BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

Well, that is an interesting stance, but one that is simply not fufilling what I asked of the debate. I find it ridiculous that the Con says he should win the debate because I in fact am alleging that "Musharraf himself killed Bhutto". I'm not alleging that, I'm alleging he was the one behind it. I for one, don't see any reason for anyone to vote on a technicalitiy such as purposefully not fufilling what I wanted debated. It is wrong for two reasons. First off, I'm sure it is pretty clear what I meant and secondly, debate is educational in purpose, and zarul is not educating anyone in the least. Simply misconstruing what the debate was about, and saying that he should win because of it. His "voter" erodes the purpose of debate to be an educational tool, refining the opinions of minds wishing to engage in discussion of a particular issue. He is in no way fufilling that, and thus should be condemned. Anyway, all my points are untouched, and the only attack stemmed from one of two things: 1. Either Zarul is a dullard (not likely) 2. Or two, he is trying to win on a technicality that will in no way fufill the purpose of the debate I wait for a real attack to be placed.
Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

Benazir Bhutto was likely not killed by Pervez Musharraf. I. Bhutto was killed by one of the following things, or a combination of the following things. 1. Guns shots, fired by a man in the crowd. 2. The explosion caused when the man detonated a bomb, killing himself, other people, and possibly Bhutto. 3. The Interior Ministry of Pakistan has recently claimed that Bhutto hit her head and died. http://news.bbc.co.uk... II. I advocate neither of these in particular, however, these are supported by my link. III. The topic is not whether Musharraf ordered/was involved in the killing of Benazir Bhutto, but whether Musharraf killed Bhutto. If the affirmative cannot prove reasonably that Musharraf killed Bhutto, there is no reason to vote affirmative. IV. The affirmative should not be allowed to change the topic in mid-debate.
Benazir Bhutto Was Most Likely Killed by Pervez Musharraf

I believe that to get to the meat of the debate, I'll have to wait for a challenger, but basically Musharraf has the most to gain from the death of Bhutto, and had the most to lose from her becoming elected as the President. Not only that, but Musharraf had the means to do it. He was closely connected with the head of the military (who he hand-picked as his successor). This means he is the most likely to have orchestrated her death. I also ask, if not Musharraf.. than who? Militant rebels? They had the means, but what motive other than causing terror? Musharraf's motives are more defined, and therefore I believe he is the person who most likely was behind the killing. Looking forward to the challenger's arguments.
<BI> - One can only truly grow, when Ego has been acknowledged.

You are addressing the cardinal sins in their weaker form, you forget my original definition of those are usually in the extreme. So although at time people's ego get in the way of them changing bad behaviors(and they are bad behaviors be use they negatively affect the person) when brought to the extreme, it becomes an addiction they cannot control, so I find it odd you did address the fact that these people need help from professionals, which means it's not as easy as just addressing these peoples egos, because there are some type of professions addressing these Cardinal sins. Greed - gambling addiction Gluttony - required dietician and trainer, sometimes a therapist(some people eat to cope with loses) Lust - sex addicts Wrath - anger management So you see if it was as easy as addressing people's ego, and them refusing to change, these people literally cannot change if they themselves truly want to. Addiction caused by these traits is a serious brain disorder that should not be down played by saying "it's easy to change if they wanted to" it's actually a slap in the face to people who have lost lives caused by these traits. Also everyone in the world has a tiny bit of these traits in them, we battle that least one of them each day rather than our ego. However we do not let it consume it, our ego helps restrain us.
<BI> - One can only truly grow, when Ego has been acknowledged.

You are definitely down playing the definitions, and severity of the traits I gave you. Sure you can talk to them about theirs problems but it won't be solved with just one talk, there's a reason why people have to hire professionals to help with these problems, it's not as easy as saying "hey you over eating a lot maybe you should go on a diet" do you realize how many people fail there diets and why it's a popular New Years resolution. Each of these traits prevents personal growth in their own way, but they mainly distract people that's the major point. You talk about your own ego but that's just sounds like a personal problem to me. People don't go through fighting their own ego everyday, however people fight their anger, their gluttony, swallow their pride, etc etc. that point being is that people don't make every decision worrying about their ego About churches, and what not, those people that have taken those position only to abuse their power? That is a result of greed, a greed for power. The priest that was reading from the book? Sloth! He was too lazy to remember the book, and was too lazy to care. World leaders? Again power corrupts, through greed, or maybe lust? A lust for power as well. Or maybe wrath, they get angry that they were disrespected as a child so they mark a whole group of people and burn them alive. A world leader with a big ego is actually more ideal, they'll do things so that their people like them, meaning they will treat their people better. Sure everyone won't be happy but it's hard to make everyone happy.
<BI> - One can only truly grow, when Ego has been acknowledged.

I would also like to start off with the traits I have given as well and clarifyWrath - as I stated is already extreme anger, as you said before a little anger is good but extreme is bad and that is what wrath is, already at the point where one cannot control their anger.Gluttony - gluttony is in fact a human trait, the key word is EXCESS eating. Humans are one of the few species in fact possess this trait as some humans over eat they become overweight causing their health to drop, so instead of growing they are actually doing the opposite by hurting themselves.Sloth - again extreme laziness, the extreme laziness prevents us from completing task because we just don't feel like putting in any effort. Have you ever found yourself staying home binge watching a tv show and being a glutton instead of doing something important? Maybe had that job interview but didn't want to put in the effort? Or had the study session or maybe the gym can wait? That is sloth. Also the best sloth of all, everyone understands that feeling when you first wake up in the morning but want to stay within the warm embraces of your bed.Greed - being greedy can cause you make rash decisions, ever been gambling been up a couple hundreds and then bet everything on the next hand and loose everything? Or it can make you want to commit crimes cause you just have to have those diamonds.Envy - it's not just jealousy but you feel ill-will towards a person as wellI admit that pride has its usefulness in small doses however it cause downfalls with too much pride. These definitely are not blockers for society however as they pertain to individuals, just because my neighbor may be a glutton or sloth will not stop me from improving and growing myself however it will stop him.Now we get to ego.First I want to say just like how pride is good with the right amount so too is ego, in fact everyone needs a little bit of ego to grow a little bit. With little to no ego, someone may not she confident enough to speak up at their meeting, or step infront of a crowd to perform. some would also be a shy, and it would be difficult if you had such a little ego that you think poorly of yourself enough to keep yourself couped up at home and not improving yourself with school/gym/hobbiesWith the right amount, you may have to confident to get on stage and sing the song that you've been wanting to everyone to hear. Or maybe ask that girl out who caught your attention as soon as she walked into the room.Too much ego and you'll just look like a jack a**Therefore just like pride, having a big ego can be disruptive however with the right amount one can grow as well as having too little can prevent growth as well. So while it might be disruptive it is not the most disruptive. The villains in your movie is just that a villain in a fictitious film written so that they loose, and it is not their ego that are driving them to be bad, actually with your example I'm not quite sure you are understanding the concept of ego. You have great definitions but your examples could use some work
<BI> - One can only truly grow, when Ego has been acknowledged.

I believe there are actually 7 other human traits that are deadly than ego when you have too much of them. In fact they are so famous they are considered the 7 deadly sins. I will the with the obvious PRIDE - it's different from ego. It's taking the extreme satisfaction or pleasure in ones own achievements to better than everyone. WRAITH - extreme anger Gluttony - excess eating Lust - very strong sexual desires Sloth -extreme laziness Greed - intense selfish desires Envy - a feeling of discontent of desire to have something someone else has. I also believe having a good ego helps people grow, but again this is in moderation, everything in moderation is good. Except for the 7 deadly din
<BI> - One can only truly grow, when Ego has been acknowledged.

*BI* - A new format I would like to try with debates - BEFORE INTERNET *BI* I would like a good old fashioned, Logical debate with someone, It does not require BoP, and Sources/Citations are not required - It just has to follow logical sense, and if requested - one must be able to extrapolate to explain further. I am interested in Sources to show where information is learnt, however one cannot base their debate upon citations or sources. Effectively I have read a lot of really good and long debates, where about 5000 words are used, and the rest are simply Sources, quotes or citations. My intention is for one to learn from the internet (or other sources), and debate with me using logic to put what you have learnt into a compelling argument. Sort of like Old Greek Days before the World Wide Web. My intention with this is to show the perspectives between the two parties while they debate, rather than the web surfing and sourcing abilities of a specific individual. TOPIC DEFINITION : The topic I would like to debate can be boiled down to this - I believe that Ego is one of the most disruptive traits in a Human that effectively blocks growth. I would like an opponent who either disagrees with me, or has found another 'blocker' that hinders growth, to which we can debate further. (If you believe there is another 'blocker' - please provide clarifications like below, to ensure I - your other party - am on the same page as you). Definition : Growth : The improvement of self from one point, to a future point (e.g. Future self is an improvement than the person you are right this second) - i.e. Better than Before, or Personal Growth. This includes, but is not limited too - Emotional growth, Physical growth, Mental ability, Deductive reasoning, 'Clear' Thinking. Clarifications (If required) : Ego : "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance. synonyms:self-esteem, self-importance, self-worth, self-respect, self-conceit, self-image, self-confidence; amour propre PHILOSOPHY (in metaphysics) a conscious thinking subject. Your ego is your conscious mind, the part of your identity that you consider your "self." " This debate is open to all - And if another wishes to have a similar debate, I can very easily (And happily) open a direct debate with you.
Characteristics Defining a Living Thing Should Be Changed

< > Well, then is a cell living? Cells aren't made of living things so I guess cells aren't living. And if they aren't living, then the things made of them can't be living because they aren't made of living things and so on and so forth. <> Texas is made of living things. Things like trees, bacteria, people, and other animals are all inside of Texas. Thus, Texas is made of living things. < > The point of this debate was not to decide WHAT the characteristics of a living thing should be changed to but just that they SHOULD be changed to something else. I'm not trying to prove what they should be changed to just that they should be changed because the current system is inadequate.
Characteristics Defining a Living Thing Should Be Changed

>Thanks to crackofdawn_Jr for starting this debate. >My opponent is basically saying that we should change the attributes needed to be classified as a living thing. His example is the state of Texas. He has on huge inherent flaw: Living things are living whether or not they are made up of other living things. As Texas is not made up of other living things, nothing else said by my opponent applies. >Now an overview of this debate: My opponent wants to change the definition of living thing. Great. To what? He hasn't given us his new standard. >I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Characteristics Defining a Living Thing Should Be Changed

This point of this debate is to prove how poorly made the list is for the requirements to be considered "living". I am trying to prove with examples that the list should be amended (not how) because of certain inequities of it. We will use the following characteristics for a "living" thing in this debate: Living things are made of cells- Texas is made up of many trees, animals, bacteria, and other organisms. These organisms are made up of cells and these organisms make up Texas, thus Texas is made of cells. Living things obtain and use energy- Texas as a state in 1997 consumed 5247 trillion BTUs of petroleum, 396.9 trillion BTUs of nuclear power, 4061.2 trillion BTUs of natural gas, and 1507.1 trillion BTUs of coal. This energy was used to power factories, cities, cars, houses, and many other appliances. (http://www.texasep.org...) Living things grow and develop- (http://images.google.com...) As you can plainly see with this link, Texas started off under Mexico much smaller than it is today. As time progressed it grew and grew. Living things reproduce- Another thing you can see in the picture above is the other states. Like a cell, Texas split up and formed many other states including Arizona Living things respond to their environment- Through the many wars, treaties, and other border disputes, Texas has diminished, expanded, and changed its size and shape. Examples of this include The Texas Revolution, The Mexican War, and when Texas was annexed. Living things adapt to their environment- Overtime, Texas has adapted to the needs of its surroundings. It has expanded in growth when the oppurtunity arrose after the Texas during its Revolution and the Mexican War, but also diminished its when it was required during its annexation. That's all for now, good luck.
The E.U. should be a United States of Europe, working together but allowed to decide it's laws

Well, first you have to understand the difference between the European Union and the United States. The United States is one country with individual states inside it that are subject to a supreme government in Washington D.C. The European Union is a collaboration between most European countries, and there is no central power, they meet and discuss things. But they do a fine job of maintaining peace, they don't need to become the United States of Europe. I don't think that would work out well. Germany and Italy and Greece all want to maintain their individuality, they don't want to serve under a singular power, they already had to deal with that with Hitler during World war 2. They're doing fine as it is, they don't need to change. And besides, what would it accomplish? They're keeping dictatorships like Mussolini's from uprising, everyone except stubborn old Britain has abandoned their monarchies and moved towards democracy, and the singular unit of currency, the Euro, has made international economics a lot easier. I mean, they're already cooperating. making them the United States of Europe would be pointless. You don't know what the European Union is, do you?
The USFG should increase marriage promotions services for persons in the U.S

1. Current welfare programs disincentivize marriage. A major component of the U.S. welfare system primarily provides income support to unmarried women with children. Categorical nature of the eligibility for the programs-any unmarried woman with children and sufficiently low income was entitled to benefits. Causing women to have children out of wedlock or women to end marital unions to obtain said benefits. 2.The collapse of marriage is the most important problem in America. It is the source of child poverty and contributes to an overall dependence on welfare. Children living with single mothers are 5 times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households.The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence. When compared to similar children raised by 2 married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Policies that strengthen marriage for those who are interested and discourage births outside of marriage are indeed sensible. 3.Single parenting is the leading cause of crime in children. For all the talk about the complexities of the root causes of crime, there is one root cause that overwhelms the rest, fatherlessness. Almost 70% of juveniles incarcerates in state reform institutions come from homes with no father or without their natural parents. Most gang members, 60 percent of rapist, 75 percent of teenage homicide perpetrators come from single-parent homes. 4.Developing services for marriage and removing current disincentives within welfare will solve. Research shows that marriage education workshops can make a real difference in helping married couples stay together and expanding access to such services to low income couples should be something everyone can agree on. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. For these reason you should vote AFF!!!! "Ask for cites if desired"
Will posting students" grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it h

I feel you do have good points in your argument, but the child should see their name at the bottom of the list as a goal. From that day forward they should put in the work needed to rise in the ranks. In today's schooling system they have dumb downed everything possible and in order for anyone to achieve anything is to develop your ability to memorize anything. This in all is a bad way of learning but it has come down to this and we must adapt to it. What does one person look into when they are hiring you, your track record, the grades you had received during your time in school. People want some one who will put as much work as they did in school in their corporation. They want people who will give their absolute best.
Will posting students" grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it h

I feel that grades should not be posted in a public space. Personal privacy is, and should always be, a primary concern for schools and students. One of the issues that I have with posting grades in a public setting is that it fosters a certain environment that does not actually promote learning. Grades can be a good indicator about how one is doing in a particular class, but they do not actually measure what someone actually learns. A good school environment should focus on allowing students to develop skills, like critical thinking, that are hard to measure using a standardized yardstick. Picture this. An second language learner has just moved to a new country. Although they were never top of the class where they came from, they always did very well in their classes. Now, while struggling to learn a new language, they see their name placed on a wall in the middle of the school. They see their name at the bottom of the board. While I won't hypothesize any further, it is pretty easy to imagine how that person would feel. Now, while getting good grades is an important part of school life, it is unfair to the majority of students in a school to equate ones worth to a single number, while ignoring every other factor that makes them who they are.
Will posting students" grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it h

I feel grades should be posted so the world can see. Why it that you may ask? Some may see as a achievement or other see as embarrassment. You put in those long studying hours and have only the perfect score on a test to show for it. People want to be seen as the smartest in the school. People want your advice on how you achieved that grade. All a person wants is recognition. And its rightfully theirs. The way I see it as, its embarrassing to see I have a low grade compared to others. Others see me and think ' Oh he is an Idiot" . I personally don't want to be seen as that and I'm sure others don't want to either. With the embarrassment in mind, it will give the emotional support to motivate me to achieve the better grade and if possible the highest grade in the class. Once you have learned the grades you achieved is top-notched you gain the bragging rights. Once the grades are accomplished, the students will have the absolute guts to say he/she is the best in class and be considered the smartest in their respected families. My High school teacher once said 'Its a war out there, you have to make it out ton top'. With the grades posted its a battle for the top. It is those who are on top that will receive the most benefits were ever they choose to go. In my personal experience when I get a low grade my parents would scold me and I didn't like it any bit. I would rather would prize with something for my accomplish. Reason being why grades should be posted for those all to see is the deciding factor on how well you can make yourself better, because you want to achieve that top spot.
Will posting students" grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it h

Hard work is important. However, putting people down in a public space does nothing to help those who struggle become better. In fact, I would argue that it does the opposite, and instead creates a cycle of perpetual failure. Those who do poorly fall into a rut. In addition, there needs to be a layer of personal privacy in a school. Similar to how a school would not post public information about a students health issues or sexuality, they don't, and shouldn't, post a students grades for all to see. By opening up a students life to the public eye, a precedent is set that creates the opportunity to open up other parts of a students life to the public. And besides, who has the right to know things about a person that the person doesn't want others to know.