BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Carly Rose Sonenclar Should've Won X Factor Season 2

I apologize for the earlier inconvenience with me reposting my opening statement. This is my first debate on this website and I have just figured it out. I: Stevens did not purely get the pity vote, but it was a high percentage of the results. II: - III: Steven's performances were adult because he was an adult. Sonenclar wasn't. He was also too consistent, not having the same wow factor as Sonenclar's performances. I understand that this merely sounds like an opinion, but I am not the only one who believes this. IV: Stevens may not have had the fame, but undoubtedly, some producer(s) would try to get to him ASAP. V: - VI: All right, then, we can drop the age argument. But even you agree that Sonenclar has talent (Substantive I). I am not stating that Stevens cannot sing, because he can. A large percentage of the votes for Stevens (as I stated in my first rebuttal) was because of his "jobless situation". VII and VIII: Why would the Fifth Harmony fans suddenly go from girl group pop fans to a middle aged country singer? Logically, they would turn to Sonenclar. IX: I am a Sonenclar fan because she has a strong voice, does beautiful vocal gymnastics, and works the stage well. Again, this may seem opinionated, but I am sure you cannot disagree. (If you do, just look at any of her performances) X: I said this because I have noticed country singers winning the majority of singing competition shows, such as American Idol. XI: This was my conclusion statement. It summed up my position in this debate. XII: This statement is somewhat opinionated. You don't know Sonenclar; she may just be amazing at managing money. XIII: Again, this statement is opinionated. It does not always end up with the winner not being popular. Take Phillip Phillips, or Kelly Clarkson. They came in first on American Idol, and they are still popular. XIV: I am not saying that I hate Stevens, although my opponent may have assumed this from my past statements. I am simply saying that Sonenclar is a good singer and Stevens' talent just doesn't make the cut. .. in my mind and many others'. Just look on the comments on Sonenclar's performances on Youtube, or on an article about her, etc. Summing up, I understand that my opponent considers my points to be opinionated, but I say likewise. I hope voters recognize that Sonenclar has extreme talent and deserved first place on the X Factor. The reason why she should have won is because of her pure talent and Stevens was pitied.
Carly Rose Sonenclar Should've Won X Factor Season 2

Carly was only 13 when she walked out on the X Factor stage. She was shy, but she sung like a total pro! I mean, her voice was so much more mature than a 13-year-old's. It was more like a full grown professional adult singing, every time! It was completely unfair that Tate Stevens won. He just got the pity vote because he might not have a job after the show. Well, um, you kind of would have a job when you were in the X Factor's top 3! Hello! Even third place winners, Fifth Harmony, was quickly signed to a record label. Of course Tate would've had a job! And the X Factor is a show about good singers, not sad stories. Carly would've won if they had gone on one more week. The Fifth Harmony fans would have voted for Carly. It is simply insane that Carly, a 13-year-old of extreme and rare talent, lost to a 40-year-old country singers. What is it with country singers winning EVERYTHING nowadays, anyway??? I look forward to our debate. Hopefully someone will step up soon. P.S. I am twelve. But it won't be as easy as you think to beat me. Well
Carly Rose Sonenclar Should've Won X Factor Season 2

I have already expressed, in the Comments section, my feelings about the fact that this debate is inherently flawed because the Proposition is essentially arguing "regardless of what the people thought, Carly Rose Sonenclar should've been crowned the winner anyway". This would make this debate very interesting indeed, as we would be arguing about the very nature of talent shows themselves. But, conversely, I see this as a debate about the ends justifying the means.My opponent has not provided a structure for this debate, given out BOP, or given any definitions. I have done so below. I look forward to this debate.P.S: I am sixteen. But believe me, I don't go down easily.-----Definitions"should've won The X Factor season 2." - I am choosing to define this as such: my opponent is arguing that it would have been better for the world, and for Sonenclar's career, if she had won the second series of the US version of the British franchise The X Factor. She had the burden of proof here. I, conversely, will argue that it was better for her career and for the world that she did not win.Structure of the DebateThe debate will be structured as so:Round I: Acceptance, opening statements and definitions.Round II: Elaborate upon opening statements, rebuttal.Round III: Rebuttal and summing up.----Opening Statement for the OppositionWe will seek to establish several things during this debate. We will establish that, regardless of what one thinks of Sonenclar, Stevens or the X Factor franchise, the result declared in December should be upheld. We will argue that, even if one is a fan of Sonenclar, it is better for her not to have won the show, and we will use examples from the UK version of the programme (of which there have been nine seasons) to demonstrate this. Finally, we will defend Tate Stevens, who has been the subject of a torrent of unwarranted abuse from the Proposition.That's my opening statement. In line with the structure of the debate I invite Proposition to elaborate on their opening statement and rebutt mine should they wish.
Carly Rose Sonenclar Should've Won X Factor Season 2

Carly was only 13 when she walked out on the X Factor stage. She was shy, but she sung like a total pro! I mean, her voice was so much more mature than a 13-year-old's. It was more like a full grown professional adult singing, every time! It was completely unfair that Tate Stevens won. He just got the pity vote because he might not have a job after the show. Well, um, you kind of would have a job when you were in the X Factor's top 3! Hello! Even third place winners, Fifth Harmony, was quickly signed to a record label. Of course Tate would've had a job! And the X Factor is a show about good singers, not sad stories. Carly would've won if they had gone on one more week. The Fifth Harmony fans would have voted for Carly. It is simply insane that Carly, a 13-year-old of extreme and rare talent, lost to a 40-year-old country singers. What is it with country singers winning EVERYTHING nowadays, anyway??? I look forward to our debate. Hopefully someone will step up soon. P.S. I am twelve. But it won't be as easy as you think to beat me.
Personal Argumentation Is a Personal Attack

First, while it's agreed that ad hominems are personal attacks, let me reiterate that this is not criticizing the usage of ad hominems.I realize this. But I bring up the issue to show argumentation itself does not involve a personal attack by definition unless using ad hominems or other dishonest tactics. Second, this is not criticizing the insensitive treatment of vulnerable feelings.Naturally, that is my own point made to point out what one may consider a personal attack may not be such, but simply perceived as one. With all due respect, it seems to me you may be too broadly categorizing personal attacks to affect all argumentation. Third, this is not criticizing whether or not contestors are unreasonably checked. This is criticizing whether contestors are unreasonably checking position holders.Perhaps I was unclear you were giving so specific a meaning to the word 'contestor' then, my apologies. My key argument is simply that not all argumentation involves unreasonable contesting, as both opponents can be reasonably stating their beliefs on an issue of opinion. Even if unreasonable checking occurs often enough to make a position holder paranoid it will happen again, that does not mean we are justified in suspecting every contestor from then on, or that all contestors will do the same thing. Fourth, the notion of dishonesty is only criticized secondarily in parenthesis above.Like ad hominems, dishonesty was a point I personally made. I argued apart from ad hominems and dishonesty, the checking of a contestor is not inherently unreasonable or a personal attack, as honest, reasonable argumentation can occur separate from the personal attacks initated by ad hominems and dishonest fallacies. Ultimately, I disagree argumentation itself is a personal attack. As I said before the attack is not necessarily against the person but their argument. The contestor isn't really checking the position holder's defense of themselves, but of their defense of a position and they defend it because they feel strongly about it. As such, it isn't a personal attack since the argument or attack can be directed at a belief/position rather than a person.Essentially you argue we all must agree with the positions of others to avoid "attacking" them, but I believe this stems from the common, incorrect assertion of what tolerance is. As Michael Horner states you can't "tolerate" someone you already agree with, "the word implies disagreement." As Horner also says, "If we were truly intolerant we would seek to silence other points of view. But merely engaging in persuasive conversation with someone you disagree with is not intolerance. We show more respect for each other when we take our religious claims seriously than when we clothe them in a patronizing cloak of relativism."http://www.thoughts-about-god.com...I argue the reasoning applies here, simply questioning another's beliefs is not wrong or an attack, indeed such would be illogical.
Personal Argumentation Is a Personal Attack

First, while it's agreed that ad hominems are personal attacks, let me reiterate that this is not criticizing the usage of ad hominems.Second, this is not criticizing the insensitive treatment of vulnerable feelings. Third, this is not criticizing whether or not contestors are unreasonably checked. This is criticizing whether contestors are unreasonably checking position holders.Fourth, the notion of dishonesty is only criticized secondarily in parenthesis above."Some debaters use these without realizing they are committing a fallacy, and use dishonest methods unintentionally, perhaps because they observed these used and thought them valid arguments......Ultimately however, simply engaging in persuasive conversation with another person can have the effect of helping show everyone where the truth lies so long as both debaters are honest and straightforward. As such, no personal attack is necessarily committed, and the debate can actually benefit all involved. Both sides can come away better able to argue their beliefs and understand the reasoning of both sides.Even if one assumes the risk via debate of being carelessly checked, i.e. dishonestly and poorly accused, and this happens too often, it does not encompass all cases."The problem here is you've shifted duty of care onto the position holder rather than the contestor. You're saying that position holders are obligated to assume the risk of contestors claiming logical fallacies even where fallacies don't actually exist. I agree that all contestors do not do this, but the point is contesting is gray. Sometimes it illuminates darkness in held positions, but other times it darkens illumination. When illumination is darkened, persuasion will not be mutually beneficial. In fact, it can even be parasitic when contestors understand and agree with position holders, but deliberately engage in malicious prosecution anyway just to steal their ideas for use into the future.To be clear, I am not saying that position holders must be agreed with. Contestors are entitled to freedom of assembly, rights to privacy, due process, meetings of the minds, offer and acceptance, and consent as much as anyone else. I am just saying that by default, when a position holder is argued with, it constitutes a personal attack because it checks a position holder's defense. If that defense breaks down despite having a logical position, the position will appear illogical.
Personal Argumentation Is a Personal Attack

Very interesting, thank you for the detailed responses. I didn't think personal argumentation with others definitely results in a personal attack, however, since you are not necessarily attacking the person, but their reasoning. By definition, an hominem is the act of attacking a debater rather than their debate, and a fallacy that is not necessarily committed. Again, we are prone to assuming an argument against our beliefs equates to an attack against us, even though this is not the case. We feel strongly about our beliefs so when the beliefs we care strongest about are criticized, we personally feel attacked. That doesn't mean the other person is attacking us or trying to do so when they question our worldview(s). They can simply be critiquing reasoning they feel inappropriate and stating their own beliefs, and even if attacking a belief they dislike, not trying to attack those who believe it. I argue that even if a contestor runs the risk of being unreasonably checked in any given argument, the ideal of debate is to, as Wikipedia says, "Assume Good Faith." If you've ever edited at Wikipedia, you'll know this is rarely practiced, often misinterpreted and misused by dishonest people, and in practice too often unrealistic when confronting said dishonest people. However, it is still an ideal to strive towards because one cannot assume another's intentions and motives are incorrect and that their goal is other than the truth. I would argue that there are two actions by a contestor that indicate they are engaging in a personal attack: (1) The use of ad hominem fallacy, using insults and, well, personal attacks to assault another's reputation in a desperate effort to make oneself appear correct and distract from a losing argument, because the dishonest contestor cares more about appearing right to the audience than being right. (2) The use of any dishonest argumentation or other method, e.g. strawmen, cherrypicking, etc. Some debaters use these without realizing they are committing a fallacy, and use dishonest methods unintentionally, perhaps because they observed these used and thought them valid arguments. I argue that dishonesty is itself a form of personal attack since it attacks another person's ability to recognize what is true and right. In essence it attacks their ability to see truth and reason, the way the world really is, and keep them in darkness. Ultimately however, simply engaging in persuasive conversation with another person can have the effect of helping show everyone where the truth lies so long as both debaters are honest and straightforward. As such, no personal attack is necessarily committed, and the debate can actually benefit all involved. Both sides can come away better able to argue their beliefs and understand the reasoning of both sides. Even if one assumes the risk via debate of being carelessly checked, i.e. dishonestly and poorly accused, and this happens too often, it does not encompass all cases.
Personal Argumentation Is a Personal Attack

"You raise an interesting question, but I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. Would I be correct, first of all, in assuming that the gist of your argument is that an innocent or truthful side is inevitably wrongly criticized in any debate, and that they are too often wrongly blamed by the audience given their inability to properly defend themselves, incorrect assumptions by the audience, or misleading claims by the opponent?"Yes. That's the gist of it. Even a merely analytic diagnostic that checks a logical side's syntax qualifies as a personal attack. For example, people have finite attention spans. They're exercised to figure out logical positions.If attention span's exhausted to figure out a logical position, and it's afterwards contested, then a logical position will appear illogical since there's no attention span leftover to defend it with."If you mean all debate and argumentation, then naturally that does not have to involve personal attacks since it does not have to focus on the other person with ad hominems.So long as both debaters avoid fallacies like ad hominems/mudslinging, strawmen, cherry picking, etc., they avoid unfairly attacking the other's argument."To be clear, I'm not talking about ad hominems here."An argument can involve reasonable people fairly disagreeing over differences of opinion where both believe what they are saying and fairly state their beliefs in search for the truth." Unfortunately, can doesn't imply must. By default, a personal argument forces the contested to assume the risk of being unreasonably checked. For example, a logical position could say something that's necessarily valid, but an unreasonable (or dishonest) person could just say, "Not necessarily!""There are so many easily-engaged-in fallacies with so few debaters who are logical enough to avoid them all that many debates inevitably occasion at least one instance of fallacious reasoning."Even when this is true, it doesn't mean an accusation of a logical fallacy will necessarily match where fallacious reasoning takes place. It also forces logical debaters to be stereotyped among illogical debaters as if they're statistically insignificant."Ultimately though, to criticize another's reasoning is not truly a personal attack, for they are not necessarily trying to attack the other person, but reasoning they deem as incorrect."As previous described, a contestor forces a position's holder to assume the risk of being unreasonably checked. Whether that's tried or not doesn't matter. The fact is it's unclear whether a contestor's intentions are honest or not until after experience."Ultimately we all care deeply about our cherished beliefs, the paradigms containing our most intrinsically valued viewpoints, and our apt to deem criticism of these viewpoints as personal attacks."That's a very strong claim. Unfortunately, careless people exist, and when careful people are contested, they're forced to assume the risk of being contested by the careless.
Personal Argumentation Is a Personal Attack

You raise an interesting question, but I'm not sure I fully understand your argument. Would I be correct, first of all, in assuming that the gist of your argument is that an innocent or truthful side is inevitably wrongly criticized in any debate, and that they are too often wrongly blamed by the audience given their inability to properly defend themselves, incorrect assumptions by the audience, or misleading claims by the opponent? I argue that while personal argumentation can lead to personal attacks, and unfortunately does so too often, that objective, reasonable, and blameless argumentation can prove fruitful where both debaters help one another see opposing sides without blaming one another. I suppose it depends on what you mean by personal argumentation. If you mean all debate and argumentation, then naturally that does not have to involve personal attacks since it does not have to focus on the other person with ad hominems. So long as both debaters avoid fallacies like ad hominems/mudslinging, strawmen, cherry picking, etc., they avoid unfairly attacking the other's argument. An argument can involve reasonable people fairly disagreeing over differences of opinion where both believe what they are saying and fairly state their beliefs in search for the truth. There are so many easily-engaged-in fallacies with so few debaters who are logical enough to avoid them all that many debates inevitably occasion at least one instance of fallacious reasoning. Ultimately though, to criticize another's reasoning is not truly a personal attack, for they are not necessarily trying to attack the other person, but reasoning they deem as incorrect. So long as they avoid the fallacy of attacking the debater rather than their debate per ad hominems, I see no reason to label this a personal attack. Ultimately we all care deeply about our cherished beliefs, the paradigms containing our most intrinsically valued viewpoints, and our apt to deem criticism of these viewpoints as personal attacks. We feel personally about our strongest-held beliefs and it is difficult to remain objective when they are criticized, it takes effort to address the facts and ignore our emotions on the subject. However, I do believe that this ideal an attainable one that good debaters can achieve, while still respecting one another even though disagreeing on specific opinions. Ultimately, we will all disagree in some degree or another, since no one, not even twins, are true clones of one another with duplicate experiences, thought processes, etc. We can disagree with one another yet still respect one another in argumentation without engaging in personal attacks.
Personal Argumentation Is a Personal Attack

When arguments are carried out by people, those people do not just have ideas that exist in stasis. Instead, those arguments are manifested through a faculty of reason.However, let us consider a situation where a logical position is held through a faculty of reason. By default, if this position is contested, the contestor will check the faculty's defense. If this defense breaks down, the logical position will appear illogical even though it's not. For example, (assuming that innocence is logical) contestors can engage in false accusations, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process by which innocents are labeled as guilty. In a society where people are treated as guilty before proven innocent, the labeled will be expected to defend against their contestors. If they cannot, then their guilt will be assumed......but this doesn't just apply in such a society. It also applies in a society where people are not informed of their rights. For example, perhaps we live in a society where people are treated as innocent before proven guilty, but people don't know that. In turn, when people are labeled as guilty, their defense won't know that they're entitled to keep their mouths shut, and might assume an affirmative defense. By default of not being informed of their rights, people are forced to assume the risk of making defensive mistakes.In either society, an argument of labeling guilt is attacking an innocent party, and the innocent party's defense is being checked. Should that defense break down, one's innocence will appear otherwise. As another example, let us assume that someone believes that 2+2=4, cat is spelled C-A-T, and the sky is blue which are all rather ordinarily logical positions.If another perpetually claims, "Your argument is fallacious," or otherwise claims logical fallacies where logical fallacies don't actually exist, someone's defense will be perpetually checked. Assuming that people are not perfect, this will inevitably lead to the logical position appearing illogical because the defense will break down.Therefore, personal argumentation is a personal attack. The mere contesting of one's position checks its defense, and in the case of logical positions being contested, they will eventually appear illogical.