BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Webcorp should substantially increase the welfare of www.debate.org.

Though I thank him for the debate, Johnicle clearly does not understand its rules. In policy debate, debaters are NOT allowed to bring up new arguments in rebuttals. If the affirmative does not respond to something in his second speech, he is not allowed to respond to it in the third. Any new responses in the 3rd are not considered. The problem is that ALL of Johnicle's responses to the two biggest issues in the round are absolutely new. All his new responses are not counted. My arguments are accepted as 100% true as if they were not argued. Johnicle loses. Period. Let's go to the theory violation, which is the first issue in the round. Johnicle had a lot of arguments, but none of them were made earlier. By the way, theory arguments debates about debate. I argue what I think a rule ought to be, then why my opponent violated it. To reiterate the theory violation I said that it ought to be a rule that the affirmative should specify where the money comes from in his first speech. He doesn't do that and tries to do it later. This a good rule to have because otherwise he can totally shift out of all my arguments like he is doing. Theory is a voting issue because Johnicle put me at a disadvantage for the rest of the round by not telling me where his funding is coming from. Again, regardless of what you think about the theory violation, Johnicle made no previously articulated responses to it in his second speech, so it is accepted as 100% true. Sorry Johnicle, that's the way it works in policy debate. ALL of his arguments on the topicality violation are new. Again, in policy debate arguments, are accepted as true if they have no arguments that were previously articulated. Here is the topicality arguement again: I said the affirmative has to increase the welfare of www. debate. org itself, and not merely of its members like Johnicle does. This was accepted out of concession of definitions which was the 2nd argument. Topicality is a voting issue because the topic defines the judges jurisdiction, so the judge has no authority to vote for Johnicle if he is not sticking to the topic. Both theory and topicality were established as voting issues. EITHER would be reasons to vote. Johnicle dis not respond properly to either of them. Regardless, of those issues. Johnicle loses for another reason. The affirmative also has the burden to re-articulate his plan in his 1st rebuttal. We have timed speeches in debate (and character counter speeches on the internet) which makes procedural issues like that are important. That's why I had to rearticulate my theory and topicality violations. I'd hate to get a rulebook out, but Johnicle does not seem to know the basic burdens of the affirmative debater in policy debate. He does not rearticulate the plan text, inherency, or solvency. None whatsoever. It is as if he did not articulate a plan whatsoever.
Earth is a spinning ball.

"It's obvious my opponent has never had a serious formal debate, she should probably just stick to rap battles." This statement is hypocritical, because nobody who understands how to debate properly would use an Ad Hominem in such a rude way. Vote for me, because Con has refused to provide explanation for random photographs and continues to give random conspiracies with no apparent evidence or reason behind them. (As in, why NASA would lie, and how people would be able to keep a secret so big.) In future debates, attack the argument, not the person. That is debate 101. Smh "It is not until you forget what science has told you so far that you will begin to see." This is clearly a ridiculous statement. Science is the basis to life as we know it, and to renounce it is a profound example of willing ignorance. I ask the voters to consider who presented valid points, backed up by experts, who had proper conduct, (ex. NOT using vicious Ad Hominems) and who did not intentionally insult the one and only Stephen Hawking. Thank you.
Earth is a spinning ball.

You just showed me a video of a guy shoving a bible in astronauts faces. I would have punched him in the face too. He is such a d***. Stop wasting my time with irrelevant youtube links. You DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING. You simply stated something. Give me PROOF. You have not 'proved these photos to be fake'. Passive aggressive much? Chill. **underestimating whoops For goodness sakes visit the NASA site if you're so curious. If you've ever seen a video about NASA on youtube, which you claim to have done, they explain that the water that goes into the air is filtered out and turned back into drinkable water. Just watch the video about hygiene for more info. "I have, and it seems that you have ignored it." Because I obviously didn't read what you said...? C'mon. You just refuse to admit that you are making wild claims without evidence. Umm, maybe they're nervous because they're at a huge press conference and have to speak in front of a lot of people. You have never been to space, so it's not really your place to judge their behavior. Oh, so now you're a libertarian? I said NASA is affiliated with the government. Saying that the government is untrustworthy is a whole different debate. Seriously? You haven't provided an explanation for the photograph, so you can keep ranting, but it isn't doing you any good. Why. Is. NASA. Unreliable. You haven't answered that simple question. I'm 100% sure the voters agree. "Is there a way to stop 15 year olds from accepting a debate?" What is wrong with you. "I'm not sure what you are talking about specifically" Sure.... Well I'll tell you. You were saying how Stephen Hawking was a meat puppet, and I was refuting that idiotic statement. I swear on the spherical moon that I will win this debate. Because my opponent refuses to provide any evidence to back up their wild claims.
Earth is a spinning ball.

"The teachers never saw the Earth from the moon, their bosses never saw it." Have you ever seen a platypus? No? Well then how do you believe that they're real? (2) I'll be honest, all I saw in that photo was the sky and a bunch of squares and circles in the clouds some had put on the photo. You didn't even prove that the photo was from NASA. (4)(5) Do you know how big the earth is compared to a small satellite? :/ (6) Why is this an argument. It was just a waste of time. (7) It's called depth. The moon and the Earth are not right next to each other, so obviously a picture taken from the surface of the moon would make Earth look small. (8) Why would NASA do that. Why. You said it yourself, there is no evidence at all for that. And FYI planes cannot fly that high. (9)(10) One, where did these come from. Sources please. Two, what point are you even making??? (11) If they were why would they show us the pool. And again, what would they gain from this. (12) The toolbox continues moving the entire time. And Earth is spinning, it just spins slower than you could see in a two minute video clip. If you could have seen it spinning our days would be an hour long. (13) First of all that video was awful quality, second I don't even know what he meant by that. And the other astronauts don't look at him so...? (14) That video obviously shows curvature. I suggest holding a ruler to the computer screen to measure. (15) Smokes on stage, insults Stephen Hawking, is obviously an awful comedian. It's fair to say I stopped watching after that. (16) "This video has been removed by the user" The overall question: Why would NASA fake this? How would they gain anything?
Earth is a spinning ball.

http://www.universetoday.com... NASA.org The earth is not a ball, first of all. It is not a perfect sphere. It is slightly squished because of gravitational factors. I am arguing that yes, the earth is spinning and spherical. We can find evidence by many mathematical ways, but the most trustable way is that we actually have video of the Earth spinning. On Nasa's website they have a 24 hour live feed from the space station that you can watch. Why would you think that is fake?
Earth is a spinning ball.

I hold that the earth is not a spinning globe as modern science claims. I am looking for empirical evidence that we live in a ball spinning at 1,000mph, tilted at a 66.6° angle, travelling at 66,000 mph in a 600,000 mile race track around the sun in space. Pro must use round one to provide such evidence, and forfeit the last round. Any media publicly available may be used until said media or it's source is proven false or unreliable.
No abortion outside of extenuating circumstances should be permitted

Myself and Envisage have agreed to have this debate on whether or not abortion should be permitted.First, let me clarify the resolution:Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human foetusExtenuating circumstances: Pregnancies that are life-threatening to the motherPermitted: Allowed to take place by the governing body of the society in which the person resides. In cases of abortion, this will be the government.Rules- No over-reliance on semantic arguments- No sociological kritiks (e.g advocacy of the abolition of government)- No new arguments in round 4, only rebuttalsStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive case, no rebuttals yetR3: RebuttalsR4: Final rebuttals and closing statements_________________________________________________________________________________________________________If Envisage disputes any of the above terms of this debate, I invite him to voice his concerns in the comments section.
Homeschooling VS Public School

i. Wikipedia is a fair source to use in informal debates like these. Wikipedia is not a valid source to cite for professional input or opinion, but I only cited it for statistics (for which they provide references). I hope potential voters consider this, despite the fact that I have refrained from all-caps-ing it. I. My opponent's personal experience is again discounted. You are either clearly above average intelligence or have an above average intelligence homeschool teacher. This does not indicate general results. In fact, it clearly does the opposite. If you claim that even the degree holding teachers at public schools are unqualified, then why should the average American parent be any different? I suggest that you would notice results skewed in the opposite direction. Perhaps homeschooling was most beneficial in your unique situation, but your premise suggests that we are seeking for the best system for universal education. II. My opponent clearly misunderstands my definition of financial security. Middle class is most certainly financially secure. It is, after all, the middle class- meaning that while there is room for financial growth, there is some security or level of attainment. For families who are not as fortunate as my opponent, homeschooling is simply not possible. Conclusion: I have kept my final rebuttal brief, as my opponent has failed to offer any indication that homeschooling can function better than public schooling. In a Utopian society where everyone has stable families and homes, perhaps homeschooling is a method of education we could consider for universal application. However, it is not possible. This is why the public schools exist to begin with. Most parents are not qualified to teach, and many are not even home enough to. I have shown the necessity of maintaining public schooling while my opponent has only shown very selective situational benefits of homeschooling. As such, you must vote Con. Thanks again for the debate Pro. It has been a pleasure.
Homeschooling VS Public School

1. It is easy for social interactions to occur. For one there are religious events and many people go to a co-op which is specifically designed to give kids a chance to socialize. There are also home school Proms (very large ones), home school plays (yet again, large ones), and many other opportunities for social interactions. 2. While parents are often less qualified, homeschoolers use set curriculums to teach. These curriculums are specifically designed to make it easy to teach and also learn. 3. This is my first personal example and I will be using a factual example in a minute. To start, both my brother and sister are on the highest level scholarship possible at IUPUI (Bepko). My brother was also accepted into the Naval Academy, an incredibly difficult school to get into as it not only requires physical adeptness, it requires extremely good academics, character, and a nomination from a US Senator or Representative. 4. Homeschoolers do extremely well on tests and in college, showing that homeschooling does prepare. According to http://www.intellectualtakeout.org... We see that homeschoolers have on average .3 better GPA in their fourth year of college than public schoolers and even are above private schools and charter schools. 5. According to http://www.washingtontimes.com... Homeschoolers had at least 30% higher scores on tests such as the California Achievement Test, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and the Stanford Achievement Test. 6. Finally, according to http://www.parentingscience.com... Homeschoolers scored at least one grade point higher in 5/7 test areas than public schoolers of the same area with with extremely similair characteristics. I will admit that not all homeschoolers are smarter but when compared on average, they come out ahead in almost everything. The one thing they don't do as well in is tests about evolution or such as many-most homeschoolers are taught on a Christian base and are not taught about evolution.
The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Presumably, the rest of this debate will focus on the validity of my P1, that objective moral facts do exist. Con's test for objective existenceTo summarize, my opponent's test for objectiveness requires that 'objects' be able to be independently observed and have measurable physical characteristics. However, this test says nothing of the requirements of metaphysical existence, but seems to focus entirely on the requirements for epistemologically knowing of something's existence. Con's list of requirements says nothing of the actual characteristics needed for existence since it incorporates requirements such as measurability and observability. Con's list of requirements is also flawed in that it proves too much. For Con's list to correctly identify the requirements for existence, it would necessarily send things such as mathematical and logical laws and other forms of a priori knowledge. Laws- The Law of IdentityThe law of identity states that any object N is necessarily the same as itself(N). Even though this law of logic cannot be independently observed except through it's interaction with other objects(Socrates is Socrates), however this is the same relationship which moral properties have with other objects(we can come to know murder is wrong through observing other objects murder). This law also has no measurable characteristics such as temperature or volume. However, no one could possibly argue that a "cogent theoretical model of existence"(in my opponent's words) would be possible without incorporating the law of identity. As I have shown, either Con's list of "objectivity" requirements is incomplete, or laws of logic and mathematics do not exist. Subjective moralityWhile external forces such as culture and time do appear to influence the moral systems of people, this does not conclusively prove a subjective morality. The same can be applied to scientific beliefs. Just like we can know that the belief in the 1100's in a Earth-centered universe was false, so we can know whether a particular culture's belief in human sacrifice was wrong or not. Con's point about variability across cultures can be applied to any subset of knowledge. Also, Con's analogy to money while interesting proves little. I can provide my own analogy as well. Morality is like an apple. Whether one believes in it's existence or not, it continues to exist. The analogy provided by Con while explaining his reasoning, does not serve to prove anything. I pass the debate back to ApostateAbe.
The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

This debate is for Socialpinko's ELO Tournament, Group A Round 1. ===Resolution and BoP===Pro argues that the moral argument for the existence of God is sound. Con will argue that it is either not sound or is not valid. The BoP will be on the Pro. Pro must provide a positive argument for the defense of the resolution, while Con must show why Pro's argument is flawed.===Definitions===The definition of God which will be used for the scope of this debate will be the traditional tri-omni God. An entity which possesses the characteristics of being all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.Valid argument: When an argument "takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false."[1]Sound argument: When an argument "is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true."[1]I will post the actual moral argument along with my points for it's soundness in the next round.===Structure and rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...
Is abortion good for a woman

Thank you for this debate, not sure why you challenged me, but it was fun. Also your concluding argument has nothing to do the debate which was "Is abortion good for a women" thus commenting on it would be pointless for both sides. The only thing that is remotely close is what if the child looks like the rapist. The women has an option to put the child up for adoption or foster care to avoid that problem, or the women is strong enough to get over such a gruesome attack. To put it simply having an abortion won't change the fact she was raped. It will only promote irresponsibility among people, cause physical and mental damage upon the women.
Is abortion good for a woman

Ok what if the child was around,wat if she gave him away to a foster home,or if she actually did keep him he might keep reminding her about the whole session by looking like the rapist in ways also what if the rapist experienced many disabilities like psychotic abnormalities,also for the child he might become very angry with the world for what he has heard and decided to end it all or start his own raping rampage,yet for a girl offspring what if she wants to get back at societe by shooting up a mall or taking drugs to forget about this horrible thing on what she heard,(also dont forget not every child is normal) the one thing that happens is the mother usually gets an abortion or sends him away.
Is abortion good for a woman

"what would happen to the child if he found out his mother never wanted him and his father is a rapist in jail." Nothing would happen to the child if he found out. I mean sure the child would be heart broken, but since he/she was born proves that his mother cared about (s)he. If she didn't wanted (s)he she would of had an abortion. Also when you state "she will have to go through many processes that will be stressful and may even cause her to gain weight which will make her less attractive which causes depression" is the negative affect of the rape. She would most likely be feeling those things from being raped. She could experience those physcological problems on top of the ones she could be having from PAS.
Is abortion good for a woman

To answer your question "Is abortion good for a women" the answer is no. Abortion is a painful process, and dangerous. Not only is it painful physically, but mentally as well. The mental pain comes from PAS(Post abortion syndrome). Which basically is the women and people surrounding her telling her nothing is wrong with an abortion. When symptoms start occurring she tells herself that it isn't the abortion causing them. The women eventually starts feeling repression and denial. This may lead to social destruction and suicide. The suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth. The rate for women following a live birth was 5.9 per 100,000; following miscarriage 18.1; following abortion 34.7. Also is the physical pain/damage. These damages can occur using either the pill or surgical abortions. These risks are heavy bleeding, infection, scarring of the uterus lining, and many others. Heavy bleeding may occur when the cervix or uterus torn. If the women bleeds enough she will require a blood transfusion. The women also might get an infection from dirty tools, or from fetal parts mistakenly left inside. This may cause pelvic infection which can lead to persistent fevers which may require hospitalization. The last damage I gave was scarring of the uterus lining. This may cause problems having birth in the future and may induce miscarriages. Also in a 1979 study 97% of women claimed to have some pain after an abortion. Another point is cost. If the women is victim to PAS or any number of physical damage they may need to be hospitalized. This will run up their bill, and can cause financial trouble. Granted a baby cost a lot as well, but the women or couple(since there is another part here) should have been more responsible.
People who say "homosexuality is genetically related" are delusional

It would appear that en1gma failed to refute any of my claims, or post anything for that matter. I think that would mean that I have won. However, still having 7,840 characters remaining, I will refute the arguments he made in his previous post as follows: 1) It is illogical for a gay gene to exist: This isn't true. That's sort of like saying, Down syndrome must not be genetic, because a deformity which harmed society wouldn't exist because of natural selection. This of course is ridiculous. Not all genes help society. If they did, then everyone individual would BE perfect. 2) Explain bisexuality: Very well. Bisexuality could be the byproduct of certain genes. That simple. Just like homosexuality 3) Why is there no cure: Not every genetic issue has a cure. This should be obvious. Not to mention the fact that many people do not feel that it's a bad thing to be homosexual. Also, it's a genetic issue. You can't change someone's genetic makeup. 4) Explain twins with different sexualities: The simple answer is as follows, it's a mixture of social and biological factors that determine an individual's homosexualty. 5) Homosexual animals under stress: Yes, animals under stress exhibit homosexual behavior. But they also exhibit this same behavior in their natural environment, as I discussed earlier. So, your points have been refuted. My evidence for a correlation between homosexuality and genetic makeup remains unrefined. I think it's safe to say that the audience must vote con, in favor of the overwhelming evidence I supplied. Thank you.