BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org is Useless in the Idea That it Changes People's Opinions

I completely agree with your statement. DDO allows people to go past the boundary of political correctness and share their views, giving them an idea of where they stand on things. DDO is good for that, but that is not what this debate is about. This debate is discussing the idea that Debate.org is useless at CHANGING those people's opinions. It does a perfectly good job at making debaters more opinionated, as you mentioned, but not at making those opinions different based on their debate with an opponent. Admittedly, someone could be looking through someone's debate, reading a passage from someone of the opposite opinion's argument, and think, "Huh, I haven't thought of it that way." But when someone is doing their own debate, he is determined to prove the other person wrong, not to try and find a reason to change his opinion on a subject. One is too busy coming up with ways to back up his stance to think about if the other person's argument might be just as good, if not better, than his. Do you believe that DDO is full of people willing to have their opinions changed by random strangers on the internet?
Debate.org is Useless in the Idea That it Changes People's Opinions

Inherently if Debate.org is useless in the idea that it changes people's opinions in and of themselves (which is only subjectively falsifiable) then it objectively has forced people debating those opinions to change their opinion on the OPPOSITE opinion. What I mean is this:Why do strangers come here? To meet with people of opposing and similar views (yes BOTH).They want to both feel enemies and brotherhood-type gang mentality because that's what human nature is all about.To feel close you need people similar to you, but also need an opposing gang.Outside of DDO the real world is really very politically correct and raising arguments is somewhat taboo in daily life, so people never really have a conscious opinion on many things, they often come here to CHANGE THEIR NEUTRALITIES into STRONG EDUCATED VIEWS.
Debate.org is Useless in the Idea That it Changes People's Opinions

Allons-y! Debate.org is useless in the idea that it changes people's opinion. Merely, it enforces whatever that person believes when he sides with people who agree with him in another debate. "...choices made by political parties are often single-minded unilateral decisions which lack freedom of thought, as they are constrained within boundaries imposed by the political parties" belief system," [1]. This is basically true on Debate.org as well. Everyone has already made up their minds as to what they believe. We are merely debating in a feeble attempt to change our opponent's mind to what we believe individually. Rarely is someone determined to have their mindset changed by some random person on the internet's argument. It is hard to find a debate compelling enough to change one's opinion, so the arguments in a debate are only good for practicing one's ranting skills and to see how many people agree one way or another, as in the case of [2]. In this debate, it is clear that neither Pro or Con would ever change their opinion. Merely, they just wanted to see how many people thought they were right, and in this case, it seems that the user known as Danielle was the popular vote. People are too biased to vote for someone that they do not agree with, even if his argument is better written and/or supported, as shown in the voting comments of this debate [3], where the user says that Pro's arguments were more convincing, yet he still went with the opposite opinion. Debaters debate purely to gang up on someone of the opposite opinion or to make sure that their side of the argument is voted up. Debate.org is good for getting other people's opinion on a subject and getting a poll on how many people feel a certain way on that subject, as in the opinion and forum sections, but when it comes to the debate section, all that is good for is setting people's minds even further into their own opinion. I peachfully await my opponent's response. 1. http://www.lemiffe.com... 2. http://www.debate.org...- in-her-same-sex-parenting-debate./1/ 3. http://www.debate.org...
Aliens are real

This is gonna be a sucky debate, because honestly, you picked my side... Here goes nothing. Aliens probably don't exist. There are NO planets in the universe that support what I call the "this one's just right" zone (also known as the goldylox zone.) No matter how many science documentaries you've seen on the Discovery channel, remember, these scientists are being paid by the Discovery channel, to do a documentary on something that probably doesn't exist. I saw a science documentary on YouTube posted by the History Channel, saying that there are planets out there that support life, but I can almost guarantee you that it is absolutely fake. Now, I'm about to blow your mind. They say, that the universe is endless. Well, if it is in fact "endless," that would mean that there's a parallel universe, and there is somebody, right now, in that very parallel universe, that is actually typing on his IPad or Computer debating about the exact same topic that we're debating about. That, my friend, is an alien. He lives outside of THIS earth (Parallel universes, means there's another planet out there called earth) in space. THAT makes him an alien. It's all prospective, my friend.
Aliens are real

The definition of an Angel is "messenger." Why? Because an Angel came down from the heavens, to tell the Virgin Mary that she was going to have a baby, and to name him Jesus. This Angel sent a message from God, therefore, making the Angel a messenger. You can't very well call an Angel an alien, because you obviously have no clue about the birth of Jesus Christ, God, or Christianity. Almost every Christian knows about the birth of Jesus Christ. Aliens, not that there are any, are supposed to come from another planet. As heaven is not another planet, they couldn't qualify as an alien anyway. Now, I do believe that the US government is where the bullsh*ters roam, but I don't think that they're bullsh*ting about this topic. Now you're saying that "Angels" are aliens. They still have the power of god, and the US Government, as powerful as it is, would never be able to overcome godly powers, which means they're not bullsh*ting about this topic.
Aliens are real

sorry for my bad spelling and stuff Take angels for instance. The Bible is always talking about angels and how they interact with humans and how some are good and some bad. The word angel translates as "messenger" which fits in very tightly with an angel being an alien. Don't you find it funny how pretty much every picture of an angel has wings? Well, if you were a primitive man from this period of time and the only knowledge you had of flight was the wings of birds, perhaps you too would picture humans with wings.Chariots of fire? Horses of fire? Went up into heaven? I have never seen a chariot of fire or horses of fire going up into heaven, but I have seen spaceships with engines go into space. Again, it seems as though the primitive mind of those of ancient times explain things the best they can. It's like us trying to explain time travel to a higher level of consciousness - we sound like morons. its extremely logical.We were created in "Gods" (aliens) image. We have animals that are lower levels of consciousness than us (ie: dogs, lizards, snails), but we don't have anything higher? The biggest BSers (government) tells us there's no such thing People educated in the field say they are real while people who don't research say they're not
Aliens are real

I would like to point out my opponant's lack of grammar, poor spelling, and poor argument . Where did you learn about Area 51? "Re-engineering UFO's?" I don't really believe that. It's all about the $$$. First of all, the US Economy doesn't have the money, to "Re-engineer" these UFO's. Do you know how much money that would cost? That would be trillions, that the United States Government doesn't have, and $$$ is the reason that these guys are spilling Top Secret information from Area 51. I think I might know what you mean by "hi identify" so I'll try and guess. Do you mean that he was erased from the "system?" If anything, the US Government would have kept him in the system, under close watch, and he's lucky he didn't go to jail. How would you feel if all of your darkest secrets were spilled out to your friends, family, and to the public , by one of your closest friends? Wouldn't you do all you could to stop him from telling more? Now you never gave me any proof that this ever happened, you have no sources, you have nothing, so I'm calling this a lie and I'm moving on. In "history' there have in fact been many reported sightings of UFO's, but they came from uneducated people who had no idea what they were looking at. One reported sighting of an alien aircraft was actually a SR-71 Blackbird spy plane that exploded in the sky (source, History Channel.) This plane was new, right out of Area 51. Another reported sighting, back in the 1990's, was actually a sighting of the brand new B2 Stealth bomber (source, History Channel) which was also brand new, from Area 51. In other words, almost all of these "alien spacecraft sightings" have been debunked. I could easily go on and on, about these reported, but fake, alien sightings, but I would like to go on to the final topic. The TV shows on aliens are re-runs! The History Channel runs them as fill in's for weekends, or for when they have nothing else to out on, it's as easy as that.
Aliens are real

Have you ever herd of the place area 51. well there has been many people who have worked there that have said that they are re-engineering UFO's.One of those men have told the news.he got all of hi identify erase and all of the records saying that he worked there had been erase my the American government but there were witnesse that worked there saying that he did work there. also in history there has been many everdense that aliens are real.There may be aliens but not as we thing they look like. isnt it a coincident that recently there has been lots of tv shows on aliens. in history there is has cases of aliens such as flying charriots in the sky.there is a pictuer of virgin mary but in the background there is a ufo and and a villiager in the background loing up in the sky.that was painted thousand of years ago
time parodox's are not posible

i kinda just thought of something, what you said kind of helped me, you cant create the paradox because in order to do so you wouldn't exist, and it keeps on going. sure what i am saying is going against what i am trying to say but you cant create a paradox. but anyways if you killed your granddad then you died to but if i never exist to kill him, how do i come back into existence to kill him again? But i don't know if i want you to answer that because we are talking about something different, maybe in the comments. your turn.
time parodox's are not posible

Ill be pro for this debate. it is about time paradox's are not possible. my starting statement is that if you could create a paradox, for instance touching your self in the past, I think it could not be unless it happened already. You cant change the past, and make a paradox, because if you did, it already would have happened, unless your the starting person, but I think if you were to create a paradox, you might just not be aloud to. this is probably really confusing and makes no sense im sorry.
The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System

I will admit that the Ranked-Choice system is not a perfect system, for no voting system can be flawless. However, I am arguing that it is still better than our current first-past-the-post system. It actually does not produce the spoiler effect because such an effect would be impossible under the ranked-choice system. When I use the term spoiler effect, I am referring to the splitting of the vote between two candidates of similar ideology, resulting in the candidate of the other ideology winning. This cannot happen with a Ranked-Choice system because the voters voting for each of the two candidates of similar ideology would just rank the other candidate of that ideology as their second choice. Hence, the spoiler effect is eliminated. It may be true that the ranked-choice system may lead to a two-party system, but it is not as hard for a third-party candidate to make an election bid under the ranked-choice system. I will now present another example of how the ranked-choice system would benefit us. In the months of april and march, Michael Bloomberg was considering mounting a presidential bid. However, he decided not to do so because he feared being a spoiler that would lead to the victory of Donald Trump. Bloomberg would have been able to run under a ranked-choice system without fear of the spoiler affect. Although the ranked-choice system is perfect, it is better than our current system and we would benefit from adopting it.
The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System

Here's the thing, the Ranked-Choice Voting System, as explained by your previous source (), is still just as corrupt as the first past the post system. Voter's still vote strategically, they just put it all in one ballot. Over time, as the less favored candidates get knocked out, the secondary candidates, who would be voted for strategically in the next election under first past the post, now get the votes immediately. This means that the spoiler effect will happen just as much, but it will be disguised as a democratic system. People will still back out of their future campaigns after the first or second failure, which will lead to an ever decreasing number of candidates. The problems presented remain the same, but they occur faster.
The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System

One of the main reasons, among a few others, that drive people to not vote, is they don't like either of the two main candidates. Over the last two decades, politics in the U.S. have become more and more polarized, with the Democratic and Republican parties shifting more and more to the left and right, respectively. This results in a large percentage of the populace not voting because neither candidate appeals to them. This is the direct result of the traditional voting system. This video explains very well how a first-past-the-post voting method brings about a two-party system: ;(Watch from 1:40 to 3:50)The result of this system is that many voters are frusterated with both parties, and hence are much less likely to vote. The ranked-choice voting system, however, is different. It brings in more voters, because voters can vote for their favorite candidate without the fear of their disliked candidate winning because of the spoiler effect. Consider the same scenario explained in the video. After the first election, snake's voters and turtle's voters would not have to worry about the spoiler effect under the ranked-choice system. Snake's voters and turtle's voters would simply mark their least preferred candidate as such, to ensure that their votes will be transferred as they would want. This makes people much more likely to vote, because they would be able to vote without fear for a candidate that appeals to them. Con's argues that we should solve this issue of no voters first; however, the ranked-choice system is the solution.
The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System

A ranked choice system wouldn't produce the results that you talk about. As of right now, if such a system were to be implemented, people would still be used to the old system and treat the new system as such. In which case we would see a lot of people who would mark one person as a number one, but fail to actually put much thought into the rest of the ranking system. It's like proposing that the U.S.A. should switch to the imperial system. While it has a better light at the end of the tunnel, it would lead to a whole bunch of people who would be confused, unmotivated, and unwilling to accept the system. This is an absolutely horrible time to implement a ranked voting system. The number of people who vote is at an all e low. We would do better to solve the issue of no voters than changing the current voting system to something which may help democratically, but fail practically.
The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System

Note: I would like to clarify that this is referring to ALL ELECTIONS involving more than one candidate.There are many reasons why a ranked-choice voting system should be adopted. First, consider the scenario of the U.S. Republican primary. In the beggining of the primary season, the majority of the electorate was against Trump. However, since he had the plurality of support, he won most of the early states. Although the majority of the people were against Trump, he started to win. Only after he emerged as likely nominee did he begin to win more support, and even now a large percent of the Republican party is still unhappy about how the election turned out. Now, consider the same scenario with a ranked-choice system instead of the traditional first past the post system. If given the option to rank candidates, I am sure that many voters, as seen with the 'Never Trump' movement, would have ranked Trump as their last choice. Then, as the ballots were counted, the votes would eventually be allocated to a candidate that was the second, third, etc. choice of the voters. Therefore, the votes would eventually be allocated to someone that is slightly pleasing to a large number of voters, rather than the votes being spread out amongst candidates that are very pleasing to small numbers of people. If a ranked-choice system was used in the Republican primaries, it is very likely that a different candidate may have emerged as the nominee. What the traditional voting system often does with a large field of candidates is produce a candidate that is very appealing to a small group of people, but turns off the majority, in the case of Donald Trump. That candidate only wins because his small group is larger than his rivals' small groups. On the contrary, the ranked-choice system produces a candidate that is moderately pleasing to the majority. Therefore, the ranked-choice system results in a better representation of the people. Therefore, it should always be used whenever possible.
The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System

The Ranked Choice voting system (also called transferable vote, instant-runoff vote, and preferential vote), is a voting system where the voters rank the candidates in order of preference rather than only voting for one candidate. The process works as follows: The first place votes for all of the candidates are counted as normal. If no one candidate has the majority of votes, however, the candidate with the least number of first-place votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to whoever that voter's second choice was. This flowchart explains the process clearly: . https://en.wikipedia.org...I will take the position that adopting a Ranked Choice voting system would be benifical to the United States. My opponent's position should be that either the current first past the post voting system or another voting system would be better.
The second amendment should NOT be restricted

I am not in favor of allowing convicts to own firearms. They are a risk to society. However, the evidence shows that laws do not take guns away from criminals. [1] In the countries I named, here is a source to back up the fact that gun crime increased following the implementation of strict gun control. My opponent states a scenario in which guns are taken away by police and thus criminals are unable to obtain them. However, the majority of criminals get guns which are untraceable, either by stealing them or getting illegally made or imported guns. So the police have no way of finding them, and thus, crimes do not decrease. In fact they increase. [2] My opponent refers to the difference in gun crime and laws between europe and the united states. However, he can only point to a few examples of countries with strict laws and low crime. However, a Harvard study found that strict gun laws do not lead to low crime. [3] Even in poster countries for gun control, such as the UK, their murder rate increased to its present day 35 from a much lower number after they passed sweeping gun control. While still low, the evidence shows that the gun control increased murder rates to several times what it was before. Even in the united states, we see this. Crime is heavily concentrated in the few cities which have high gun control. This becomes even more so when they pass more laws, and crime diminishes when they repeal them. [2] I agree with my opponent's stance on the second amendment's acting as a deterrent. I believe any law abiding citizen should be able to own any small arm they choose. Small arms being rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. Heavy artillery can already be owned, but it is so expensive and difficult to acquire that it is never used in crimes. But I stand by with my question, why is it that these gun laws always increase the crime in the area in which they are implemented? Chicago, DC, England, Russia, all these places have passed strict gun laws and yet see crime rates go up. They will not increase it so much as to bring it to the top ten violent countries list, but people are dying from these laws nonetheless. [1] http://www.pbs.org... [2] More Guns, Less Crime. by Dr. John Lott [3] http://www.breitbart.com...
The second amendment should NOT be restricted

Firstly, gun control has not worked in the past. In every case, we have seen crime rates increase after gun control is passed. Even England, with their low crime rate and high gun control, had even fewer crimes per year before the gun ban. This phenomenon is universal. It occurs in the US, Europe, Russia, South America, Jamaica, the list goes on. The reason is quite simple. Criminals don't obey these laws, which only disarm people who obey the law. This encourages criminals to attack or rob the sitting ducks that are citizens. Another reason is that the second amendment acts as a deterrent against oppressive government. The reason America is the freest country is that we have the 2nd amendment.
rap battle 02

First I'd like to state that I'm for Obama not Romney, Why are you so pleased, With yourself, You act like you were born on a shelf, With those dictionaries everywhere, Actin' like your all cool, Even though they know your just another old dusty book that fell in a pool, You say that your the best, But your no better than the rest, In fact your even worse, So maybe you should go back to your old job as a nurse, Jesus! Ya right, your just a clown, With that big red nose and that poka dotted gown, Imma show you how to ryme, Cuz it sounds like this is your first time, Now go back to the library, And do your research, Cuz boy you don't even know me, You act like you do, But your just a fool, You say I'm your hoe, Your just a joke, Why would you want to do that with another guy, I would rather DIE!!! So now have some of your mamas pie!!! This was fun. Thanks for the battle man.