BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org

Thanks for your attemopt and yeah you have a good point but i can deal with. I thought of this idea because of the nature of the debate or vote. When you have a debate with someone and there is no time limit for the voting period, it does not make sense because in that case there will not be a clear winner and and you will have to check all the time and at the end, you just give up. your point about the number limit of voters, i just believe if we can just say that the debate will be decided by the forst 20 or 30 numbers of voters or even ten but the problem with that sometimes is if you dont have that number of people voting,you can then decide on who has most people in the voting period. when you say that you have for instance 10 liberal coming first and vote and conservative sometimes coming late, the decision will not be fair. I believe that people should not vote based on their own feelings or opinions. the vote should be based on the arguments made by the debaters and who has better ones. that is how i vote and i believe that is how a debate should be decided. If it is already possible to forfeit a round because somebody could not make it in a frame of time, why not limit the voting period too or numbers of voters. this can be decided by the debaters before starting a debate. You should also know that no all people will vote for each debate. people usually read debate they are interested in and then vote. so even if there is no time limit, lots of people still might not vote. Thanks and have a nice day
We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org

I will make an attempt to win this although it is set up extremely lopsided, towards the Pro. Because the website updates the statistics on your w/l record, it is not necessary for them to stop the voting at a certain time, so as to tally the results. By limiting the number of voters, you limit the selection of voters, so, if 10 liberals get to a conservative topic before the conservatives, and there are only 10 votes allowed, it would be unfair to the conservative debater. Also, because there are so few members on the site, and so few actively voting, by limiting the voting time, you limit the number of votes, which I have already stated is not a good thing, some people aren't on here 24/7 but may still want to vote, but if the voting period is up before they get to the topic they can't.
We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org

I know most people here including myself are here to learn and dont really mind losing or winning a debate. Instead I wanna learn from others. I just think that during the voting period, we should have a limited numbers of voters or days to decide the winner and the loser. This will make the whole debating thing exciting... because right now it is not limited and you must keep checking all the time to know if there is any change. Thanks
We should a limited number of voters or limeted time on www.debate.org

Since you have mainly based your argument on the fact that you want to see who wins or loses, I will go over that first. First of all, the w/l record is constantly updated, so you don't have to go back and look to see if you won or lost constantly, secondly it is not that hard to go to your profile, and look through each of your debates and look at the two numbers above the names. If you are willing to put forth the effort to debate a topic, you should be able to click a few times and read some numbers. You also haven't taken into consideration all the people who cannot be on the website everyday, and will miss out on voting, and each debate needs as many votes as possible, to keep any biases from affecting it, it is just like when the media takes a poll, if they don't poll a wide variety of people, they often end up wrong, for example, the Chicago Tribune stating that Dewey beat Truman in the presidential election... if we only allow a small amount of voters, we may end up with biased votes, especially in very controversial topic such as religion. Also, since the site is still growing, by limiting the time for which a debate can be voted on, we disallow future members from voting on certain topics, and as I have stated, you need a wide variety, and large amount of voters to be accurate. I believe that it is more important for the debate voting to be accurate, than for the debaters to be able to check the win or loss easily, and that there are better options for checking the win loss, if it is in fact really necessary.
Cloning

Wouldn"t you feel better about yourself if you knew you could help thousands of people? I hope so. Now there"s cloning going on. I know some of you guys are thinking "Like in books and movies?!" My answer to that is no. You know what cloning is. And if you don"t cloning is when a cell, cell product, or organism is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. Cloning is important because if you"re in a accident and you lose one of your limbs or organs or a body part, with therapeutic cloning you may be able to get it back. If you"re a victim of heart attack, cloning can help by cloning healthy heart cells and putting it in damaged areas of the heart. Infertile couples can now have kids with cloning. Cloning can help people with disabilities. I strongly believe that cloning should not be banned.
Cloning

There aren"t many cons to cloning? How about premature death, high rate of miscarriage, moral issues, very low success rate, and loss of individuality? It seems to me that there are quite a few. I can"t see how you think cloning is a solution for infertile couples. The only couples that would be able to afford it would be the rich and famous. Even if a couple did find enough money, the success rate is simply not high enough to guarantee they leave with a child. "For a recent paper on cloning in Science, Peter Mombaerts Peter Mombaerts , a scientist at Rockefeller University in New York City who clones mice, ran through 4,000 mouse oocytes"he estimates that might be $2,000 worth of mice. Doing the same work in humans, he estimates, could cost $2 million. Scientists will almost certainly use fewer eggs if therapeutic cloning is used on people. But even if it required a mere 100 eggs, taken from ten donors, the cost of simply paying the donors could easily reach $50,000. On top of that, there would be medical costs involved in procuring the egg. Mombaerts believes it could cost more than $1,000 per egg when all is said and done. That means costs to treat one patient could conceivably soar above $100,000." This is according to "Cloning's High Cost." Forbes. Forbes Magazine. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. How many average American citizens do you think actually have the money to pay for something like that? The median income was $51,017 a year, says Hargreaves, Steve. "Poverty Rate 15%, Median Income $51,017." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 09 Mar. 2014. That is barely over half the cost of therapeutic cloning. The way I see it, cloning is highly impractical. Seeing as the cost is high, and the success rate low, very few can afford it. Along with reducing the value of life, cloning shortens the lifespan of the cloned organism. On top of all that, by continuing with cloning we are one step closer to a dystopian-like society where non-clones are frowned upon, and individuality is a crime. I believe cloning will do more harm than good, and this is why I have, and always will, support the con side.
Cloning

This is our last time to argue. I hope you think that cloning is good now. There aren"t many cons on cloning. All you can really do with the cons are write more details about them in depth. But for pros there are many. I will happily list some of them." Cloning might produce a greater understanding of the cause of miscarriages, which might lead to a treatment to prevent spontaneous abortions. This would help women who can't bring a fetus to term. It might lead to an understanding of the way a morula (mass of cells developed from a blastula) attaches itself to the uterine wall. This might generate new and successful contraceptives." I got that quote from "The Cloning Debate: Pro Views." ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014." What this quote says is that cloning can help woman who can"t produce a child. Here is another quote. "Easy replacement of internal organs and tissues for patients in need of transplants instead of waiting for suitable organ donors, alive or dead. Since the transplanted organ contains most of the recipient"s genes, there is a lesser chance for rejection as well. Cloning can be a solution to the infertility issue among couples. Theoretically speaking, parents can choose the desirable qualities in their genes to be passed on to their children. Genetic research can immensely benefit from cloning especially in combating the wide range of genetic diseases." This information was from "Surfcrs. "Organ Cloning." Organ Cloning RSS. Organ Cloning, 19 Jan. 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2014." This quote has 3 pros. 1.There is easy replacement of organs. 2.Cloning is a solution to infertile couples. 3. Research with cloning can help understand diseases. I keep saying this in my paragraphs but cloning can help people with disabilities or people with diseases. If someone in your family had cancer and they thought that with cloning they might discover a cure. Wouldn't"t you be all for it? Cloning is such a useful thing for so many people. I still stand for Pro on cloning. Thank you for reading this.
Cloning

In my opinion, the cons of cloning outweigh the pros. So many things can go wrong, and so many eggs are needed to produce a clone, that you have to ask yourself: Is it really worth it? Personally, I would not want therapeutic cloning. I wouldn't want a woman to have to give up her eggs for my needs. Donating eggs for cloning of any type, therapeutic or not, could turn into a negative thing. Women, similar to being used for prostitution, could be forced to sell their eggs for money. There could be a black market for human egg cells. Would you really feel comfortable using a unwillingly given egg? If cloning was done with, this would never have a need to happen. Along with selling human egg cells, the percentage of miscarriages is undeniably high. 90% of all animal cloning pregnancies result in miscarriage. Most of these miscarriages happen later on in the pregnancy, according to The British Fertility Society. To me, never having a baby at all is better than conceiving one, and losing it. Besides, there are hundreds of thousands of children available for adoption in the U.S. alone.
Cloning

Cloning is only bad if you make it bad. You see, Cloning can help million and thousands of people. People with disabilities can be helped. I myself do not agree with making a race of perfect individuals. I feel like that is wrong. You are only looking at the negatives of cloning. I only wrote negatives in that paragraph to show others what the negatives can be. So if they later on they found out, they wouldn't"t blame me for not telling them in my paragraph. If people use cloning in such a way, I will strongly disagree with their wrong-doings. Some woman don"t feel like cloning is good because they need to donate one egg cell. The thing is, Us women have a lot of egg cells to spare. Will it really hurt us if we donate one egg cell? And for your comment of "They think that when using an unfertilized egg for any type of cloning you are killing a possible human, a possible child. " Wouldn't"t you think it better for a person to not have lived in the first place, or be killed later on? what if you got an a accident and lost the power to move your leg? And the doctors say " There is a possibility to gain power of your foot once more. But you would need therapeutic cloning." Would your answer be no? Would you really believe so strongly that cloning is that bad that you wouldn't"t try to save yourself in any way?
Cloning

If you think cloning should be legal, then why are you contradicting yourself? You are saying that most think it is immoral, and that it goes against religious beliefs. This doesn"t sound like a "pro" side argument to me. Since I am strongly believe that cloning is wrong, a huge issue that I have with it is that it could minimize the value of human life, and we wouldn't be individuals. Human life could be looked upon as something you can perfectly create, and that if your child doesn"t satisfy your needs, you can go out and get another one made, tailored to your specific wants. Also, a caste-like system could re-emerge, putting perfect clones on the top. They would be the "genetically perfected". Smart, and attractive. They would also most likely be rich, since cloning is highly expensive and time consuming. How does that sound to you? A race of beautiful, genius people that are treated better than the average. I can tell you one thing, you wouldn"t like it at all. Naturally made humans may be treated differently than the clones. They are average. You wouldn"t be considered smart, or pretty unless you were a clone. This is one of the possible negative consequences of cloning. Ethics are highly controversial in the case of cloning. Many thing is is wrong for scientists to "play God". Most traditional Christians refer to an embryo as a human being that has a soul. They think it is immoral for scientists to clone to create or destroy embryos, even in the case of research. Around 78.4 percent of America is Christian, according to "Summary of Key Findings." Statistics on Religion in America Report. Web. 03 Mar. 2014. If cloning was legal, nearly 78.4 percent of the U.S.A. would disagree with it. They think that when using an unfertilized egg for any type of cloning you are killing a possible human, a possible child. This doesn"t seem at all moral, to me.
Cloning

The risks/cons for cloning are that there is a possibility of faster aging. This is because you are using an older cell to clone. Another risk is that it may reduce the overall value of human life. If you didn"t like your first child, you can try to make the perfect child with cloning. Another con is that there is a reduced sense of individuality. Cloning makes us seem all the same. I got this information from "Pros and Cons of Human Cloning." HealthRF. Health Research Funding.Org, 6 Dec. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2014." I posted benefits of cloning in my introduction. I got that information from "Smith, Simon. "The Benefits of Human Cloning." The Benefits of Human Cloning. Human Cloning Foundation, 26 Feb. 1998. Web. 24 Feb. 2014." Ethical issues with cloning are that "religious organizations. They all strongly oppose cloning as according to the religious belief life begins at conception and that life cannot be created artificially but from the unity of a man and female. At the same time, the church together with the other religious organizations argue against therapeutic cloning as well because, as mentioned above, they are guided by the idea that life starts at the conception and once the embryo exists it must be treated as a person, and thus destroying embryos and using them only for the purpose of research is not consistent with the religious view on the issue." That was a quote from "Cloning- Ethical Issues." Ethical Issues Of Cloning. Bioarts.Com. Web. 24 Feb. 2014." People think that life begins at the stage of an egg cell. Because of this , they think that by using an egg cell that we are killing a human being.
Cloning

Wouldn"t you feel bad about wasting the possibility of life with an unsuccessful cloning experiment? With the use of embryonic cells, we've been successfully cloning mammals since the mid-1980's, but the possibility of actually creating a clone goes from 0.1% to 3%. This means that for every 1000 attempts, 1 to 30 clones are produced. That is up to 70 eggs wasted. With reproductive cloning, those eggs could have possibly been babies. Do you feel comfortable allowing scientists to take away the possibility of life from an egg? I should hope not. In addition, cloning could take away a sense of individuality, since a clone is the genetically identical twin to the person who provided the genetic material, no matter the age of either person. In my opinion, cloning should not be allowed because it strips a human of individuality, and has a very low success rate.
Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa

I completely agree, IN A COURT OF LAW, the jury is suppossed to be an unbiased judge of a case. This is why random people are selected to for the jury. But in survivor you have played the whole game with the people that are then voting on your fate. FOr them to be impartial is impossible, and wy would you want them to be. Getting to the end and having the jury want to vote for you is one of the most challenging things in the game of survivor, making it tougher than almost any other reality TV show. So, if the jury deemed that they didn't want Russel to win, then he shouldnt have won.
Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa

1. Initially, your argument that Russell lost because of the jury's decision makes some sense. However, we need to consider what a jury is. A jury is supposed to be an unbiased group of people making a decision about another person's fate. The jury should have objectively made a decision as to who played the best game of Survivor. Instead, the jury allowed their personal vendettas against Russell, as he caused many of them to leave the show to come into play. The jury was, thus, bitter, and not awarding based on gameplay. If it did look only at who played the best game, it would have chosen Russell over Natalie (and Mick Trimming, who came in third place). Russell led the alliance back from the 8-4 deficit. Natalie and Mick did not have to do any of the strategizing, instead riding Russell's coattails to the end. They did none of the necessary work, but reaped all of the benefits of Russell's strategy. How is that fair? Also, Russell won more challenges (5) than either Natalie or Mick, both of whom won 3. To sum it up, the point of a jury is to be objective and unbiased, which it was not by voting for Natalie to win.2. Yes, it is possible that the producers made the hidden immunity idols intentionally easy to find. However, that does not mean that Russell had any advantage over the rest of the field in finding them. Everyone else had an equal opportunity to find the hidden immunity idols, but only Russell was able to. When combined with the other ways in which he controlled the game (challenges, leading the alliance, etc.), Russell should have won Survivor: Samoa.3. His early-game sabotage is irrelevant. The fact that he burned socks and emptied water bottles has little to do with the game he played and should not be taken into account by an unbiased jury. Also, other factors, such as the fact that he was already a millionaire are also irrelevant.Russell Hantz should have won Survivor: Samoa.
Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa

I am not going to deny the Russell Hantz played a good game of Survivor, in fact, it most probably the most manipulative game that the series has ever seen. I also won't argue the point the Russell Hantz 'outwitted and outlasted' his opponents, as this is clearly evident by the fact that he made it to the final three against a huge numbers disadvantage. However the main reason why Russell shouldn't have won Survivor is that he didn't. While this statement may, at first glance, appear to be tautological allow me to explain: There are ultimately two components involved in winning the game of Survivor. The first is to make it to the final three (or two), where the jury votes for the winner, and the second is to be able to win Jury votes once you are there. This aspect of Survivor is what makes it such an intriguing show. The winner is not necessarily the person who has played the best game from an outlasting point of view, but the person who the jury deems is the most deserving recipient of the title of Sole Survivor. The way in which Russell lied, backstabbed sabotaged and manipulated his way into the final 3 fulfilled the first requirement, but made the members of the jury so resentful towards him, that there was no way they would ever vote for him. Ultimately it comes down to the judgement and very often emotions, of these 9 people, and if they do not vote for you, it clearly illustrates that, out of the 3 members remaining, you are not who they believe should win and making the jury believe you should win is what Survivor, in essence, boils down to.Sure he may have found the hidden immunity idols .They weren't really that well hidden, and anyone with the time could have found them. Plus you must not forget that this is a TV show that can be influenced by the producers to enhance ratings. His sabotage of his own tribes campsite at the start of the game illustrates just how conniving he really was, and he certainly won't be the last to lose at the end in this way.
Russell Hantz Should Have Won Survivor: Samoa

I also want to point out that, as Russell Hantz made the Final Tribal Council, this debate solely is about the jury's decision. Yes, the Galu tribe would have been wise to vote Russell out at the merge, when it had a 8-4 numbers advantage. However, Russell was able to turn the tribe against each other, find hidden immunity idols without clues, and convince Shannon "Shambo" Walters to work with his tribe. Also, it is important to note that Survivor is a reality competition show. It is a game that features castaways trying to "outwit, outplay, [and] outlast" each other (the show's slogan). That encourages players to fight at all costs to survive and eliminate their competition. As Russell was on a tribe that lost almost every challenge before the merge, his tribe was at a significant disadvantage going into the merge. However, Russell was a brilliant game player and had a strategy to overcome a numbers disadvantage. On Day 1, he made alliances with several members of his tribe, including eventual winner Natalie White. From there, he would vote off anyone who threatened his game. By the merge, all that remained of his tribe was a close-knit group called the "Foa Foa Four". He then led Survivor's biggest post-merge comeback ever. Even after Galu voted off Erik Cardona, a member many people did not trust, Foa Foa had a 7-4 disadvantage. So, he convinced Shambo to join his alliance and found a hidden immunity idol WITHOUT A CLUE. He then played it at tribal council, negating the 7 votes cast against him (Shambo was trying to feign loyalty to Galu) and sending Kelly Sharbaugh home. Suddenly, a 8-4 disadvantage had turned to a 5-5 split. Russell then convinced John Fincher, fearing the Purple Rock tiebreaker that could eliminate anyone, to vote with Foa Foa and blindside Laura Morett. Now, Foa Foa had a numbers advantage it would take to the end.
Anybody who used performance enhancing drugs in the MLB shouldn't be elected to the Hall of fame

Inducting these below average players would not be representative of one of the most profitable, successful, and enjoyable eras in all of baseball. Yes, in hindsight, it was an unfair advantage, but virtually everyone was doing it. To leave out Bonds, A-Rod, Clemens, and Pettite would be leaving out four of the best players of all time (just to name a few). And most doctors have agreed with the point that PED's have a rather low plateau in terms of improving overall game, and that they act more as a longevity helper. Skill is there, PED help keep it going longer. You can't leave out an entire era of baseball, just because the players did what was inherent of the time; take PED's.