BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
debates should be removed by customer service.

To answer your statement, "like for real how can you debate on some of that stuff", you can debate them with logic. Debates like 'im a walrus' are probably easy because walruses don't share the same things that humans do. We have created the computer, we learn how to type in schools or at home. It's very unlikely that a walrus can be given access to even electricity let a lone a computer. Global networking was not made for the walrus, I am sure few walrus's have even seen a computer. Walruses have not evolved enough to create the technology we have, you are not a walrus. Walruses don't speak English. To respond to your claim, customer service should not delete debates because they are recorded and put on your profile. It may be easier to get to know someone by what kind of debates they have on their profile. It lets you know whether or not they could debate something or not, because they could be a troll or very board. These debates could also be used for entertainment, because they are so ridiculous.
Jewelry

Okay Captain Moo. Just because i missed ONE round doesnt mean you automatically win. I was at an actual debate tournament and couldn't refute in time. So lets get this thing going. 1. I understand that there are other ways of expressing one's style but as I already stated, jewelry is the best way to do this because the other ways (streaks in the hair) are what losers do. Besides, there're only so many ways to do hair whereas there are tons of different kinds of jewelry as well as places to wear said jewelry. This gets rid of the Con's only example. 2. Not most jewelry comes in pointy forms. In fact, that is only one kind. You also dont have to pierce anything to wear jewelry. It's called bracelets, necklaces, rings, anklets, toe rings... As you can see you can wear alot of jewelry before you have to pierce anything. But some people don't mind piercings either. This opens up ear, nose, eyebrow, lip, bellybutton, and anywhere else where there is skin. Some have piercings going down their sides or on their hands. Now how unique is that???? Suck on that Captain Moo. 3. My opponent says Jewelry is dangerous but gives no specific case in which someone recieved serious damage or was killed from wearing necklaces or earrrings etc. She also says "getting caught in stuff" which is a bad choice of words and she once again gives no specifics. So as you can see, Jewelry has only benefits and should be worn by everyone to show off your style!! Don't be lame, wear Jewelry!! With that I urge a Pro ballot. Thank you.
Jewelry

JEWELRY SUCKS! for the following reasons... 1. my opponent (jillmonkeyballsucker) said that jewelry is a form of expression to show of style and what not but their are many different means of showing off style. Like me, i have bright red streaks in my hair to show I'm rebellious and independent. everyone wears jewelry but not everyone has bright red streaks in their hair. 2. most jewelry comes in sharp pointy form (example: earrings, lip rings, nose rings etc.). And i for one think of my body as a temple and refuse to painfully stick a hole in my skin just so i can decorate myself like a christmas tree. 3. Jewelry is dangerous. Their are many cases daily of necklaces, earrings, etc. getting caught in stuff and causing serious damage to ones health or death.
Wendy Williams should apologize for shaming public breast feeding

" If your position is that we should not criticize the things other people say, then you do not truly support the first amendment." Criticize her arguments not her words. Those are two completely different things. "Your argument is void. Wendy Williams is allowed to say whatever she wants, and so am I. You cannot support her rights, but not mine." Excuse me? You started the debate with the sole purpose of debating this issue. Although I support your right to speak freely (and tolerate whatever trash may spew out). You can't play the victim card if you are the instigator. "I support freedom of speech, which is why I am choosing to exercise my freedom by stating that I want Wendy Williams to apologize for her comments." Well did you know that your disrespect of the constitution has severely offended me, you are giving anti-free speech activists on this website lots of momentum. On behalf of the internet will you apologize to them and me for being so offensive? Yeah this debate was pretty sad.
Wendy Williams should apologize for shaming public breast feeding

I support freedom of speech, which is why I am choosing to exercise my freedom by stating that I want Wendy Williams to apologize for her comments. In a country that has free speech, there is no reason to silently tolerate offensive speech. If your position is that we should not criticize the things other people say, then you do not truly support the first amendment. Freedom of speech does not mean that you are not responsible for the things that you say. Politicians, like celebrities, are constantly scrutinized for the things they say, as they should be. Just because someone is legally allowed to speak his/her mind doesn't mean that no one is allowed to respond. Your argument is void. Wendy Williams is allowed to say whatever she wants, and so am I. You cannot support her rights, but not mine.
Wendy Williams should apologize for shaming public breast feeding

Who are you to judge what people say and how society reacts? Why is an uninfluential person (you) criticizing an influential person's free will and choices. You ask me "Would you be so quick to dismiss the racist comments made by Paula Deen as free speech? " First of all what all of these people are saying IS free speech, if free speech has to be limited as to not be offensive,rude ETC. Then it is NOT true freedom of speech. Second of all I am not dismissing their speech, I am silently putting up with it. As I ask you again. Why is a citizen of America that has sworn and oath going against one of their most prominent laws of said country. If your views are serious I would consider you a disgraceful American and give you advice to move to another country. There are plenty of countries without free speech that you may like to go to. Almost every middle eastern country has laws AGAINST free speech, and the penalty for breaking those laws is death (or something similar). Would you prefer that? Btw the link you sent me litter ally changes nothing. So are we going to have a debate against free speech now or are you going to concede?
Wendy Williams should apologize for shaming public breast feeding

You're right, people can say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they should. If everyone went around saying every offensive thing that popped into their head, what kind of society would that be? People are judged by what they say, especially celebrities. Those who have the power to influence millions *should* choose their words carefully. Would you be so quick to dismiss the racist comments made by Paula Deen as free speech? Wendy Williams owes every breastfeeding mother past and present an apology. http://www.nbcnewyork.com...
Wendy Williams should apologize for shaming public breast feeding

Wendy Williams is a talk show host who discussed breastfeeding in public with advocate Alyssa Milano. She stated that she personally didn't want to see a woman breastfeeding because breasts are sexual in our culture. Millions of people have expressed their outrage at her ignorant comments and I would like to see a public apology. I understand that breastfeeding in public makes some people uncomfortable, but those people need to know that it's not the mother's fault that they are uncomfortable. She has the right to breastfeed her child anywhere the public is allowed, and it is their responsibility to either be silently uncomfortable or move. She does not have to cover-up to accommodate other people. Wendy Williams has millions of viewers who respect her opinion. In this case, her opinion could damage the momentum that breast feeding advocates have worked so had to create.
Resolved: An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the USA

Well, to conclude my argument being my opponent forfeited the last round: ===CONCLUSION:=== 1) The standardized testing system does not cater for students of extremely high or low intellect. 2) The emphasis on Maths, English and Science is problematic, as it narrow3s the course away from subjects like Art and Woodwork, which are hard to standardize. 3) Failing schools often require funds to come to a sustainable level. If they are deprived of these funds, they fail and the cost of building new schools is far greater than upgrading the existing one. This drain in funds can indeed reduce welfare. 4) Standardized testing is racially biased towards Caucasians. [Source:http://www.raceandhistory.com......] I would like to thank my opponent for the debate, and judges and members for reading. Thank you.
Is Youtube Replacing T.V

Thank you for going this far into this debate. I commend you. "We've learned to tolerate these interruptions and to filter out most of the annoying, disruptive banners to get to the content. But apply the same or similar advertising tactics to long-format and viewers won't stick around." In actuality T.V has a substantially amount of commercials. The ads on YouTube range from 30 - 40 seconds and 9/10 times it is skip able. On T.V ads however, you can't skip them. According to http://www.nytimes.com...: It says and I quote: "When television began as an advertising medium, the standard commercial length was 60 seconds." End quote. "That may have been 1971, who cares?" Yes the times have been dropped from 60 to 30, but in 2015, there is no skip button to skip commercials. That is my first point. "banners fill the bottom of an in-play video and banner ads/paid-placement videos populate the right column." It's called pressing the "X" and the right. Yes it may be tedious, but if you are watching long enough to make it tedious, you have been online for way too long. Sitting is bad, but if you are binging or watching episodes of Netflix is the same as watching episodes on Youtube. Also you have pay money for Netflix. YOU. DO. NOT. HAVE. TO. PAY. FOR. YOUTUBE! I grow tiresome of repeating the same point over and over again. Does anyone remember Vine. The 6 second platform that swept the nation. Well let me repeat myself, it was 6 seconds. "So why aren't we drawn to YouTube for long-form content? Primarily because YouTube (and more specifically, AdSense) is heavily optimized for short-form content." So wouldn't that be a lot better? Wouldn't that be helpful for that platform. Comparing it to Vine, people make money with that short form content. Look at Felix/PewDiePie and his Salary: (quoted from Forbes, a reliable site for wealth):http://www.forbes.com...: "reached a new high this year when the Swedish newspaper Expresen reported he made $7.4 million in 2014, a little less than double the $4 million the Wall Street Journal estimated he made in 2013." 7.4 mil. That is much more than the average worker. 10 x more roughly. So that is my case. Agree for me. I appreciate all your understanding. GG m8, GG.
Is Youtube Replacing T.V

With YouTube many people aren't wanting long videos. From http://www.huffingtonpost.com... So why aren't we drawn to YouTube for long-form content? Primarily because YouTube (and more specifically, AdSense) is heavily optimized for short-form content. YouTube advertising is extremely aggressive and pervasive from the moment you arrive on the site. 30-second ads preempt content, banners fill the bottom of an in-play video and banner ads/paid-placement videos populate the right column. We've learned to tolerate these interruptions and to filter out most of the annoying, disruptive banners to get to the content. But apply the same or similar advertising tactics to long-format and viewers won't stick around. This is a post-DVR/ Netflix world where users can consume TV shows and movies (even on networks) and either see no ads at all or speed past them at warp 9.1. Could you imagine watching your favorite episode of The Walking Dead and having banner ads surface at the bottom? YouTube is meant for short video content and not for movies or television shows.
Is Youtube Replacing T.V

"Also tons of people can't afford/ get Internet to watch Youtube." So how do they afford cable. The basic set costs around 60$ average. WiFi for the basic is 50$ almost a 10$ difference. I hear people talk about prices a lot. "Besides YouTube uses way to much of the Internet and can drain WiFi (if you are limited)" and what happens if you aren't. Say you get great internet. What happens then? Quality is very important. I see that you didn't mention quality in your entire rebuttal, also 4k is free on Youtube but costs thousands on T.V: "on March 2015, a 55 inch 4K TV was priced at an average of US$1,370, compared to an average of US$2,660" quoted from the http://business.financialpost.com.... So 1000$ to free. Pretty simple choice really. Youtube is the much smarter choice. Check!
Is Youtube Replacing T.V

Youtube is replacing T.V. for a many of reasons. First you can watch T.V on Youtube by searching it up. No commercials (if there are, just restart or skip it) and great quality. If you have bad internet use a phone or use a library's computer. Also if you have no computer and can't afford one just buy and Apple T.V cheap online. It's cheaper to buy. Subscriptions are free and sometimes you don't need to pay, just watch. Youtube has more options, on T.V it's a set broadcast, limiting your choices to what they want you to watch. On Youtube the choices are near limitless. Gaming is taking over and T.V doesn't offer that. It takes away a growing Enterprise from the eyes of viewers. That is my opening statement. Your move.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

So I'm not particularly versed in how to use Debate.org, or what common debate formats are used. But I do know that the debates I've seen over the current LD topic aren't very helpful... I've seen very few viable values. So, I would like to try a debate of my own with someone just to see how my scattered thoughts of my NEG case might go during a round. I'm just testing the waters here, and unlike most other states here in Missouri we get the topics a month late. Technically I'm still supposed to be in animal rights mode. I think most can understand why I'm so eager to move onto the new topic. xD Soo, I guess I should provide some ground rules for his debate, if the AFF (or Pro as most put it) disagrees with these or does not understand them then I'll gladly clarify or restructure them. Okay, so I'd like this round to be as similar to a normal round as possible. As far as I've seen CX periods are not possible in this format, so it'd be nice if we just went with the typical format except for the CX-ing. So, the format should go as follows: First AFF constructive First NEG constructive and attacks AFF rebuttal and attacks NEG rebuttal and attacks AFF rebuttal and attacks Now, I would like to again point out that I have no idea what I'm doing. I'm only used to debating in-round and not online... So, any advice or constructive criticisms are welcome. Thanks. :D happy debating!
Everybody Should Obey The Rules

I agree with your definition, but once again, who's set of rues do we follow? The key word in that definition is governing. Should the whole world be governed by the same set of rules? Also, you misinterpreted the definition. Alright, and in your second and third paragraphs you essential just argued for my case, so i'm not sure pecan pie you included it, however I'll take it since you abandoned your argument and agreed with mine. Under your definition and argument, there would have to be some some type of universal code which we would all be forced to follow. There are several types of rules, so let's talk about religious rules. For example, in many religions it is against the rules to worship idols, however for a while it used to be mandatory to salute the flag. This could be considered a form of worshiping idols. Who's rules do we follow? You simply cannot follow both set of rules, and therefor I must urge you to vote Con. Thank you! http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Everybody Should Obey The Rules

I said that everyone should follow the rules.According to the dictionary on google at https://www.google.com..., a rule is one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.Notice that this mentions a particular activity or sphere,not just regulations and principles.When I gave my statement,I meant that everyone should obey the principles or regulations pertaining to an activity or sphere as the definition states.With this definition,mentioning the rules does not mean the same rules. I completely agree that people should be original and break free of the normal.However, following the rules does not restrict originality.It simply guides people through their life.You have mentioned social rules.However,rules pertain to whoever is in the activity or sphere.In this case,I would consider society and it's social rules as a sort of sphere. Not everybody chooses to follow social rules, and if they choose not to, they do not suffer any punishment.If they don't want to, they don't have to participate in society and it's rules.After all,that would be like demanding everyone play baseball and go by its rules. It is okay to question authority and understand that they don't know everything.Even if you dislike what authority is doing, you can still follow the rules.If you don't like the leader of your town,you can leave the town and get out of their sphere.I believe I proved my economic crash.If there were no rules,people would not have to buy from stores.Many will instead just take whatever they want.When stores don't get enough money to keep up their store due to what is now called stealing, they will not be able to buy as many products.When they can't buy as many products,the makers of these products will not make as much money.Similar things to this situation may happen as well. Also,I am sorry.In the last debating website I was in,the counterargument went with the rebuttal.
Everybody Should Obey The Rules

To begin, I will rebut you initial statement. If you say, "everyone must follow THE rules..." Your implying that their is only one set of rules. You were unclear, and unfortunately for you that means my entire argument still stands. I did not mention that side of the argument because it was not time to rebut, which is why I don't understand pecan pie you think you busted me. There are several types of rules, with several types of interpretations. The one example you gave does not define the entire debate. What about social rules? Should we all be cookie cutter because of social rules? No, we should break through, and become individuals. This article relates to entrepreneurs, "https://www.americanexpress.com...; If you believe that not everybody should follow the same rules, then your argument should have been, "everyone should follow the dynamic and individualized rules placed in front of them", however you didn't, therefor my interpretation still stands. Conformism isn't a good thing, and in today's society it is more important than ever. Let's go to your mother-example. My mother always told me to never question anybody who had authority over me. Yet I challenged that, and that is why I am successful at all, because I didn't follow the rules. i was never disrespectful, but I understood that not everybody above me has my best interests in mind, nor do they always know what is best for me. Finally, "The con side also failed to counter my previous arguments," This is ridiculous, and I'm officially calling you out on it. You do not counter arguments in the initial round. The first round is for rebuttals. " would like to remind everyone that not following the rules could end up in an economic crash and a lack of a conscience. " It could, or it could lead into economic success. You failed to prove this argument, so it is invalid, along with the rest of your arguments. Thanks
Everybody Should Obey The Rules

I would like to address your interpretation of this debate. I did not say that everyone should follow the same rules. I simply put that everyone should follow the rules. This means the rules given depending on who is in authority over you. Nowhere did I mention everyone following the same rules. Therefore, your arguments do nothing useful to prove your position. Everyone should follow the rules. Not necessarily the same rules, since different places have different rules. Rules were made for a reason. Some rules are to protect us. For instance, if a mother gives a rule in her household stating not to mess around with matches, she is doing it to protect her child from harm. If people did not follow the rules, many people could end up being harmed. The con side also failed to counter my previous arguments, and I would like to remind everyone that not following the rules could end up in an economic crash and a lack of a conscience. Even the most simplest rules are there for a reason, especially the traditional rules such as the rule against murder. I repeat that this does not mean that everyone has to follow the same rules, simply the rules given by a person who holds authority over that person.
Everybody Should Obey The Rules

Thank you for starting this debate! I'd like to start off by giving a couple contingencies. To win this debate, all I must do is prove that not everybody should have to follow the same rules. For you to win, you must prove that all people should obey all the same rules. 1st: Rules do not apply to all, and therefor should not be obeyed by all. While rules are important, who defines the rules? I would assume that anybody that has any power would create the rules, ex. Schools, Government, Religious leaders. Since not every one goes to the same school, all schools will have some variation in their rules. Therefor, since it is possible for a rule not apply to a student body, then not everyone should have to follow the same set of rules. 2nd: There are some schools that are more prone to things like cheating and stealing, so there rule codes should be stricter than schools that do not have the same issue.
Everybody Should Obey The Rules

Everybody should obey the rules. Without rules, crimes would happen all of the time. Many people do not do things we would consider crimes simply because of the punishment. However, without rules and laws, most people would never pay for anything in the store. If the stores are not paid, they can not keep up their business anymore. If they can't keep up their business, the producers of merchandise won't have enough money to produce their good. Therefore, a lack of rules would cause an economic crash. Not only that, but without rules, people wouldn't even know that they were doing bad things. If a person is brought up to believe that something is acceptable, they will find it acceptable. Therefore, if there are no rules, people would not only commit crimes, but find these crimes acceptable. As you can see, rules are very important. Therefore, everyone should follow the rules.