BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be a minimum amount of time voters must spend on a debate before voting on it (DDO)

Opening StatementI will start off by admitting to something of which I am not proud of: sometimes I vote on DDO debates without reading the entire debate. I'll skim through the opening statements, and get a gist of what each party is arguing, and place my vote even though I am in no place to do so. There is a very simple solution to this problem. Debate. org should implement an option when starting a debate to allow people to set a minimum amount of time someone must spend on their debate (hopefully reading it! ) to be allowed to vote. This time could either be a fixed time or a time reflecting the word count in the debate. If this idea worked well enough, it could even replace the phone verification requires to vote because it would greatly hinder the style of 'vandal voters. ' People should be required to READ the debate before voting because if he or she doesn't, their vote will too much reflect already held convictions pertaining to the topic at hand. Voters are supposed to vote based on the quality of the arguments of the parties, NOT if they agree with them. RebuttalMy opponent's arguments have a fatal flaw: they assume debates are equal and thus should be given equal priority when it comes to the accesibility and accuracy of the votes they get. This is not true.1. Troll debates: Sometimes, the contender ignores the resolution completelyWhy should debate. org put useless, 'offtopic' debates before high-quality, thoughtprovoking ones. Also, in cases such as troll debates, many votes are not needed like are needed in lengthy and high-quality debates because the winner is obvious.2. Rule violations: Sometimes, rules violated in the first round of the debate determine the way voters ought vote. Voters should still be required to read the debate before voting, otherwise, their vote is simply binary logic in action. Also, if the rule violtaion takes place so close to the beginning of the debate as you're suggesting is necessary as to make this time limit a nuisance, why do people even need to vote on it? It's a useless debate and should NOT be put before useful debates.3. (Fast) Forfeits: Sometimes, the contender forfeits in the first roundIn this case, the word count will most likely be quite low and the time required will not be high allowing at least one person to vote. Also, should debate. org value people's win/loss ratio over DEBATE. The ENTIRE POINT OF THIS WEBSITE. I think not. All of the situations my opponent described above should not be dealth with in a way that makes for poor, unjustified voting in legitimate debates. Debates like the ones mentioned above should be dealt with by a 'report' feature in which a set of people simply remove these debates, not subject them to the resource-wasting process of user votes that should be allocated to legitimate debates.
The Rent is too damn high

As a karate expert i will not talk about anyone up here. People working 8 hours a day 40 hours a week and some a third job. Women can't afford to feed their childeren, feed their children breakfast lunch and dinner. The people i represent can't pay the rent. They're being layed off as we speak. Listen; someones stomach just growled DID YOU HEAR IT? you gotta listen like me
The Rent is too damn high

Like i have previously stated as a karate expert i will not talk about the people up here. LETS TALK ABOUT AN ISSUE! Our children can't afford to live anywhere. WHY you ask? BECAUSE THE RENT IS TOO DAMN HIGH. I even have celebrities that agree. "I'm with Jimmy the rent is too damn high"- Andrew Cuomo If the Rents too high party wants me to marry a shoe I'll marry it.
Animal testing

I would like to begin by stating that I am for animal testing. Here are some reasons: One reason is that animals are brutally killed for food, by opposing experimentation, you are being hypocritical. look at this site: . http://www.chooseveg.com... how can you eat animals that have gone through this and consider yourself moral. second: Animal testing has come up with many cures for diseases such as asthma. We would not be able to find these cures without testing. I would like to see what my opponent says
Rabbits are better then Hamsters

Hamsters are better for someone with limited time/space/money. They're also good for someone who is mostly home at night. They are smaller and don't take up much space and can be viewed with excitement. Rabbits are lazy and all they do is lie around all day where hamsters run on a wheel and have fun. They are easy to care for and the food is cheap as well as don't need large amounts of shavings. They still remain cute even when they grow up, whereas rabbits are cuter when they are small when they grow up their appearance is like a adult doggie.
Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between

FrameworkSorry for not going in depth from the second round.Rebuttals1. My opponent gives no evidence. s://publichealthwatch.files.wordpress.com...; alt="gun myth 4" width="577" height="130" /> My first picture shows you that guns are 73 percent of not defense and 8 percent of defense.There is a large amount of research that guns were not for safety. As Politico explained, “[d]espite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.”This means that, guns are not for safety.Okay, now comes into my defense.Even though, your country uses guns, still guns are not allowed worldwide because they can harm people, and the government's job is to take care of citizens meaning that they banned guns. The guns are still simply dangerous world wide.Second of all, he states that the guns are not harmful. However the problem is that these people cannot control themselves. There is no real problem if they won't shoot guns, but some bad people just do. As Pro is saying, he think there is no fights and also no wars.Now comes my arguments1. My first argument is that guns are fearful.If you see a gun, do you think you will be confident? People will feel torture. They will run away. Some people hold guns because of torture as if the ISIS. These people should be banned from having guns because they use them to have and also make torture.Vote for Con. https://publichealthwatch.wordpress.com...
Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between

Thank you. Opponent's first point I would like to ask why some counties make firearms illegal? Countries like China and North Korea ban all firearms from private use. Nazi Germany also banned firearms from the Jews. However I live in a country that allows firearm ownership so my opponent's argument does not apply to me. That being said if a country bans firearms then until the law changes, those who cannot speak out against it will have to follow the law and not say anything Opponent's second point Firearms are not dangerous. In order to make something dangerous it has to inflict injury while in normal use. In other words it has to be by accident. Why knives are tools but firearms aren't? If by your definition of "dangerous" that means knives also are dangerous, also matches. Firearms have been used for other things besides killing like target practice. Firearms don't kill people, people kill people.
Gun rights; for, against, or compromise in between

FrameworkOkay, Pro cannot win because he states a question and tells me my opinion. ContentionsContention 1: Guns are illegalIn many countries guns are illegal. This is because they can kill people. Guns are illegal in many different countries and we should not follow illegal things, or else there was a punishment. This is the first reason why gun rights are bad. Contention 2: Guns are dangerous. Almost all murders are from guns and knives. However, knives are used for everyday tools, when guns are not.
Muhammad is a false prophet

It is obvious by the evidence that Muhammad (and the Quran) allowed many horrible acts. Muhammad had very bad fruits and is a Antichrist. He claimed that he was a victim of black magic. Sahih Al-Bukhari 3175"Aisha narrated: "Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact, he had not done." Sahih Al-Bukhari 5765"Aisha narrated: Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle so that he used to think that he had had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not. Then one day he said, "O Aisha, do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other: 'What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied, 'He is under the effect of magic.' The first one asked, 'Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied, 'Labid bin Al-Asam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.' The first one asked, 'What material did he use?' The other replied, 'A comb and the hair stuck to it.'" Apart from the most obvious problem for Muslims (namely, how anyone can fully trust a man who was controlled by a magic spell), there is a deeper difficulty. According to Qur'an 2:102, magic comes from demons. According to Qur'an 16:98-100, Satan has no power over those "who believe and put trust in their Lord," but only over those "who make a friend of him, and those who ascribe partners unto Him (Allah)." So if Satan only has power over those who befriend him and commit shirk, and black magic is demonic power over human beings, and Muhammad was a victim of black magic, then Muhammad, according to the Qur'an, must have been a friend of Satan who committed shirk! Muhammad is a false prophet, there is overwhelming evidence. Also he claimed that he was mentioned in the Bible (In a good way) but he was not he is the false prophet (prophesied in the bible revelation 13:1-18) that would get people to worship the beast (The God of Islam) or Satan. Muhammad is a false prophet according to the Bible and is obvious he had very rotten fruits. look at this for more: http://www.answeringmuslims.com... Hey my Muslim friend, thank you for this debate. You seem like a very intelligent person and I hope to debate you again. I will think about what you said and please think about what I said. Have a good day, God bless. I pray by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ you come to repentance in the Lord Jesus Christ to the Glory of God the Father. Amen. Grace and peace my friend.
Time Travel is possible and can be done in modern day society

From what my opponent is saying, I can discern two main points he's bringing up. I'll refute both points:A1: Not possible to build time machine.Apparently my opponent has misread what my stance is. I'm not advocating for the construction of some elaborate machine that, with the flip of a switch or something, will transport us back to the dinosaurs. I'm advocating for the utilization of the Twin Paradox, by just going fast, to cause time for us to slow down, thus causing the world's time to go faster than our time, thus transporting us into the 'future'. A2: Backwards time travel is not possible.Again, my opponent misreads my argument, although he brings up a valid point. I'll concede that backwards time travel is looking pretty unlikely, although not impossible, to happen. The problem is my advocacy is not for backwards time travel, but forwards time travel. Since he hasn't really provided any solid proof, outside appeals to authority that lack actual warrant, to prove that time travel isn't possible and cannot be done in modern day, you can extend my case. I'm still fulfilling my BOP, and thus you can still easily affirm.
Time Travel is possible and can be done in modern day society

Time Travel is possible but it is so sublet that it is hardly noticeable,and I will focus my argument that it cannot be done in modern day society. My opponent explain in rather complicated fashion the dynamics of time travel but he did not explain how it can be done by humans. Allow me to elaborate I am saying that time travel by human hand cannot be implemented and completed (ie a time machine that would render significant results) .As Michio Kaku a a physicist at the City University of New York has said on the subject of time travel "But that would require a technology far more advanced than anything we can muster," he said. "Don't expect any young inventor to announce tomorrow in a press release that he or she has invented a time machine in their basement." Now let me focus on my opponents believe of backwards time travel.I believe that backwards time travel is not possible,Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future is an argument against the existence of time travel—a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never developed (or is cautiously never used); and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the correct way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future."[19] Carl Sagan also once suggested the possibility that time travelers could be here, but are disguising their existence or are not recognized as time travelers.[20] An excerpt of wikipedia on time travel
The Christian God Does Not Exist

I do not know why I accepted the challenge being a Hindu myself...but still here is my argument... I have been taught from when I was just a child that God is pure spirit who created the universe, having myself studied in a school run by the Fransalian society, I am quite familiar with many beliefs of Christianity. But I suppose I have all rights to place my Ideas in ways I can, regardless the conditions placed by the instigator. Let me first present my views and then the contradictions to his views. God is not material and he resides in the heart of faith and love with which we worship, regardless of which religion we belong or in which form we worship him? I suppose I'll first answer the most common question? Have you seen the christian God? YES I HAVE! I have seen him in the faith with which Christians pray everyday. I have seen him in the devotion with which the Church works for the welfare of the society. I have seen him in the efforts of the Red Cross as they work for the wounded ones. I have seen him in the efforts of the MSFS as they struggle for spread of education. And I have see him in every great Man, Christianity has given the world. I. The Problem of Evil: Evil is a cultural concept, which was developed by Christianity. There are very few languages in the world which have an exact translation for the word. Who said God is impotent, there are still many people who fight bravely against evil, It is indeed God who in the form of these great souls fights evil. And why does he fail to eradicate evil completely? Because many people still refuse to listen to the call of there souls, the call of humanity, The call from God. II. The Problem of Non-Belief: Alas my friend you have just increased this problem by a thousand times by starting this Debate. Well all human beings have right to follow there religions. You know how many people follow Sikhism? A few thousands that's it! Have you ever heard of the religion? So I suppose all of them must say," No not many people believe in our God, let us stop worshipping?" No my friend! It does not matter how many people follow a religion, what matters is that atleast on of them is a true follower and a true human, and God resides there in that Noble Heart. III. The problem of Hell: If no existed my friend or even if people stop believing in that Idea, the world will be full of crime. Do you know all religions believe in Heaven and Hell. So in the way you you presented disbelief , I now present belief. All religions believe in Heaven and Hell. Jesus bless you my friend.
Relationship based upon dedication last longer than relationship based upon passion.

If a relationship ends due to boredom then it was never based upon dedication. A relationship based upon pleasure is one based upon passion, not dedication. When a couple decides to base a relationship upon dedication rather than passion, they will stay together because they have decided to stay together, regardless of how much they like each other. Your anecdote proves my point, as the couple in question were not dedicated to one another. If they had been, they would still be together. They ended the relationship because it was boring, indicating that the emotional high had faded and that their brain chemistries had returned to normal. If their relationship had been based upon an agreement to stay together, rather than their emotions, they wouldn't have separated.
Relationship based upon dedication last longer than relationship based upon passion.

Actually thats false. Because mainly passion between the "true lovers" are strong than the one with dediction, why this is becasue lust or wanting that person is basically called love. When you have dedication at some point the love thats based on dedication wears away. The parnters gets bored because they are waiting to get married to have sex or they just want more sexual acts. Its natural in humans to want to ingage in coitus. If your whole relationship is based on dedication that that spark between you and your partner goes away. I've caught a few of my friends just living their relationship on dedication and their girlfriend left them, because they weren't fun or really pleasuring them.
Relationship based upon dedication last longer than relationship based upon passion.

There will be four rounds. Please use the final round for closing statements, not to introduce new points. The burden of proof rest upon me, as I am making the claim. Con may simply rebut my points or may rebut my points while arguing for the converse.---Passion, being in love, is caused by neurochemical compositions. In response to certain stimuli, often sexual attraction between two persons, the brain alters the concentration of various hormones within the body, causing the perception of being "in love." An evolutionary adaptation, this occurs in order to increase the likelihood that a male and a female will have sex and produce offspring. However, the brain eventual reverts to its base state, causing the emotional high to disappear. The individuals fall out of love. At least since the 12th Century, there has been an equating between in love and being in a romantic relationship. As such, it is a social norm, particularly in Western nations, that two individuals are not in a meaningful relationship unless they love each other. Thus, many people seek relationships based upon passion. This is problematic, however. If being in love is a temporary chemical condition and relationships are based upon said condition, then the foundation of a loving relationship is doomed to be temporary. A relationship cannot last with only a temporary foundation.Because chemical imbalances do not seem as if they would make for sound relationships, the equating of "relationship" with "passion" is likely responsible for break ups and divorces. Once the brain returns to its natural state, the relationship no longer has a foundation.Dedication, in contrast, seems to ensure that the relationship will last much longer, for if two people decide to stay together, regardless of the inevitable changes of their brain chemistry, the couple can literally remain together until "death do they part." The goal, then, would be for an individual to find someone with whom he or she can get along, not to fall and try to stay in love. Dedication relationships, ones founded a commitment to maintain the relationship, will generally out last relationships based upon fluctuating brain chemistry.References: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca...http://people.howstuffworks.com...
Dr. Jill Stein should be allowed in the Presidential Debates

As an Independent, I am happy to take the con side of this debate, and I personally believe Jill Stein shouldn't be in the debates. Thank you for creating this debate, Pro, and I would say good luck, but I wanna win, so I shall not. Anyhow, I believe Dr. Stein shouldn't be allowed in the debates on September 26, and throughout October. I think this because, you mentioned that she's not even included in most of the polls. I believe that this is true, but it has a good reason. According to RealClearPolitics, in a Battle Between Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, and Dr. Stein, Secretary Clinton as of September 17 has an average of 41.9% in recent national polls, with Mr. Trump close behind at 40.8, followed by Gov. Johnson at 8.3, and Jill Stein with a mere 2.7%. That is so tiny that the odds of her becoming president are excruciatingly low, that including her in the debates would be pointless, because then, the Constitution Party's Nominee is gonna try to be in the Debates. Then he'll have to be included because of your rule. Then, the PSL, and Rocky De La Fuente, and then the Socialist Workers Party, and then we'll have to include so many people it'll be a complete circus. Including Dr. Stein would be pointless, because I think that in American Elections, if you want to Get Far, you need support. If you don't have support, you can't get anywhere. Since Secretary Clinton became the Nominee, Some Bernie Supporters and other Ticked off Members of the Democratic Party have Decided in Protest to go the Jill Stein, and there is no doubt that she is much more popular as the Green Party Nominee now then she was in the 2012 Election. But with all of this, she still doesn't have the support of even 1 in 20 Americans, and for this, I believe that she simply shouldn't be in the debates, because she simply has no support, and including her would be a waste of time.
Dr. Jill Stein should be allowed in the Presidential Debates

The Presidential debates are bias and rigged for the two party system. They state, that in order for Dr Jill Stein to be in the debates, she must first reach 15% in the polls, but this is impossible! Why? Because, she is omitted from 90% of the national polls! Millions of Americans worked extremely hard canvassing for years, for signatures from registered voters to get Dr Stein on the ballot in 48 states and this should be enough for her to debate! THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY, THIS IS BLATANT CORRUPTION FROM THE DEBATE COMMISSION AND THE TWO PARTIES FULL OF BOUGHT WHORES!