BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Football (international) is better than football (American).

Football, at least by its definition throughout most of the world, is the most popular sport in the world. Football of the NFL variety is one of the least popular. American football is a slow, complicated, and inaccessible game that is based on brute strength. International football is a fast paced, simple, accessible game that is based on skill. Children in the dirt streets of Africa don't play American football with a balled-up rag, nor would they want to.
If a person forfeits more rounds than they debated in during a debate,they should automatically lose

" "I rarely vote for someone who forfeits even once." This is opinion and should not be taken as a factual statement." Okay, I'll put this into better terms, 5 times I've voted for someone who forfeited once. I've probably voted on hundreds of things. Now it is an unreputable fact. To conclude, you have THREE DAYS to post an argument, if you forfeit a round that means that either you were stupid and went away while you had debates going, or you were stupid and didn't post anything. I know that sometimes you get busy and can't help it, but forfeiting is nothing more than not having the drive.
If a person forfeits more rounds than they debated in during a debate,they should automatically lose

"I rarely vote for someone who forfeits even once." This is opinion and should not be taken as a factual statement. It does not matter how many rounds are used in a debate, Though I will admit it is not exactly polite. The fact remains that if an argument is posted that is so persuasive and factually correct that it could not be refuted the one who posted it would still win regardless of the forfeiture of future rounds. You can make a Decent argument that the earth is flat however a single factual representation of anything else would still win the debate. Unless the rules of the specific debate state that an individual will lose if they forfeit a round it is possible to be victorious.
If a person forfeits more rounds than they debated in during a debate,they should automatically lose

Thank you Revleader for this debate, I am looking forward to a good exchange. My opponents opening statement is as follows. It is impossible to say that if a person forfeits for example two of three rounds and the other one gives a solid 3 rounds, that the forfeiting person should still have a decent shot at winning. My only goal then is to prove that it is indeed possible for an individual to forfeit several rounds of a debate and still have a shot at winning. Contention: If a debater were to make an argument in the first round of a debate that were logically and philosophically incontrovertible, That individual would still have the upper hand in the debate regardless of the arguments put forth by his opponent. Likewise if his opponent were to put forth a few solid rounds that were illogical and devoid of any merit the forfeiting individual would still have the upper hand in the debate. With this simple contention I have shown that it is possible for an individual to forfeit and still have the upper hand in a debate.
If a person forfeits more rounds than they debated in during a debate,they should automatically lose

Closing: My opponent is correct in many things that you have three days to post your argument is clearly one of them. However, the rules of a democratic site and society dictate that an individual has the freedom to vote in what ever manner they so choose. When a person accepts a Debate I do believe they should finish the debate however I also believe that all valid points should be considered when voting on a debate. Do I think it rude not to complete all of your rounds yes I do but as the rules do not consider it grounds for immediate loss in the debate neither can we, for once we do we are no longer a democratic debate society. All arguments weather trivial or not weather forfeited or not should be weighed when voting on a debate. I have shown that it is Possible for an individual to win a debate based on the sole veracity of the opening statement. We have all tried to win a debate in the closing. If the possibility is there for success even if you have forfeiture then automatic loss should not occur. In this debate society everyone is given the ability to vote as they deem fit this includes voting as my opponent has for people that have forfeited rounds
George Bush (43) was a better president than Barack Obama

it is like you are doing this on purpose. just sit there and think of how many attempts bush made to stop border crossing osama and other things. and you say 5 trillion like its a good thing and its not. obama has created more jobs and has stated less wars than bush. we would not be in debt if bush hadn't started it. and the away bush carried him self as a president was ludicrous. being drunk on national tv and count how many times a shoe has been throw at obama.
George Bush (43) was a better president than Barack Obama

Your single and only argument is ludicrous. It is not George Bush's fault that Osama bin Laden evaded the U.S. He was given safe harbor by many arab nations. It was the United States military (people risking their lives) that found and killed Bin Laden. You cannot give Obama credit for that... Here are just SOME of the things that make Bush better. 1. Obama voted against a law that would protect babies that were born as a result of a botched abortion. Obama feels that they should be able to suffocate to death without any help from the medical expert standing right there. 2. The average unemployment rate under Bush was 5.5% and Under Obama: 7.8%!!! That's a difference of millions of jobs. 3. Obama had no experience going in. All he had to speak of was 1 partial term in the senate. No military, economic, or governing experience. 4. The Bush Administration added $5 trillion to the debt in 8 years. Obama has added $7 trillion in 4.25 years!!! 5. Obama is using the suffering and mourning of the Newtown Connecticut families to exploit a political gain against Republicans. He has introduced 0 laws to stop gun violence. Being that your argument was quite frankly a joke, I feel that there is no need for me to go on.
Who would win in a fight Gandalf or Dumbledore

I am confused by my opponents forfeit. I shall post my argument anyway.In a 1 on 1 fight to the death, Gandalf would be able to take Dumbledore. I will support this statement with a series of contentions and evidence based on observable evidence from the movies and books of both series. For the sake of argument, I will assume that combatants will not be able to call upon allies such as the fellowship of the ring or shadowfax.Gandalfs ArsenalGlamdringThe first major advantage gandalf has over dumbledore is his sword, glamdring. Gandalf the white is an expert swordsman, and kills quite efficiently with glamdring. He even killed the goblin king with glamdring, while he was still grey. Gandalf even took on a fell beast with glamdring. Most impressive of all, is of course his duel with the demon of moria, the horrible visage of morgul, the Balrog. Gandalf even summoned lightning with glamdring atop a mountain to kill the Balrog. Glamdring is a very deadly sword. It is elven crafted and imbued with powerful magic. He can cut through many foes with it, and can summon powerful magical attacks with it. If Gandalf closed the gap in a fight and was up close and personal with dumbledore, then dumbledore would have no defense against Gandalfs melee attacks.The Staff of a White WizardAs a white wizard, Gandalf is armed with an incredibly powerful conduit of magical power. The staff of a white wizard. Gandalf uses this powerful tool not only as an effective bludgeoning weapon, but also as a conduit for many of his spells. I will talk more in depth about his supernatural abilities in the next portion of my argument. Supernatural abilitiesGandalf is an Ainur, an immortal spirit, so technically he can't die. Even if by some miracle dumbledore was able to somehow vanquish him in a fight, gandalf would simply return with a vengeance. As an Ainur or, more commonly, a Wizard, gandalf also has access to a collection of incredibly powerful spells. Gandalf the White is the most powerful of the Wizards. He has the power of the voice, similar to sarumans, and can summon very powerful magic to assist him. The wizards of harry potter have somewhat insignificant powers compared to the ainur. Their spells are totally localized. They can disarm opponents, stun them, and if they are a dark wizard (which dumbledore is not) they can maybe torture, control, and kill their enemy. Gandalf can bring down storms, summon giants, and control the weather. He can also summons massive blasts of power to throw around his opponents.Vote Gandalf! Sources1. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (books) by J.R.R. Tolkein2. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (movies) directed by Peter Jackson3. The Hobbit (book) by J.R.R. Tolkein4. The Silmilarrion (Book) by J.R.R. Tolkein 5. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Movie) directed by Peter Jackson
Abortion

Great, another forfeiter. As someone who has debated abortion before, I will put a link to my original abortion debate right here: http://www.debate.org... I will be using arguments that I used from that debate here, so if you have any questions about my argument, simply read my original arguments. (1) First of all, I would like to define an abortion. “Abortion is the termination ofpregnancy by the removal or expulsion from theuterus of afetus orembryo beforeviability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is often called amiscarriage, or it can be purposelyinduced. The term abortion most commonly refers to the induced abortion of a human pregnancy. After viability, the relevant procedure is referred to as a ‘late termination of pregnancy’ Modern medicine utilizes medications and surgical procedures for induced abortion.” From Wikipedia Great. Now that we all know what abortion is, I would like to bring up that Abortion is a right in many countries. Almost every country in the world have abortion that is legal to a degree. Often countries allow abortions only in special cases, like rape, fetal defects and maternal health. Only 6 countries refuse to give abortions under any circumstance. However, many countries allow abortions for any reason. “The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives ‘a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy,’ and that ‘This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ ” Abortion in many countries is considered a civil right and taking away a right is not a good thing. Why? Simple. Discrimination. Anti-Abortion laws discriminate against rape-victims. Not only is it unfair to the mother but it is also unfair to the child. Imagine growing up with a mother who didn’t want you. This would be very bad. Any ways, I have to wrap things up. Thanks DDD. http://abortion.procon.org...
A person's political voting power should be based on their IQ.

A person's IQ is based on their "Mental Age". It's far more important that a voter has the reasoning skills necessary to make informed voting decisions, than simply being at least 18. I argue that stupid people should not be allowed to vote, and the smarter one is, the more their vote should count. This is especially important due to the fact that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts to sway the "sheeple".
A person's political voting power should be based on their IQ.

IQ test is flawed A. ) There can be a large discrepancy between different tests From 1946 to 1953 the Cleveland juvenile court psychologists used the Healy Picture Completion test as a non-discriminating intelligence test. On this test over 30% of the children tested received IQ scores of 110 or over. When the HPC was eliminated only 9% of the children scored at 110 or over. Thus, some voters would be disadvantaged because of the test they take B. ) IQ Test is racist According to Al Siebert, Ph. D. , author of The Survivor Personality, vocabulary tests often use words that middle-class white people are more likely to know. Thus, the tests themselves are racist and thus voting would be racist. Racism in voting would undermine America’s core values and is something that we need to avoid.2 2. Giving everyone an IQ test is impractical A. ) There aren’t enough psychologists According to the American Physiological Association, there are approximately 93,000 practicing physiologists in the United States. According to the U. S. Census, there were 207,643,594 eligible voters in 2008. When you do the math that is one psychologist per approximately 2,233 persons. According to iqtest. com, an adult IQ test can take from 1.5 to 2 and 2.5. Even if the tests only lasted 1.5 hours, each psychologist would have to spend 3,499.5 hours (approximately 5 months) of administrating tests alone. That is way too much. Psychologists have other things to do, like see other patients, make a living, sleep, eat, and have a life. B. ) Waste of Time While these IQ tests are being administered, people will miss work and that will likely hurt the economy 3. Undermines America’s Values We all should have the right to vote. There should not be discrimination, and this plan would discriminate. Refutation He does not show how the ability to do well on an IQ test affects a person’s ability to make informed decisions. He also does not show how scoring well on a flawed test makes a person less likely to be swayed by unions. Thus, he has no impacts. Conclusion I have shown that the IQ test is flawed which is why we must not use this. If it doesn’t measure intelligence then it is won’t even achieve what pro wants. Even if we did do this, the smarter, more informed people would not be getting more voting power It is completely impractical. He doesn’t establish any impacts, he has no warrants, and even if you buy his case my impacts outweigh.
Christianity

Yes, I have read it, and I find it a very gory, stupid book. I know he died for our sins, but I was refering to how God made us un-finished, almost, as if we're not perfect. I'm saying why couldn't he have made us perfect and in-capable of sinning? How does free will answer my question? You're saying that he let it happen because they had free will when God knows it would've happened anyway? Wow, what an intelligent, heart warming guy God must've been.
Christianity

I guess I have burden of proof then.... "Why did God have to let Jesus suffer and die when he is omnipotent and he could've made everyone perfect?" Have you ever actually read the bible (explains that he died for our sins)? Why did God put the bad apple tree thing that would ruin humanity as a test when he would already know what would happen because again, he is omnipotent? ANSWER: FREE WILL I am looking forward to this debate... ;)
Christianity

Hello, this is my first 'debate' at debate.org, I am here to provide arguements against Christianity. Points: 'Thou shall not kill', except for jews, gays, slaves, and lots of other people. Christianity is stupid, you only take the good parts and ignore the rest. There is no evidence that God exists, so why should we provide counter evidence? Why did God have to let Jesus suffer and die when he is omnipotent and he could've made everyone perfect? Why did God put the bad apple tree thing that would ruin humanity as a test when he would already know what would happen because again, he is omnipotent? Tell me why I should believe in God when there is no evidence to make me believe in him.
The United States should establish a living wage

Refutations1. The minimum wage is unjust, and strengthening it is immoralWhat my opponent is trying to say is that not being able to feed your family is fine. He's saying that it is okay to be in poverty! Povert is inexcusable. At all costs the government must prevent people from poverty. Also, it is worth noting that we are not debating the minimum wage, we are debating a raise in the minimum wage, so discard that point. Also, he says that unless I prove that somehow a higher wage is a right than I lose, which is false. I do not need to explain that it is a right. You could call anything that our government will ever do a violation of rights, or what it helps "not a right". Also, since my opponent has cited no evidence that it will hurt employers, we can dismiss his point on how it is bad for businesses. "Economic logic" is weaker than actual statistics of this happening in other minimum wage increases.2. Raising the minimum wage has harmful effectsAgain, this argument has no numbers or statistics, it is just ideas. There is no evidence that this really will happen. If my opponent cannot cite bad things that have happened from other minimum wage raises, then he has completely lost this debate. I'll refute this point anyway, though. Law of DemandHere's another economic law: When wages increase, people spend more. When people spend more, it is good for businesses. If people have better wages they will pump it right back into the economy.OutsourcingMany of the jobs that are currently at minimum wage are not outsourcable. For example, a Starbucks barista or a McDonalds server.Increasing quantity of supplied laborThere is no way this can go bad. Companies could offer more positions and grow rapidly. Also, having more workers in the work force can help workers take back the jobs of illegal immigrants because their jobs are more desirable now. Also, as to getting rid of jobs for teenagers, that doesn't really matter as much. Teenagers don't work to sustain a family, they work to make a few extra bucks. A teenager only works part time, and part time at minimum wage is a tiny amount that won't make a difference in their day to day for the most part.The three ways my opponent can win this debate are:a. Prove that the problem this addresses is non existentPoverty is a very real and serious problem. You cannot prove poverty is not an issue.b. The proposal will not address the issue completelyHe can't go this way as well because this directly affects those in poverty who work at minimum wage jobs.c. The proposal has too many negative consequencesThe only way he can prove this is by citing statistics, which he has not done so far.Your move.
The United States should establish a living wage

Thanks for accepting. Just to clarify the resolution: a living wage is basically a raise in minimum wage.Let's begin. 1. Would help millions of people out of poverty and help them live better There is no way of getting around this fact. If we increase minimum wage, people who are paid minimum wage would get paid more, and have better lives. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 14.9 million workers, eleven percent of the work force, would receive an increase in their wages if we establish a living wage. Workers who receive pay at minimum wage, work ten hours a day, and three hundred and sixty five days a year, still make only twenty five thousand dollars a year. If we establish a living wage at our price of nine dollars and twenty one cents, that some person will be making a much more respectable living, at thirty five thousand dollars a year. 2. A living wage would discourage illegal immigration. If we increase the minimum wage, then jobs that are held by illegal immigrants would be more desirable to United States citizens because of their pay increase. One of the main reasons so many illegal immigrants have our jobs is because people don’t want to do all this tough labor for so little money. If we increase the minimum wage, more people will want jobs that illegal immigrants have. Giving these jobs to Americans will help the American economy a lot. This is according to the Arizona Watch. 3. An increase in minimum wage would help restrict greedy business owners. Many low wage job seekers lack negotiation skills or knowledge of the value of the labor they provide. Business owners can take advantage of this by only paying their workers the legal bare minimum, rather than paying their workers the real value of their labor. By raising the minimum wage, we won’t stop business owners from being greedy, but we will be able to contain their greediness. When we raise the minimum wage from seven dollars to nine dollars, we can make sure that laborers are getting an amount of money closer to what they deserve for their work.
The United States should establish a living wage

Hello all! Today we will be debating whether the United States should establish a living wage.A living wage is a minimum wage that is above poverty and can sustain a person. Theoretically, different families and workers have different living wages. For example, I would set the living wage for one person sustaining only themselves at nine dollars and twenty cents. It would be higher for supporting kids, or a wife, or a husband, etc etc.So, I will be saying this raise in minimum wage is good, you will be saying it is bad.Seventy two hours to vote, eight thousand characters, five rounds!FormalitiesRound 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Arguments with no clashRound 3-RefutationRound 4-Counter refutationRound 5-Conclusion
There is no god

It seems to me that my opponent looks around and assumes everything proves God. >Look at the trees >therefore Jesus Christ is real >Look at this child behaving well >Therefore Jesus is real >Look at how good looking I am >Therefore Jesus Christ is real This argument that my opponent used is called the teleological argument(the argument from design). >Anything that is complex must have a designer >The Universe is complex >Therefore the Universe must have a designer. One of the best proponents of this argument is William Paley. My opponent made a very weak version of the argument(He repeats the same argument over and over without providing any substance to it). Debunking Paley implies debunking the CON and any improvement that could be made to his argument. > if you were walking across a field and saw a watch lying upon the ground, You wouldn"t assume that it had come together by chance because it"s too ordered and complicated. Rather, You would assume that it had a conscious and intelligent designer. By way of analogy, Paley then went on to argue that because life and indeed the universe is ordered and complicated, It too must"ve had a conscious and intelligent designer. It commits a fallacy known as the false analogy fallacy(Because two things are similar in certain ways, Therefore they are similar in every way). Paley says that the watch and the Universe both share one similarity: They are both complex. Therefore they should share having a creator in common. This does not logically follow, Just because the universe and a watch share one thing in common, It does not mean that they share everything in common. Also false cause fallacy. Just because something is complex, It does not mean that it must have a designer. Human beings are complex, Yet we can explain through a completely natural process called the theory of evolution. No designer needed. Just millions of years of small incremental changes that led to us being how we are today. The argument from morality: I have to point out that my opponent is very bad at explaining their views. It makes no sense but I will try to improve their argument. >Humans beings are born with an innate sense of moral values that can only be determined by the christian god >Therefore, The christian god is real. This suggests to me that the opponent has never been with children before. Children always experiment by breaking things, Misbehaving, Putting random things in their mouths. They learn by trial-and-error(Burning their fingers when touching a hot kettle), By their parents scold them for misbehaving or rewarding them for behaving properly, Etc" Morality comes from people around us. For eg, People in the West tend to oppose incest while many tribes in certain regions practice incest as a highly noble act. I will leave you with this message: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.