate A or B. Do I take the survey out of all people or only out of likely voters?One would probably chose the survey of likely voters, because that will give me more accurate results.In the same way, if I am trying to figure out which person gave the better intelluctual arguments (see the words intelligent minds in home page), would I ask everyone, or those who have experience in devising arguments like these.One would probably choose the second option because it will give better results to the question of who composed better intelluctual arguments
We Need To Complete 3 Debates Before Voting

I feel that this system only creates less involvement from an actual spread of people, and blocks real results. Those who have the time/need/want to participate in this website are the ones who will invest the time and will end up voting, creating a smaller sample size for results and causing the entire structure to lean in surprisingly predictable ways. It also causes a bunch of "Plz vote/approve so i can vote" debates. I think that the criteria for being able to vote should be reduced.
Existentialism is the Most Satisfying Philosophy

In response to my opponent's argument that Existentialim is not satisfying, many of the claims he made were completely false. Firstly, it does free from doubt and meet need and want through ending worry about the purpose of everything and the origins of the universe. This leaves people to enjoy life more with less time spent worrying about such trivial issues that cannot be answered by humans. Based off the average lifespan, if a person went to church every Sunday for example, they would waste 4072 hours of their life. Instead of doing such things, people could be traveling, spending time with their families, and whatever makes them happy.
Existentialism is the Most Satisfying Philosophy

Existentialism is the most satisfying philosophy. First, to define terms: Satisfying: a. To free from doubt or question; assure. b. To get rid of (a doubt or question); dispel. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Existentialism: Existentialism is the philosophical belief that for humanity existence comes before essence, i.e. humanity does not have a purpose except to make its own purpose or essence (essence meaning what it means to be human). Source: Existentialism by Jean-Paul Sartre (A slightly different translation than what I read can be found here: http://www.marxists.org...) Philosophy: Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Existentialism is the most satisfying philosophy for humanity because it shows that life is an end in itself, i.e. the only real purpose is to shape what you want to be and what you think humanity should be. ("In choosing myself, I choose man." [1]) It allows humans to understand that they have unlimited potential and it allows them to become free from the constrains of worrying about a greater purpose to everything. It lets humans see that they are what they make themselves, and they can make themselves whatever they see is right or better. This is all satisfying because it frees worry and enlightens us on our true potential. [1] Existentialism by Jean-Paul Sartre
The US federal goverment should legalize Same Sex Marriage

I apologize for my delayed response.I am arguing for the legalizing of same sex marriage.---Marriage Benefits should be available to all couples--- Marriage is a lot more than just a legal status. When a couple gets married, a lot comes with it, including tax filing status, joint ownership of property, insurance benefits, agency law, and the right to make critical medical decisions. [1]In fact, there are 1,138 federal benefits, rights and responsibilities that come along with marriage. [2] visitation rights and can make medical decisions, unless otherwise specified in a living will benefits for federal employees -- many of which are also offered by private employers -- such as sick leave, bereavement leave, days off for the birth of a child, pension and retirement benefits, family health insurance plans some property and inheritance rights, even in the absence of a will the ability to create life insurance trusts tax benefits, such as being able to give tax free gifts to a spouse and to file joint tax returns the ability to receive Medicare, Social Security, disability and veteran's benefits for a spouse discount or family rates for auto, health and homeowners insurance immigration and residency benefits, making it easier to bring a spouse to the U.S. from abroad visiting rights in jail (whole list [2])Denying same-sex couples these rights that come along with marriage is unconstitutional, discrimanatory, and just plain unfair. America is built on the premise of freedom, yet same-sex couples are denied the privileges of marriage that are taken for granted by so many other married couples.My opponent only talks about procreation as his reason to deny same-sex marriage. But he never addressed this...... Why can't there be BOTH same-sex marriage and regular marriage? Legalizing same-sex marriage will not stop procreation. Heterosexual couples will still get married and still have babies. Procreation will not be harmed by legalizing same-sex marriage, therefore the federal government should not reserve the right of marriage for only straight couples. Everyone deserves the freedom to get married. Vote pro.1. http://www.balancedpolitics.org...2. http://people.howstuffworks.com...
The US federal goverment should legalize Same Sex Marriage

As we know I argue we should not legalize SSM.~Against SSM~Marriage in the governments eyes is an institution about procreation and child rearing. [1] The goverment gives any economic benefits to these couples and with that it is safe to assume they are interested in something. The interest is to further propagate society through responsible procreation. [1, 2] Without these heterosexual couples society would not exist, and therefore we would have no human race. This is a reason these relationships in the states eyes are indispensable and deserve the special recognition. Relationships like homosexual ones do not deserve this privilege as they can not contribute to society the way heterosexual couples can, and hence do not deserve the privilege of marriage. The argument to counter this is generally marriage is about love, this argument really can't hold any water. If this was true any relationship that involved love would be regulated. I you said "I love you mom" that would be regulated if that was a state interest. As love isn't a state interest this is never regulated.Another counter is other people can procreate too (non marital). The problem with this is it ruins the states goal in responsible procreation and leads to other detrimental effects to society. [2] The courts have ruled that procreation is indeed their interest, and it is to propagate society, that's why SSM is banned. [3]The next counter is comparisons with interracial couples. This comparison is absurd. There is a difference between race and sexual preference. Race is not even related to marriage in the slightest in the state eyes, they can still procreate. Homosexual couples can never enter procreative type unions and therefore do not fulfill the interests of the state. The goverment wants two couples of heterosexual sexual preferences to create biological children to propagate society in the correct way. [4] This, as stated, will fulfill states interests. A homosexuals anatomy cannot do this, they cannot create children when in intercourse with their preferred couple. As they cannot do this, they should not be allowed to marry. Conclusion:The states interests are in fact heterosexuals in procreative type unions attempting to further society. The state confers many economic benefits to these couples, this hints to they have interests in the marital business. These benefits are costly to the governments coffers, so the reason they have incentives is procreation. [1] These procreative couples fulfill states interest therefore deserve recognition. Homosexual couples can never ever create these procreative type unions therefore do not deserve the legal status of marriage. Marriage is defined for this reason, vote con.[1] William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)[2] "PROTECTING AMERICA’S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek[3] "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school[4] "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
Parents should be legally identified and held responsible

Jen has a choice. She can choose to give the child up for adoption. That ends all financial responsibility, per item (f) in the proposed system. Alternatively, she can choose to keep the child. If she chooses to keep the child, she voluntarily accepts financial responsibility for the child, as well as responsibility for the child's acts. That is exactly the same as under present law. Nothing in the proposed system precludes Jen from receiving welfare payments from the state as she would under present law. Note that there are many more parents desirous of adopting children then there are children available for adoption. Therefore adoption is not only a theoretical choice, but a practical choice as well. In general, the resolution places the welfare of the child above the desire of the parent, almost always the absconding father, to avoid responsibility. The responsibility of parents is accepted almost universally, as attested to by binding international treaty. What is at issue is whether or not that responsibility should be enforced. It is for the benefit of the child and responsible taxpayers that it should be enforced. The resolution is affirmed.
Parents should be legally identified and held responsible

I would like to firs rebuttal my opponents case thing negate my own. I'm going to list to you 4 reasons why this shod not be just. 1) by the criterion of what's happening, the parent may not of encouraged their child to do whatever lawful thing. 2) not all kids listen to their parents 3) If my child dost even live with me why should I accept responsibility 4) I'm not financial stable with those facts we can easily understand what points some parents are dealing with. I stand today to negate this. EVERY PARENT in this world doesn't need to deal with this. we all make mistakes and we all need a helping hand. (I wasn't able to type every thing my computer broke this is off of a phone so bear with me please)
America and Outsourcing

You and I support American's jobs by spending just as much as the company does. For example, if you go to a clothing store and buy $100 worth of clothing, that money goes back into the company, and goes to the workers through payroll and benefits that are bought with my donation. By outsourcing these companies pay less in wages and keep more money to spend in the American economy. Also, with the country that the outsourcing is being done in, they will buy the products they are producing, thus giving money right back into the economy. In addition, there are several jobs that are open today for those who lose their jobs to outsourcing to fill.
America and Outsourcing

That was a slippery slope fallacy if I ever did see one. Just because the product is being produced in a different country does not mean the company will accept lower quality products. There will still be a standard for the product, and the company will not change it's standards because of outsourcing. For example, Apple has outsourced to China and the quality of their products is still superior. Millions of people still buy Apple products because of their high quality. Also, just because a company outsources does not mean there will be more returns of a product.
Veganism is a religion.

Well, Veganism is not precisely a 'Religion' but may vary to take advantage on a specific religion. Like Islams or Muslims, they're not allowed to eat other specificated meats, cause their so called 'Allah' does not allow it Pertaining it to being a veganism. (For some others) As what were written for them- "Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah." So that's why Veganism is not a religion but 'Only' is an action taken if some foods are not allowed or for your wantings.
Veganism is a religion.

I don't understand how veganism can possibly be seen as a religion. I get veganism is a religion argument a lot when talking about vegan issues. In fact, whenever I mention vegan concepts Christians around me shift uncomfortably. Communicating to me non-verbally they tolerate it but warning me not to idolize it. This makes no sense to me. How can you idolize veganism? It is not even physical. Its not like its a different God or anything. There is no chanting nor worshiping. Nevertheless, some of the most bitter and intense fighting erupts when a vegan claims another vegan is idolizing veganism. A normally peaceful community of vegans go into a civil war. Why is this? Why is brining up the issue of idolizing veganism the best way to get vegans to fight each other? I don't think it is possible for veganism to be a religion nor to idolize veganism. Thanks for the debate.
The King Arthur Character does not significantly predate "The History of the Kings of Britain"

Thank you for posting this debate im most excited! Also i'd like to say any grammatical errors im sorry my keyboard isnt great and the buttons stick. Anyhow i will be trying to prove that Geoffrey did not make up the character of king Arthur as well as trying to prove he existed. So here goes. As both me and my opponent will admit, while the Arthur tales may or may not be true, we can agree on these points: 1)Knights of the round table? Not true. 2)Merlin-A character probably based on a high ranking advisor to the king. Point 1 - The Name - The name Arthur is suggested by some to be derived from the Celtic "Artu" or "Artos", a bear, or the Irish "art", a stone. It is more probably of Latin origin. This could mean the name was a common name, therefore i support your claim that the older workings of arthur may have been a different being. But it is unlikely that they are all someone else. My opponent talked of older tales of Arthur depicting him as a type of "Demi-God", This is true however i believe in arthurs time (assuming he existed) There will have been poets and writers who were paid to exaggerate Arthur's qualities, and then proceed to spread the tales around the land. A king would have paid highly for this service and its likely they are tales of him but they probably aren't very accurate. Also they are all very similiar tales and such can be counted as partly reliable sources.
The King Arthur Character does not significantly predate "The History of the Kings of Britain"

It is my position that the literary figure, King Arthur, does not significantly predate the creation of “The History of the Kings of Britain” in c.1136. I am aware that many historians disagree, with many of them claiming that there are mentions of him that date back to nearly the Roman era. I am not convinced that this is true, for several reasons. I would like to discuss this topic with anyone who might be able to produce some data that I have not seen before, and that might demonstrate that there are compelling reasons to think that I am mistaken. I am willing to share the BOP, and we may dismiss any semantic tricks – this should be considered a “sharing of information” debate, and not so much a competition. I am willing to be flexible on any other rule that might be suggested. I am also not overly concerned about source material or references, unless they are requested. Simple links to websites will do for this.
More the means of communication the less we communicate

First of all, what my opponent has said clearly highlights his misinterpretation of the topic and also of my argument. I have not started this debate just for the sake of criticizing such technological advancements that help us to connect with each other. My stand is very clear. I totally agree that social technology has broken all the geographical barriers enabling us to interact with more people than even before. But like any revolutionary concept, it has also spawned a set of new barriers and threats. Is the focus now on communication quantity versus quality? Superficiality versus authenticity? In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social which we need to understand. The fact is that we have become so engrossed in social media that we are left with very little time to spend with our parents and friends. Moreover if a person primarily communicates 'virtually', he is never able to build meaningful friendships or relations. We are no longer the deep thinkers we used to be. Who has the time to think? My rival gave the example of us debating right now to prove his point. But I would like to ask him a question. Don't you think that this debate would have been far more successful and worthy if going on face to face? I know its quite hypothetical since you hardly know me......but, if I would have been debating with any of my known friends, then wouldn't it have been much better if we directly conversed sitting opposite to each other? I am certainly not blaming the technology for all this. What we need to understand is that technology is meant to be our slave, we are not meant to be enslaved by technology. Friends, I seriously doubt whether we are still able to talk to someone that skillfully as earlier with full expression of our non verbal-cues!!!
More the means of communication the less we communicate

Communicate – To share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas. [1] Now, my opponent’s argument seems to be rather incoherent. After all, the very debate resolution he supports is almost contradictory. I want my opponent to state that he truly believes that people communicated more one hundred years ago than we do now. Communicated with others has increased exponentially with the scientific breakthroughs humanity have been experiencing over the course of the last twenty years. My opponent brings up a point of the last time I communicated with a distant relative of mine as if that question works against me. Fact is, with so many means of communication I could send a message, or give a phone call to nearly anyone in my family right now. This opposes to a time when just a simple message to someone who didn’t live in your area could take weeks to reach them and weeks to be given a response. Now we have the internet which allows mass communication throughout the entire world! Hell, you and I right now debating; this is a great example of the kind of scientific advancements in communicated allowing people to socialize across great distances. News media has taken over and allows mass information to flow throughout the world like never before. It doesn’t matter how humans socially communicate, rather what is priority is that humans are always socially connected with anyone from anywhere, which is something we can do now that we couldn’t do just a few decades ago. I await your response. [1] https://www.google.com...
More the means of communication the less we communicate

When was the last time you had a proper face to face conversation with any of your distant friends or relatives? And when was the last time you texted an email or a message even to a friend sitting next to you? Compare the answers of both these questions and you will get to know, what or precious electronic means of communication are doing to us. Technological advancements have dramatically changed the way people communicate. With all the powerful social technologies at our fingertips we are more "connected" but potentially more disconnected than even before....
More the means of communication the less we communicate

The resolution was that the more means we have to communicate the less we communicate. You cannot change the resolution by saying "Oh well I meant that." No, that does not fly here. Communicate – To share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas.So reworded, the resolution reads:The more means we have to share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas, the less we share or exchange information, thoughts, news, or ideas.This is what we are arguing. you cannot change the resolution to be about the quality of communication when the resolution has nothing to do with that. You continue to argue from your point of view when your point of view is entirely irrelevent to the debate topic at hand. You even go as far as to concede my arguments and continue arguing about the quality of communication in this modern day.If that was what you wanted to debate you should have worded the resolution something like:The more means we have to communicate through technology, the more the quality in communication decreases.I cannot fall victim to something you did not clarify in the resoution, and because of that I win this debate. Otherwise, you could win this debate because of your own misunderstanding of the resolution you made.Thank you.