BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
only now is true, as know is only now

Ohh sorry I mistake a tablet for a computer. You are a tablet right???? only now is true, as know is only now Which means past is not true. I accidentally kills someone. His/Her family sues me. I am not penalized because Past is wrong. Now I did not do anything. Which means I am true. That is purely absurd. In the past you marry someone and he/she runs away during now. wrong. Which means whatever you know in the past is wrong. You are a good debater in the past time. It is wrong. You are a son to your parents in the past but now you are no longer their son. This is very funny to me. Once you are their son which means you are forever their son. Go back to you Pro
Debating is not a useful tool for society and is corrupt.

I will accept.Burden of Proof My opponent has to Burden of Proof. He/she has to prove that debating is1. Not useful2. CorruptRebuttals "Debating leads to misrepresention of facts and lying for the sake of winning/proving your point. This is not good for a healthy society."Misrepresentation of facts? Lying? That is why you must have sources. Lying would cause you to lose the debate."Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold."It's purpose is to provide evidence and discuss issues. Sides of the debate? Even without debates people would still have opinions."Think about it, by definition debating is conflict and dischord. Its own definition shows it is a lack of harmony and only serves to deter peaceful encounters between human beings."Debating - A discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.Nowhere do I see conflict and dischord. "Debating is a competition between two groups of people to make the best argument. It doesn't solve problems it picks a side and then favors it, it does not help everyone come to terms it just attempts to convince the undecided."Convincing people and presenting evidence is helping people. It solves problems with the evidence and proof."There are many healthy, better ways to solve problems and get your point across.Conflict resolutionMediationNeogtiationMeetingsSpeechesPeer-review"That is a self-refuting argument! All of your points you made apply to those as well!"In short, "debate" is a euphemism for verbal conflict which is just a non-physically violent action against fellow humans, that should be legally or atleast morally considered a crime against humanity and/or hate speech."I really do not see how presenting evidence and discussing opinions is "violent".Contentions Contention 1: IssuesDebating settles issues by using evidence and logic. Otherwise, would we rather have one person deciding all the issues?Contention 2: What else?What else could we use?Conclusion Debating helps and does no harm to society.Sources http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debating is not a useful tool for society and is corrupt.

I have come to the conclusion that debating, is a waste of time, money, should not be used as a way to solve issues, or a way to come to conclusions.Here is my arguement:Points:-Debating leads to misrepresention of facts and lying for the sake of winning/proving your point. This is not good for a healthy society.-Debating has no purpose, it does not aim to improve society. In fact, I would say it corrupts society and human beings by specifically separating humanity into "sides of the debate" and characterizes people based on what opinion they hold.-Think about it, by definition debating is conflict and dischord.Its own definition shows it is a lack of harmony and only serves to deter peaceful encounters between human beings.-Debating is a competition between two groups of people to make the best argument. It doesn't solve problems it picks a side and then favors it, it does not help everyone come to terms it just attempts to convince the undecided.Common objections:You are debating yourself!! / You can't be serious...This is an Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy.This serves only to discredit the point of view by simply asserting my failure to act in accordance with my position that debating is wrong. Never does it actually prove the argument false.Thus it is just an ad homenim arguement.Debating helps solve social problems, is on the news, and reforms opinions.Thats like saying smashing property solves problems because it helps you relieve stress.In truth, their are healthy ways to solve problems, and unhealthy ways.Debating is not a healthy way to solve problems.Similarly, there are healthy ways to express yourself as well.If not debating, then what?There are many healthy, better ways to solve problems and get your point across.Conflict resolutionMediationNeogtiationMeetingsSpeechesPeer-reviewConclusionIn short, "debate" is a euphemism for verbal conflict which is just a non-physically violent action against fellow humans, that should be legally or atleast morally considered a crime against humanity and/or hate speech. I rest my case.
Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum.

Considering History fails to be on the majority of Standardized Testing, I find the point irrelevant. When it does show, it is nothing compared to the Math and English segments of the tests. For example, the Duke Program only pays attention to the Math and English portion in talent searches. For example, with Standardized Testing, The Duke Program searches for students in the upper percentiles. Now, even if it does offer some leniency, you did not debate against any of my points except that of leniency, which at the moment has me over you. I have already debated against your other point, and now I leave the debate back to you.
Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum.

I will be con for this debate of Resolved: Standardized Testing should be removed from states' curriculum. I will agree to the definitions that my opponent has put on this debate. My first contention is that it sets a good guideline for teachers to teach since it is loose enough to get off track. Most of the guild lines the state has states that the student has to master this keeps teachers less stressful for that they can teach anything anyway they want. An example would be if a history teacher is going over World War II he could bring in a map that is boarded and bring the Risk and Battleship pieces to show how the troops were moved and how they were used in strategy.
"Pro-Life" actually means "Pro-Genocide"

Pro - in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc. Life - the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganicobjects and dead organisms, being manifested by growththrough metabolism, reproduction, and the power ofadaptation to environment through changes originatinginternally. Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial,political, or cultural group. The resolution of this debate reads as follows: "Pro-Life" actually means "Pro-Genocide"The key term to this resolution is the word "actually" meaning that the first given term "pro-life" in actuality means something else, in this case the second given term "pro-genocide". Therefore, my opponent in order to fufil the burden of proof and the resolution must prove that the term "pro-life" in actuality means "pro-genocide". Since no definition of "pro-life" or "pro-genocide" were actually given I am going to use the definitions I gave above. Pro-Life: the support of life (as defined above)Pro-Genocide: the support of systematically killing a groupMy opponent must prove that people who support life - contrary to the phrase and their position - actually support the systematic killing of a group. Therefore, according to Pro, a mother hoping for her hospitalized son to live (pro-life) in actuality wants to exterminate a group of people. This is false and cannot be proven to apply to all people supporting life and therefore Pro has failed to fill the Burden of Proof. Thank you.
"Pro-Life" actually means "Pro-Genocide"

This is a quick 1-round Debate. That's because the argument is extremely simple, and difficult to refute. Basically, the so-called "Pro-Life" crowd wants all pregnancies to result in childbirth, regardless of the consequences.Well, that is a "penny-wise and pound-foolish" attitude. In the long run all it does is increase the Global Population Explosion, enhancing the probability that a Malthusian Catastrophe will occur.When Thomas Malthus first wrote about such events, he observed that when an ordinary animal population experienced one, about 99% of the population perished.Humans dissed the notion, basically saying, "We are too smart for that to happen to us!". Well, humans have been proved wrong.The archaeological evidence from Easter Island indicates that at one point, maybe roughly 1300AD, it had a population of about 20,000 people. When the Europeans discovered the place a few centuries later, the population was maybe 200 --a 99% population drop. Now, those are population estimates, and it is possible that the max was smaller and the min was higher. It is probable, however, that at least an 80% population drop happened.Why did it happen? Basically, the only major resource on the island was trees, mostly palm trees. The people cut them down for firewood, and to make fishing boats. The boats had a limited lifespan and had to be replaced regularly. ALL the trees eventually were cut down, and not long afterward is when the population crashed; they couldn't sustain feeding their max population.htt.....ww.eco-action.org/dt/eisland.html (replace the initial dots with standard web-address characters)So, if humans only experienced an 80% drop instead of a 99% drop, during the genuine Malthusian Catastrophe they experienced on Easter Island, we can chalk up the difference being smarter than the average animal. But not smart enough to avoid that disaster in the first place, apparently, according to all the current global population evidence.Island Earth is simply a bigger island than Easter Island. Island Earth is exactly as much a finite thing as Easter Island, and can only support a limited, not unlimited, number of people. Do you see unlimited food, for unlimited people, at this linked page?htt.../space.jaxa.jp/movie/20071113_kaguya_movie01_e.htmlNow, if you were to carry out actions deliberately designed to kill 80% (or more) of humanity, could you be accused of plotting genocide?I'm fairly sure the answer to that is "yes".The so-called "Pro-Life" crowd is definitely plotting to cause humanity's global population to increase even faster than it already is increasing, by trying to ban abortion. I don't know why they seem to want a Malthusian Catastrophe to happen to humanity, but they certainly are acting like they want most of humanity to die, and sooner rather than later.I therefore submit that they are actually "Pro-Genocide" --even if they don't know it!Some more relevant data, both associated with increasing human population:htt.....ww.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.htmlhtt.....ww.cnn.com/2012/06/08/us/record-warmth/index.html
Apparently I voted wrong.

Here are my arguments. Firstly, let's look at the reasons an RFD would be considered bad enough to take down before we get into suspicion of voting rights. In bluesteel's In-depth Voting Guide, he highlights eight reasons a vote might be removed. These include the following:*Failing to explain every single point you award. *Failing to explain *why* you awarded a point*Failing to be specific enough *Voting based on personal bias*Piggybacking off someone else's RFD*Referencing arguments not made in the debate*Your RFD just doesn"t make sense, says something that is objectively false, contradicts itself, or you voted for the wrong side*Awarding arguments, sources, conduct, or S&G for impermissible reasons [1]These, among others, could be reasons your votes were repeatedly deleted. Here's another excerpt from a shorter guide on voting in the "NEW MEMBERS READ Me! !" thread made by airmax1227. "Any voter who fails to provide a proper RFD, will have their votes subject to deletion. If poor voting continues, the voter is likely to receive a message from a moderator informing them to improve their voting, or risk having their voting privileges removed. "Members should always keep in mind that voting is a privilege. Please be courteous and thoughtful every time that you vote on a debate. " [2] Again, it could be that you show poor voting on multiple occasions. Here's another reason that's similar to airmax1227's made by bluesteel in the aforementioned voter's guide. "Repeated bad voting will result in your voting privileges being suspended. Your privileges [can] also be suspended if you are a new user and you issue a vote that is so bad that it is clear you are not aware of the site standards for voting (e. g. placing only a single '. ' in the RFD field for a seven point vote). " [1]I personally believe it's the first reason, as you appear to have been member of DDO for over a year. [3] I'm only speaking from the guides though, as I don't know what presented in your votes, as they're obviously gone now. If you really want to know exactly why you got your voting privileges taken away, I'd talk to one of the moderators or something, but they probably had good reasons for taking them away. (No offense. ) Thanks. So long and goodnight! Citations[1] . http://www.debate.org...[2] . http://www.debate.org...[3] . http://www.debate.org...
Marvel (Pro) vs DC (Con) movies

If anything Iron man lost his ideals when he opted for revenge. The members that followed Captain America all knew the risks, and we're all willing to take them. As far as depth is concerned, even Deadpool had the floating S.H.I.E.L.D. ship thing in it (I can't remember what it's called) The MCU allows for this to happen because they can keep getting more and more depth to their movies. Did you even see the clip after the credits in Age of Ultron, when Thanos grabs the infinite gauntlet? Another example is the so called "mutant gene" which successfully was incorporated into the MCU through Deadpool, probably leading to an epic mix up of the two (Avengers, X-men) in years to come. You've just openly admitted that if they had killed Joker, Batman would have been over because he doesn't believe in killing. Would it have been better to kill Joker and save hundreds of lives, or let him live because Batman has ideals that cause the deaths of so many people. If this we're realistic I would much rather have any member of the MCU defending my life at any point, regardless of the civilian casualties and collateral damage. They get it done.
Marvel (Pro) vs DC (Con) movies

Captain America lost his ideals when he went to any lengths to save Bucky, got his team captured (albeit for a short time), pounded on Stark 2 on 1 despite Stark being justified in his revenge and left his role as a soldier who serves the people's government. Pro clearly agree Marvel's a hitman squad (People want to see a hitman squad, that's why the MCU has been so much more successful than DC) and lacks any sort of depth. As for the Majority argument, atheists are a very low majority, but that doesn't mean they can't be right. That way, the majority of the world is Christian, doesn't mean that Christ can be the only God. Also, the majority are men in this world, doesn't mean a man's opinion is better than a woman's. Joker survival was necessary to prolong the movie and help Batman face a trial to test his ideals. And he sticked to them. To be honest, the only DC movies I have watched is the Dark Knight Rises, Green Lantern and Batman Vs Superman, I am at a disadvantage here. But I have watched many of the Marvel's movies, and their quality is going low. Avengers Age of Ultron and Iron Man 3 confirm that. DC had its flop with BvS, but Civil war wasn't much better for me either.
Marvel (Pro) vs DC (Con) movies

Marvel more than likely won't kill of any protagonist until part two of infinite war, they plan on having 60+ characters appearing in that, so they are trying to save as many as they can. How can you say DC has more depth than Marvel?!? The MCU has been tied together in all of the movies since the first Iron man through S.H.I.E.L.D. With the exception of Batman vs. Superman how often does the depth of DC go past the protagonist of that specific movie. People want to see a hitman squad, that's why the MCU has been so much more successful than DC who ruined any chance of keeping depth to their movies in Justice League considering they just killed Superman AGAIN. Batman's ideals go as far as don't kill. Marvel characters save lives by killing psychotic villains from time to time, what's the Jokers kill count at right now? Captain America didn't ditch his ideals, he though that it was wrong he would have to take orders from the U.N. in case the Avenger's needed to help and they wouldn't let them.
Marvel (Pro) vs DC (Con) movies

The resolution says marvel vs dc movies, and I haven't read the comics, so its just the movies. Marvel's formula has been to never let any one of the protagonist characters (except quicksilver) to die (that is why the Avengers are so many), while DC has taken the brave step of killing off a few heroes and villains. DC has far better storyline and depth than Marvel. Marvel's Avengers are nothing but a hitman squad, but Batman actually stands for something. He has ideals. While you may say Captain America has ideals, it is clear he lost them because in civil war he ditched all his ideals just to save his friend from being killed. And the rest of the team just know about blasting and shooting.
There is no room for movement in the abortion debate.

I deeply believe that abortion is murder. I believe there is one case where an abortion is okay and that is rape. I wouldn't want to bring up a child and have to tell it I didn't want it I was abused and sexually trespassed to conceive it. However abortion is still murder. If you was in the right frame of mind you wouldn't kill someone because you thought they were a burden and didn't think you were able to look after it would you? Nowadays so many other options are open to you. You wouldn't kill a life that has been bought to this world so why kill one that hasn't? Do they not have a life to live? How can you never give someone a chance to prove what they could be? If you conceived it through consensual sex then the baby is yours and if you take it's life away your taking away the Christmas's where you see them liven up for a day to see what they have really wanted. You miss the chance to see all the birthdays they will have had, had they been alive. You could put it into adoption if you really felt the need to. By doing this the baby wouldn't be a "burden" on your life. I know that someone may think if you have under age sex and fall pregnant then you should have an abortion it's the only option. Now I'm not here to ridicule the vast majority of our countries teenagers as I am a teenager myself however they knew the consequences of having sex. You can't use the excuse it was an accident because they wasn't just casually walking around naked and they fell onto each other and thus a child was conceived. What happened was they got into bed being a sexually aroused teen and "did the jig" and she got pregnant. That's the harsh reality of it in which case they shouldn't be having sex under 16 anyway so that's illegal so they did the crime so they'll do the time the whole 9 months of it and if they don't want a child after it's has been given life then there is adoption for a reason. I am defiantly pro-life and that's my opinion!
There is no room for movement in the abortion debate.

I have been deeply involved in the abortion debate for a long time - oddly enough, from a young age. In the entire time I have seen tactical changes, new marketing methods, but never growth or movement. I say there is no new information that can be introduced into this debate to break the trench-warfare. 1) Not that it matters for this debate, but I am pro-choice. 2) I would leave open the scope/definition "movement" to whomever accepts.
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then abrahamic religions

"The view that suffering is beneficial is NOT a common view"But the idea that extraneous pleasure is sinful/wrong IS a common idea, making the hooker beer island in the sky remarkably immoral by this standard."What valuable lesson would innocent people learn from being stoned to death or being drowned by a vengeful god?The stoned people's families learn to obey orders from higher powers, while the drowning was a cleansing. According to the story this cites, all that died were irreversibly evil."What is to be learned from following an scientifically implausible religion?"Assuming this is true, one has a chance of eventually realizing such a religion were untrue and becoming less gullible/more questioning after said discovery.Let it be noted that Pro never tried to justify the point that a religion being real does not necessarily make it better, he only tried to argue a neutral point on the topic.
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then abrahamic religions

The view that suffering is beneficial is NOT a common view, and therefore requires explanation and justification. Since you didn't provide those, it seemed as if you were using a loophole in my definitions. My measurements of goodness (primarily plausibility and morality) are commonly accepted standards that don't require explanation or justification. Additionally, the Fredrick Nietzsche view on suffering does not support your case. He primarily believed that suffering was beneficial because people could learn from it. What valuable lesson would innocent people learn from being stoned to death or being drowned by a vengeful god? What is to be learned from following an scientifically implausible religion? To summarize, Pro provided several well accepted measures of goodness, which supported the resolution that Pastfarianism is better than the Abrahamic religions. Con responded with a single, unjustified and unsupported argument that Pastafarianism is worse because it contains less suffering. The choice is clear.
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then abrahamic religions

Well if Pro won't continue to argue, I don't have much to say here. He didn't like my argument based on the commonly held philosophy that suffering is good, so he decides to discard it as a "loophole". So, to recap: I make an argument based on the Nietzschean view that suffering is beneficial, and Pro tries to declare it a loophole with no reasoning surrounding it.
Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then abrahamic religions

All of Cons arguments rely on the assertion that suffering is good. It is not entirely clear, but it seems that Con has found a loophole in my definition of "goodness" that allows her to call anything, including suffering, a measure of goodness. Good job Con. My arguments had meaning, evidence, and reasoning. They were legitimate reasons that prove my case. Cons arguments rest solely on a loophole. No one in the real world will assert that suffering is good. Essentially, Cons case is a weak, purely semantic case with no substance and no relevance. I gave Con arguments with substance and real world application. Con threw back a weak, irrelevant, loophole based case that doesn't actually adress any real issues.