BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You should have to choose whether or not to abort the child before you can find out anything about i

The idea of abortion was originally meant for rape victims. Instead of the women who were raped using clothes hangers to abort their children, it could be done safely in a hospital. However, it morphed into something much different. It morphed into people who forgot to use protection and then had unwanted pregnancies. And if that wasn't bad enough, it turned into something where parents would just use abortion to get rid of a baby who had special needs or a baby who wasn't the desired gender. I am arguing that instead of letting the parents know if the baby is a girl, or if the baby has special needs, why don't we just ask if they would like to abort the child, and THEN tell them if the baby has special needs. By the way, throughout this, you may have noticed I always said "parents" decision instead of "woman's" decision, because while it should be the woman's decision, it often turns out being the man's decision. Thank you for your consideration.
Progressive Taxation vs Flat Tax

When I set up this debate, I intended to debate the two concepts of taxation. I did not imply that the concepts are the only types of taxation, nor did I argue that they are mutually exclusive. I did imply that my opponent, whom ever it may be, was to argue on behalf of a Flat tax. Wylted has suggested to me, both in his round and in message that he would rather continue this course of debating that the resolution is a false dichotomy as opposed to the obvious intended topics. I am less then interested in doing so, I also do not care about a win/loss record… so rather than waste my time I will concede. If there is anyone that is interested in debating the topics initially intended let me know.
Progressive Taxation vs Flat Tax

The word rate can be defined in several different ways, and I argue is in fact being used differently in the definition of flat tax than in the definition of progressive tax, and that my opponent is in fact arguing a false Dichotomy. Once I prove that the resolution presents a false dichotomy, I fully expect the voters to award me the win. Here is the full definition of rate, given by Google. "rate1 rāt/ noun 1. a measure, quantity, or frequency, typically one measured against some other quantity or measure. "the crime rate rose by 26 percent" 2. a fixed price paid or charged for something, especially goods or services. "the basic rate of pay" synonyms:charge, price, cost, tariff, fare, levy, toll; verb 1. assign a standard or value to (something) according to a particular scale. "they were asked to rate their ability at different driving maneuvers" synonyms:assess, evaluate, appraise, judge, estimate, calculate, gauge, measure, adjudge; 2. consider to be of a certain quality, standard, or rank. "he rates the company's stock a "buy."" synonyms:consider, judge, reckon, think, hold, deem, find;" Good luck to pro. He's going to need it.
Progressive Taxation vs Flat Tax

I will be argueing in favor of progressive taxation over a flat tax.Progressive Taxation: “A system based on a progressive tax collects tax revenue from individuals in proportion to their ability to pay. Citizens with higher earnings are taxed at a higher rate, while poorer people pay a lower percentage of their income in tax.” (1)Flat Tax: " a tax that is applied at a consistent rate with no variables in its application." (2)Format: 4 rounds 72 hrs. 8,000 CharactersRound 1: Acceptance/definitionsRound 2: Present arguementsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing statements (No new arguements)Comment if interested.(1)http://www.debate.org...(2)http://www.debate.org...
Humans should be made into Autotrophs

I did not enjoy my opponent's arguments, because they went against mine. That alone should be sufficient to invalidate them. However, I will still humor my opponent and "rebut" its "arguments".First of all, my opponent writes something. I leave this argument to the voters, because I'm too lazy to readdress it.I will take a leaf out of my opponent's tree and say that although I can explain "that", I don't feel like it and won't bother. Homo Sapiens would, however, be objectively inferior to the new species, because the new species would be able to do everything Homo Sapiens can do and then some things they can't. Therefore, Homo Sapiens would be lesser and therefore inferior."Okay, well you can't misquote yourself either, but I will ignore it and leave it for the voters to decide" - YuiruMy opponent is obviously "crazy authoritarian", trying to tell me what I can and can't do. Vote for Con if you feel that liberty should supersede the rights of the state. This is a non sequitur. I don't care."That might just be appeal to hypocrisy, you got me. ://" - Yuiru (Emphasis Mine)My argument stands.My opponent then goes on to babble something about not easily making food supplies depleted and stuff with no sources. I'm not using any sources either, but there's a double standard which allows me to get away with it. For no apparent reason, I will change my opponent's numbers to their corresponding symbols on the keyboard I'm using right now, so ! refers to point 1, @ to point 2, and so on and so on and so on and so on.!. Sooooo? A new influx of CO2 users will consume the CO2 faster than it can be recycled. This will destroy the world.@. Whaaaat? Prove it. Oh wait, you can't because it's the last round. Conduct should go to me even though I'm being a jerk (and telling voters how to vote).£. Although I'll have to drop my argument/completely change it, my opponent concedes that autotrophs are enemies to each other. Therefore, plants will become enemies with humans if we become autotrophic. $. Sounds completely infeasible.About cooking: My opponent never said it was not already, but it also did not say that it was solely for those purposes, therefore my argument makes complete sense even though I completely forgot what it was.Completely changing the topic of discussion because I like to jump around randomly."Not the same way I be talking about. Also, I just put that source there because I am pompous, but it also shows that an animal can be/become autotrophic and still subsist." - YuiruI was asking for proof humans could become autotrophs. My opponent concedes that it cannot provide any proof, except a bare assertion. My counter-argument stands.My opponent is lying. It bit me. It cannot prove it did not, therefore it did. My assertions, unlike my opponent's, do not need to be backed up as I am scrupulously honest (unlike my deceptive opponent). This should convince you to vote for Con.In conclusion, catawampus.Vote Con if you care about humans. Vote Con if you don't care about humans. Vote Con.A vote for Con is a vote for... um... Con?I digest my case, because I'm not a bloody autotroph.
Humans should be made into Autotrophs

I am using everyone's least favorite font for this round of debate. Actually, not entirely. For starters, Humans cannot become autotrophs. By definition, humans are heterotrophs, and if a human was made into an autotroph it would no longer be human. This should be obvious to even the most insipid of people, which is why I am surprised my opponent did not pick up on it. So then humans would suffer needlessly under a horrible, cruel, and terrible reign of some alternate species that will dominate them. As a human, I am opposed to that happening! Furthermore, all the benefits my opponent posits are completely and utterly wrong, which does not surprise me in the slightest given my opponent's quite limited abilities. Human beings would become a different species, which would be bad for humans. That is not a benefit. Killing other organisms is not an issue The dependency would simply transfer to natural inorganic substances There's enough food to end world hunger right now. There's nothing to prove that sunlight and inorganic chemicals wouldn't be unequally distributed as food is now. Actually, there would probably be more pollution to keep levels of CO2 high enough to use But then we would be in direct competition with other autotrophs, and the trees would probably get fed up with us and kill us all This already is I am flabbergasted that my opponent thinks becoming autotrophic is even a possibility. He has shown no evidence in favor of it being possible.
Humans should be made into Autotrophs

Here is my baby argeement!!One reason I think humans should become autotrophs, is quite obvious:Becoming an autotroph eliminates the necessity to ingest other organisms (or the natural products from them) for sustenance.Benefits/Outcomes of this: Human beings would possibly be a new lifeform/species or not humans at all! Would eliminate the need for humans to take the lifes of other organisms. Would eliminate the dependecy on natural/organic substances for food. No more world hunger since sunlight and inorganic chemicals are easier to come by. No more pollution from factories that produce organic materials for eating. Possiblity of reducing CO2, settling some of the problems around pollution. Cooking would become a form of art and eating would be for pleasure and nutrients. These were obvious but I pointed them out anyway because I was afraid you didn't have the competence to realize it yourself.Besides, if we were autotrophs it wouldn't mean we couldn't masticate in public.
Humans should be made into Autotrophs

Hello consumer america. In the form of an insipid argument, I will explain my position:Here is the basic premise of my agreement:P1. Homo sapiens are animals and heterotrophs. P2. If homo sapiens could be some how made into autotrophs, it would have good effects. P3. By P2, homo sapiens would cease to be animals. P4. Homo sapiens would benefit. C. Homo sapiens should be made into autotrophs. Con must discern if homo sapiens being autotrophs is possible and argue against me. Terms of the debate:Start with a pompus remark when you are rebutting an argument/agreement. Be snarky, it's polite. You can not use the same font more than 2 rounds. Your closing statement for each round must involve one or more of the following words:Scallywag, masticate, mucilage, jabberwocky, catawampus, flabbergasted, miser, floccinaucinihilipilification, phallus impudicus, borborygmous, and epeolatry. *The words must be used in a structured sentence. *Failure to do the above should result in lose of conduct points. Misquoting, fallacies, false information/dubious claims, unreliable information is not allowed. You must adhere to the terms, no matter how ridiculous.
Targeted Kiling is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Round 2 is cases. Since the word limit is the same, this will be a little different than normal LD structure. No rebuttals in round 2. round 3 is rebuttals. round 4 is further rebuttals/defense. round 5 is summary/voter issues. cross examination is permitted in the comments section to ease the process. source links are not required, but naming the citation and providing further information if asked is required. good luck to my opponent and thank you for accepting this debate! If you have any further questions, please ask now via round 1, comments, or a message.
The Negative Income Tax

Isn't that just to easy? Seriously, I hope you are, in fact, joking, or at least trying to get me to win or something. You try to distract people from the fact that you essentially ruined this debate by attempting to label ME as the one not taking this debate seriously. Mind you that YOU were the one who said "I totally agree with you 100%." How was I supposed to provide a counterargument to a statement that merely affirmed what I said? By saying "I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't do that from now on," it should have been obvious to you that the implication was that you either take this debate seriously and provide a counterargument, or, if you do, in fact, agree, then don't accept the debate. If you were looking for sources from my statements in round one, that's my bad; I forgot to post it. It's the Wikipedia article on Negative Income Tax. Oh, and if you're planning to provide a legitimate counterargument in this last round so I can't respond, I have to say that that's extraordinarily cheap.
The Negative Income Tax

"I'd appreciate it if you wouldnt do that from now on" if you look closely at this sentence, my opponent merely generalizes his statement. My opponent has not one source to back this information up, nor did he provide any useful statistics when responding to my argument. Clearly, my opponent doesnt want to take this debate seriously. I am hoping after reading my counter argument he will respond, by providing some useful information and actually look as though he is interested.
The Negative Income Tax

The Negative Income tax involves a yearly, fixed government payment used in conjunction with a flat tax rate. It would eliminate the need for social security, welfare, food stamps, and minimum wage. For example, say the government had a flat income tax rate of 25%, and gave out a fixed, yearly payment of $10,000 to each and every working or disabled individual. A person earning $40,000 per year would be at the break-even point. They pay no taxes, because their tax payment equals their government payment. A person earning $1,000,000 would pay close to the full 25% tax, as the government payment would be negligible compared to the $250,000 in tax payments. A person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes but receive $10,000 in payment, for a net income of $13,000, or $9,000 in net government payments. The net payment is 25% of the difference between their income and the break-even income.
Politics is good

Since my opponent stated "Politics is good" rather than "Politics are good", It can be assumed that he is talking about a singular object. The single object my opponent is talking about is obviously the "politics" forum. /politics/ is not a good forum because it easily has one of the lowest human to idiot ratios of all the forums. Coming second to /religion/, /politics/ (while still used by a few intelligent users) has become stuffed full of people who wish they knew what they were talking about.
The universe is finite.

Greetings! IntroductionI should clarify by what I mean as 'necessary finite'. I mean that my opponent's proof must not show that the Universe is probably finite, or anything like that. My opponent must provide a proof which shows that the world must be finite. By this the resolution places all the burden of proof on my opponent alone. I must just show that the Universe is not necessarily finite, and I would have fulfilled the burden. While I only need to show of a possible scenario, or a reason why the Universe may be infinite, my opponent must show beyond doubt that the Universe is finite. That also concludes my analysis on the burden of proof.Vagueness My opponent does not make a major different between infinitely old, and infinitely large. This aside s/he does take the burden for both, to show that the Universe is finite in both respects, as can be seen from my opponent's first round. I would like to clarify one thing for the readers: that these both respects can be mutually exclusive. The Universe could be infinitely large without being infinitely old, particularly since the expansion of space originated before Time. My opponent provides an argument for Space but no argument for Time: therefore s/he has not fulfilled their burden of proof in the first place. Rebuttal 1: My honorable opponent is not the first to have presented such a problem. This is a rather famous problem knows as Olber's Paradox, and I too was intrigued by it at first, oh so many years ago. Unfortunately the solution to this problem does exist, and is rather simple. Firstly we need to understand that the Universe is expanding, and this has been proven empirically.[1][2][3] Now this expansion forces the light waves to be streched, so much so that their wavelenght increases considerably. This wavelenght increases to the point that 1100 times longer than the original wavelenght.[4] This light becomes radiation, and this radiation is present during night time, its simply that our eyes cannot identify it. This radiation is knows as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and is present at all times. With the proper technology it can be identified with ease.[5] And for those who want a more technical rendering[6]. Thus the proof is invalid, my opponent has not fulfilled the burden of proof. [1]http://www.grc.nasa.gov...[2]http://skyserver.sdss.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]http://quiet.uchicago.edu...
The universe is finite.

IntroductionCon claims I must show the universe is "necessarily" finite. I do not accept that burden because (1) the debate title does not include the qualifier "necessarily," and (2) I don't know what Con means by "necessarily." To be clear, this debate is about whether the universe "is" finite. The debate title is very simple. Let's not make it more complex than it is. The definitions are as provided in R1.Burden of proofI accept the burden of proof. Although I win the debate under a "reasonable doubt" standard, I do not accept that standard. The "reasonable doubt" standard is used for criminal trials and this isn't a criminal trial. This is a science debate (i.e. a debate about the physical nature of the universe). So let's apply the right standard here: a scientific standard.Argument -- proof by contradictionAssume the universe is infinitely large and infinitely old. Under that assumption there would be an infinite number of stars. The light from each of these stars would have had time to reach us. As a result, the sky would be white from all the light, even at night. How does this compare to what we know? Take a look outside, preferably at night. You're not dazzled by starlight. The sky isn't white. Thus, the universe cannot be infinitely large and infinitely old.
Resolution: Dota 2 is a better game than League of Legends

I am an avid fan of video games and I also start my day by reading the front page of gamespot.com. So I will find it interesting to have a back and forth debate about the two most watched games at the moment on live streaming and video upload websites. I accept the challenge and I will try to do my best to find arguments in favor of the idea that League of Legends is the better game when compared to Dota 2. Good luck to you sir and let's have a nice debate.
Resolution: Dota 2 is a better game than League of Legends

Resolution: Dota 2 is a better game than League of Legends DEFINITIONS: League of Legends: a multiplayer online battle arena video game developed and published by Riot Games for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X, inspired by the popular Defense of the Ancients map for Warcraft III. Dota 2: a multiplayer online battle arena video game developed by Valve Corporation and the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients mod for Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and its expansion pack, The Frozen Throne. MOBA: Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), also known as action real-time strategy (ARTS), is a sub-genre of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre, in which often two teams of players compete with each other in discrete games, with each player controlling a single character through an RTS-style interface BOP is shared. Both sides must present a case. I feel incredibly bad for forfeiting my debate for this prior, but I ran into some issue with family.
Supreme Court's rulings for unconstitutional actions in schools has offset the balance of power

Might as well put up an argument now. In all cases listed by my opponent, the Supreme Court gave rulings entirely within its own power. Indeed, all they did was establish that the school has power over students, which at the same time increases legislative and executive power over the students, so all three branches gained power. The only exception was 1975, in which case, due process was indeed due. Just because the Supreme Court got to draw a line, doesn't make it any stronger than the Legislative Branch, which wrote the laws requiring kids to go to school, and the Executive Branch, which gets to force kids to go to school at gunpoint. All in all, government as a whole got more powerful, and tyranny became ever so more increased. That'll do it for now.
Grades should be abolished.

Which is all the reason that there are usually extra curricular activities and programs that can help a student. If the student genuinely cares about the fact they're doing poorly, they've got to help themselves as well. Where I'm from, each individual teacher often has upwards of 170+ students per day, with alternating classes each week. It gets hard to remember each and every student and skill level. That's why there are often many a tutor and program to help them catch up. Like they always say, it's mostly dependent upon the student's will to actually try and improve, whether they genuinely do not know or just don't care.
Grades should be abolished.

The purpose of grading is to assess the student in different subjects and view their progress. To abolish the grading system is absurd; without it, there would be a lot more trouble in determining which students need more academic support. It can also help determine which students require more challenges within their school. If a student is constantly getting straight A's, that could be an indicator that they meet, possibly excel at many a subject and deserve to be moved to higher-skill curriculum. It's also helpful to the instructor(s). Grades serve as a form of summary on the student's knowledge of a subject. Grades can also help the instructor(s) determine if it's only one student who needs support, or if there might be a problem with the lessons and teaching methods (For example, if Barry was the only student with a lower grade percentage than other students, that likely means it's just he needs some extra lessons/tutoring, whereas if almost every single student also possessed low grades in the class, that could be an indicator that there is a problem with the lesson and/or how it's being presented and applicated and that there is a need for change to help further the students' understanding.) Simply put, grades are a necessity in school. To abolish them is to take away the ability to understand which students need more help or more challenge, as well as figure what is the best way for instructors to connect and correctly interact with their students.