BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Muhammad was not a prophet (I prefer to debate with a Muslim)

Which Prophet advises his followers to drink water with feces? Not very Prophet like? "I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (A018;): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda'ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (A018;) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything." [Sunan Abi Dawud 67] Source: http://sunnah.com...
Democracy is a flawed system

You have obtained my curiosity. I may not be able to answer tomorrow since I am going on a trip to a place that does not know the beauty that is wifi. But I believe you must have an amazing argument, one that I desire to challenge. Have at you, Justice! (And if you are Justice, will you at some point do the Judge Dredd I AM THE LAW shout?) Duncan. (Yes, I sign each argument. Don't judge me.)
Democracy is a flawed system

The leader elected would step down when the people felt that he was no longer fufilling the promises he had made. If people are unsatisfied with Cameron, they obviously don't hate him enough to march on Parliament and demand his recognition. Rather, this disapproval stems from impatience and annoyance that the PM is not fufilling their personal desires. I refer to Augusto Pinochet's facist regime in Chile in the 80s, where when the elections finally came, many were fine with him because they did not suffer from any injustice at his hands. Society is a constant battle for every individual, between the things they give up (taxes, laws) and the things they get in return (social security, public works) To say that human nature must be flawless for a system to be flawless is a ridiculous conception. I too, have enjoyed this debate, Duncan.
Democracy is a flawed system

I'm assuming that your perception of a "true democracy" is one in which a leader is overthrown the moment the leader has the minority approval rate. Let me put this into the Cameron analogy: While the cake is being baked, you taste a bit of the cake to see if it is progressing well. You end up spitting it out because you hate the taste of it. However you keep faith in the cake and see through the 4 years [Unrealistic, I know] it takes to be completed. By the end, the cake tastes very tasty and you end up feeling happy you kept faith in the cake. If a true democracy is one in which you keep on changing the cake halfway through it's baking process, it's highly unlikely you'll end up with one which is liked. That would mean this "true democracy" has a major flaw. You say the people are flawed, yet it is the people who make the system. If you wish a true democracy to throw out a Prime Minister the moment he begins to be resented, there would be a see-saw effect, with PM'S coming in and out multiple times a year. That is a very disturbing dystopian outlook and goes further to project my point that any type of democracy is flawed. Once a again, I must thank you for your participation in this debate. Perhaps we may cross paths again.
Democracy is a flawed system

Since the Cameron example has been going well so far, I'd like to point out another way the analogy of cake mix works. If you get a Cameron flavored cake, and you hate the taste of it, throw it out, you don't have to eat it. You have a problem with the current election and rule system that Britain follows, but that is not to do with the idea of choosing a leader, because a true democracy would hold a new election and elect someone else. Human laziness and greed is the cause of most porblems in the world; people abuse their power, and those who could stop them stand idly by. This is not a flaw with Democracy. It's a problem with Britain. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Democracy is a flawed system

The fact that you feel we are to blame when a governmental system collapses is a a interesting thing seeing as you can effectively attribute 99% of the worlds problems to using that form of criticism. What I am trying to project to you is the fact that a system with no flaws can only justify it's title when then the people under that system do not have their own flaws exposed, thus creating what effectively can be classified as a utopian society. Also, the analogy you make about the cake doesn't work, because if the cake was Cameron, and the majority of the population detested him. They would give up on the cake, leaving it "unfinished" and probably something you wouldn't want to look at. The fact that a democratic system cannot oust a PM [Who would have a very low approval rating] clearly displays a flaw within the system, and not within the people.
Democracy is a flawed system

The problem most often with democracy is the position of power and the selfishness of people. We have built a system by which elected leader serve for a specific length of time. If no one likes Cameron, it's too bad, because you have to wait for the next election. This is an improper system of democracy as there is no way to remove him early, but this is not a flaw with the idea of people choosing a leader, in the same way that if you have a cake recipe and you don't follow it fully and end up burning the cake, that is not a flaw with the recipe, rather with your excecution of the method given. The nature of power is corruptive, and not enough measures are in place to prevent that, but that is not democracy's flaw, it is our lack of control, our nature, that is the problem. Communism, the idea of all working for the same pay to better society falls apart when a doctor no longer appreciates the idea that the binman gets the same wage. (And he'll be angry if his bins aren't collected either) this isn't a flaw with being generous, rather the doctor at hand unnappreciative of the concept of altruism. (unfair of me to pick doctor, as doctors are often altruistic, ok, solicitors) Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Democracy is a flawed system

Many thanks for your reply. I find you to be quite the charismatic and audacious type seeing as you credit Communism to be a system with no flaws.To say that we a have a flawless system and the flaws only lie within ourself is something that I strongly disagree. After all, surely a flawless system would not expose our own flaws? That being said, it would be easy for you to say no system can cover our flaws. And I agree. The fact is that every system has flaws [Which in turn expose our flaws] and to think otherwise, [Pardon me if you deem this offensive] is delusional. Me, be being someone who has lived in England for over 10 years [I'm only 13], is not as familiar with proportional representation as you are and so I do not feel it necessary to voice my opinion on that. However, if later on in this debate this ties in with democracy in greater depth, I will comment on it.
Democracy is a flawed system

Oh ho, I see your idea, and I do not fear your trap of a title. You see, demo-cracy, control by the people, is the most fair and representational system available. If you are from America, I can see why you would argue this, but in Ireland, we use proportional representation as our system. It means that you have several votes. If you vote for Adam, and he comes last in the election, then your vote goes to the second preference. And so forth. In Northern Ireland, our neighbour (unless you ask our republicans) they have a system by which even if the Protestant Community were to claim a majority, they would still have to share power with the Catholic and Presbyterian minorities, as well as any others that claim to be discriminated. You see, democracy itself is not flawed, but neither is Communism. The problem is human nature. Human nature is flawed so that people put in a position of power will abuse it, and without an authority figure few see a desire to follow society if their desires are not met by the powers that be. It is not the idea, but the enforcement, that is the problem. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Democracy is a flawed system

I just want you to understand you are going to point out that democracy is a perfect system. Despite me putting you in a bit of an unfair situation, I hope we can still have an enthralling debate. Something which is perfect cannot be improved, right? Yet a perfect political system would be one in which everyone prospers and justice prevails. However, I would like to point out that a democratic system does not match this criterion. Looking at a democratic system, it's core concept is that the majority of people stay satisfied. Yet the very concept of this is flawed. 3 people could bully 1 innocent kid and you could say that most of the people who are involved are satisfied by what is going on, yet to comprehend such a thing and to approve of it morally is unethical and plain wrong. Bad people can democratically elect a bad person. In my opinion a system which can allow that is. .. bad. And no, I am not the law.
The Border Wall would be beneficial to America

My point is that it just cost too much to add surveillance, drones, or border patrol across the entire border. Also, that would defeat the purpose of the wall since you wouldn't need the wall if you can see them coming and intercept them. The funding used on the primitive wall could have been instead put into drone technology development or other way more effective countermeasures. I used the Berlin Wall as the analogy because they essentially do the same thing; to stop people from crossing the border. The Berlin Wall failed to stop people from crossing and it was extremely secure. You can't really go around it and the border is constantly surveillance which is possible due to the small size. And if people found ways to bypass a much more superior border wall, they would have no problem bypassing this. From where did you get that "90% reduction" statistics when it isn't even built yet? The debate isn't about whether stopping illegal border crossing is beneficial to America, it's about whether the wall would actually have a significant impact on illegal border crossing. There are just way too many cheap methods to bypass the walls that would require much more expensive countermeasures. Now I am not saying the wall will have absolutely no effect on keeping people out, but the small effect it will have doesn't nearly justify the cost to build it and maintain it. What stops gangs from simply building a ladder similar to ones used in medieval times? You have to understand the scale of the border and why it just isn't realistic to maintain constant surveillance with our current technology. Besides, the majority of Mexican illegal immigrants don't even come by land.
The Border Wall would be beneficial to America

You are totally right that JUST a wall wouldn't be as effective, but by adding surveillance, drones, or more border patrol will help to ensure that a drastic decrease in illegal border crossings happen. The Berlin Wall is not a good analogy because the purpose of the Berlin Wall was to keep people IN, not out. Again, a 90% reduction in illegal border crossings would keep out violence through filtering out gangs like MS-13 and that most definitely WOULD benefit america to a great extent.
The Border Wall would be beneficial to America

Physically blocking land with a wall just isn't effective in this situation with Mexico. First of all, they can simply bypass the wall. There have been many cases of people digging tunnels or using ladders to bypass barriers over the course of history and it simply wouldn't be realistic to maintain constant surveillance over such a large wall. Besides, constant surveillance didn't stop people from bypassing the Berlin Wall which is arguably a much more secure border wall than trump's. And those are only two ways to bypass the walls directly. They can also go by boat, by plane, or simply breaking a hole in the wall. Second of all, crossing by land isn't even the most common source of illegal immigrants. The majority of illegal Mexican immigrants are from overstaying their visa. They came to the US legally and simply never leaves even after their visa expire. I really don't see how the wall is going to fix that problem.
Resolved: The Grim Patron Warrior deck ought to be nerfed in Hearthstone.

Once again, your argument is irrelevant because you dropped framework. We have to compare how good patron is now to how good previous decks were that got nerfed. Let me quote what you dropped: Standard: We must weigh the card Emperor like Blizzard did with previous nerfs; this is the best as we will see if Emperor is as OP as cards that have been nerfed in the past. And I compared Emperor to Leeroy, Soulfire, Undertaker, and more and you had no response to that. This is over. Vote Aff.
Resolved: The Grim Patron Warrior deck ought to be nerfed in Hearthstone.

If it's overpowered, everyone's entitled to use it. If people don't have the cards yet then, like with every deck on Hearthstone, they have to play enough to earn it or pay real money to quickly get it. This is not something unique to that deck as opposed to others. No need to nerf it at all. Why not make the other decks more powerful, why nerf the Warrior deck? http://english.stackexchange.com...
Resolved: The Grim Patron Warrior deck ought to be nerfed in Hearthstone.

I'm going to say something so simple that it will make you cry.If the Warrior deck needs to be nerfed, everyone can just use it until then. The deck is available for all to use and there is absolutely nothing preventing every user from using it.Everything you've said doesn't prove that it's more powerful than the other decks only that it is able to both defend and attack and you seem to have some major problem that defense intentivizes aggressive gameplay because the other guy can't fight back as a hard to your armor. Woop-de-doo, how do warrior decks lose games to non warrior decks then? That's what I thought.Thanks and goodbye.If it needed to be nerfed it would be unbeatable, until then there's just skill to gain or warrior decks to buy, get over it I'm a hunter specialist and hunter deck counters warrior deck so hard as does the rogue's one so get over it there's more powerful decks.
Softball is harder than baseball.

I apologize if I offended the Pro debator. I did not mean to offend the debator and don't believe I have. I was simply asking why this debate was put up in the first place. I did not start this debate, the Pro did. I have researched Jennie Finch on YouTube. Since the pro debator did not give a link i was just mindlessly searching. I looked at a couple of the videos and found nothing that stands behind the Pro's arguement. In response to the "it has been proven that softball is harder than baseball because in softball since the mound is closer to the plate, batters have less time to react to if they are going to swing or not" arguement, there is nothing cited to tell us this has been proven. Proven means it is fact and that there has been research to show us why. Neither of those are represented or cited by the pro's arguement. Secondly, that statement is purely relative. It may be harder for the batter, but it is easier for the pitcher to be succesful. This means that the Pro side of the debate has nothing left standing. There was no refutement of all of my arguements. All arguements of mine still stand. Lastly I would like to say something. This site is for a fun and educational debate atmosphere. By saying "I bet that will put you in your place." You assume that I am less than you and that my opinion and arguements mean nothing. You have purely wasted my time and I should have not started debating with you. Please show legitimate evidence and theories on this debate, not flimsy un-cited things that you may personally believe in, but have no facts behind. By saying, "I bet that will put you in your place. So it has been proven that softball is harder than baseball thank you very much." you are in no way providing ANY evidence to prove that softball is harder than baseball. You only succeed in disrespecting me, this site, and everyone else's time.
Softball is harder than baseball.

First of all, it has been proven that softball is harder than baseball because in softball since the mound is closer to the plate, batters have less time to react to if they are going to swing or not. Second of all, look up Jennie finch experiment of YouTube. I bet that will put you in your place. So it has been proven that softball is harder than baseball thank you very much. There is no one that baseball is harder than softball from what statics show. Have fun. And no need to be rude . If you didn't like this debate why did you start it?
Softball is harder than baseball.

First of all, Softball and Baseball are essentially the same. From your username and your position upon this topic I assume that you are a female. Softball and baseball have pretty much the same rules. You hold the burden of proof. You must provide evidence that shows softball is harder than baseball. All I must do, as the "Con" supporter, is prove that softball is either easier or the same difficulty as baseball. The biggest difference between the two in the eye of the common observer is the pitching technique. The baseball technique is overhand while the softball technique is "The Windmill". While the baseball technique is better for more accurate throws, it sacrifices speed. While the softball technique is better for faster throws, it sacrifices accuracy. While both sports have accurate and fast throwing players, the techniques were made for two different things. By this we see that softball and baseball is the same. The next difference is the length from the home plate to the pitching mound. In Baseball, the mound is 60 feet and 6 inches away from the home plate; but in softball, the mound is only 35-43 feet away. While this may be because the technique is made for faster and less accurate throws, it still shows that in this aspect softball is EASIER than baseball. The minimum home run fence in baseball is 250 feet from the home base to the center of the gate. In softball, the minimum is 220 feet. Baseball games are 2 innings longer than softball games, requiring more energy and endurance to play. In ties, baseball is also harder. When a tie occurs in baseball, the teams just keep going for innings until someone scores. In softball they do the same thing but they put a runner on second base at the start of every batting rotation. This makes the games last for a less period of time than baseball. Honestly, why did you put this debate up on this site? Is it so you can feel dominate over the males or feel that you are better than someone else? Play the game for what it is meant for. FUN AND ENJOYMENT! :D
Softball is harder than baseball.

Since she has not provided what it was about I will save all the voters the time. The video is a "Sport Science" clip and they were debunking myths. Jennie Finch Challenged that hitting a baseball is harder than hitting a softball. Whether or not she proved her point is up to your view. First of all, I would like to point out that I said in my last argument that even if it is harder, it all evens out. It may be harder for the batter but it is easier for the pitcher to be successful. I would also like to show that I notified that Pro did not respond to ANY of my other numerous arguments and Pro still did not respond to them. So let those arguments stand as reasons why softball is NOT harder than baseball. In conclusion, I would like to state the reason why I accepted this debate. I do not want either sport to be proclaimed easier or harder than the other. They are both games that are meant to be fun and play with friends and have a good time. They both serve DIFFERENT purposes and talents, and the individual player should review their talents when deciding which sport to play. Pro, I have not meant any disrespect. I apologize for any that was given accidentally. Please when you are debating on this site, use full fledged arguments. Not "Have fun Bye", it is extremely disrespectful to me and all the other viewers. It just serves the purpose to waste our time. All it does is make you look selfishly concerned on being better than other people.
The debate.org users monkeyyxxsun and PoeJoe should go on a date

Errr... I actually prefer Joe as opposed to "Poe". Um. I'd like to remind the audience that the resolution is whether or not we SHOULD go on a date. It is not whether we WILL. Because all my contentions were never addressed, and because all my counterarguments still stand, the audience must vote PRO. Although you leave my completely heartbroken, monkeyyxxsun, I'm sure I will find a way to move on... i mean theirs always a way rite? *crize and assures self*
The debate.org users monkeyyxxsun and PoeJoe should go on a date

---- In Defense of My Arguments ---- My opponent has not counterargued any of my contentions. They all stand; and therefore, the debate.org users monkeyyxxsun and PoeJoe should go on a date. ---- Counterarguments ---- 1) First of all, the fact that my opponent changed her relationship status right before accepting this debate is rather suspicious ( http://img513.imageshack.us... ). My opponent is probably single. But just for the sake of argument, I shall continue rebutting monkey's claims. I offer these alternatives: 2) Two-time your boyfriend. 2a. Think about all the excitement that would along with two-timing your boyfriend. Adrenaline rushes galore! The intensity, the excitement, the absolute fear!!! 2b. There really isn't anything wrong with a date anyway. Think of it as two Internet friends going out for some chit-chat. 3) Dump your boyfriend. 3a. Is your boyfriend as similar politically as you? I didn't think so. Obviously, I'm the better choice here. 3b. I don't mean to brag, but I have a lot where it counts. If you had a boyfriend, I would assume he would be Asian. Well, I'm pretty sure he's like most other Asians... I'm not. 4) Kill your boyfriend. I'm pretty sure this is self-explanatory. ---- Conclusion ---- My opponent probably is single. But even if she weren't, there is nothing wrong with a casual date just for fun. Given all our similarities, it would be simple nuts NOT to go on a date. Therefore, the debate.org users monkeyyxxsun and PoeJoe should go on a date.