BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

I'd first like to welcome my opponent to DDO. As a debater myself, I can appreciate the position he's coming from as he enters into this debate website, and I wish him a great experience here. I believe he's already started with something interesting by posting this debate, and I'll be happy to engage with him on this debate. Before I get into making my opening statements, I'd just like to clarify the resolution. "Debate leagues should not allow spreading." I think this should be read as "All debate leagues should enforce a rule that judges should vote down debaters who speak at a rate faster than 300 words per minute." (the >300 WPM was agreed upon in the comments) So this is non-specific to a particular type of debate, though as my opponent comes from a policy background, and as policy debaters often engage in spreading, that will likely be the focus of this debate. If my opponent wishes to clarify the topic in some other way, I would appreciate if he does so in the comments, as this will be the basis for all of my positions. Note that, with this resolution, the Burden of Proof is on Pro. He's arguing for a departure from the status quo by completely revamping the rule structures of several styles of debate, whereas I only have to defend the status quo. As such, it is his burden to provide substantive reasons for this departure. If, by the end of this debate, he is only slightly ahead, that is not enough to fulfill his burden. A full reformation of academic debate is no small thing, and not something to be entered into lightly. There needs to be some certainty of the outcomes. I will argue to that effect in future rounds. I'll briefly outline my argument: 1) Modifying these debate styles from their current form dramatically upsets structures in place that allow for this, damaging these debate practices, harming students, throwing coaches out of work, and making judging more complex. 2) Judges, not debate organizations, should decide how to assess a style of argumentation. 3) There are benefits to a faster speaking style, as it increases the quantity and diversity of argumentation, thus making debate more educational for many. It also has personal benefits to the debaters, positively affecting memory. 4) There are numerous styles of debate that actively dissuade debaters from engaging in spreading, and their practices allow debaters who wish to avoid spreading to engage in debates without it. This will at least be the basis for my first constructive. I reserve the right to make arguments that do not appear in this outline in R3. With that, I will yield the floor to my opponent to argue his case in his first constructive. When you are ready, McEpicness.
Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

Hey y'all! This is my first debate, so I want it to be something I care about. As a policy debater, I hear way too much spreading, which is reading arguments and evidence so fast that you fit a dissertation into an 8-minute constructive, hoping your opponent will not have the attention span or time to hear and refute all of it. My position is that debate should be about speaking and rhetorical skills, not playing "Gotcha! ' with your opponent by outpacing Eminem. Since I am in the offseason, I would prefer that we focus on logical arguments instead of pages of evidence. I love a bit of comic relief, but please do not accept if you do not intend to discuss this seriously.
Debate leagues should not allow spreading.

Even rock can be broken. Throughout this debate, Con has accused me of being among the elitists I condemn. While I see no way this connects to the debate, there's a difference between THINKING I'm better and KNOWING my argument is. By attacking only my solvency and desirability, Con concedes to my inherency and topicality. (Interesting that my opponent is being a CONceder. ) As for the others, allow me to walk you through two alternate futures. #1: Debate continues as it is. Some styles, like policy, continue to let spreading fester. This skill, which is almost completely useless in the outside world, will dominate these forms of debate. Debaters will learn just enough about a topic to speed through it and call out their opponent for missing it. You see, spreading isn't only detrimental to speaking, but also to research habits. Still, these debaters will have an advantage over non-debaters, and hold it over their future colleagues when possible. These colleagues grow to resent spreaders, as I've seen before, and pass that feeling on. Eventually, spreading dies out, taking down the styles it has infected with it. #2: (my favorite) We make the transition to abolish spreading. It won't be easy; some will leave debate altogether. However, it's human nature to be fascinated, and also to be held back by the smallest things. For all the people who don't like the format of LD or the spontaneity of parli, styles like policy will become a beacon, a perfect form of debate. I say this with certainty, as I have seen multitudes who want to debate but stay away. These new debaters bring with them diversity of all sorts, including outlooks and backgrounds, which broadens horizons and eliminates any elitism. Could you get an ego being equal with past addicts and speaking with theologians? Unlike future #1, this overall attitude of equality draws parents, who speak highly of debate to their children, who go on to debate as soon and as long as they can. Debate grows, equipping our youth to speak to any audience and function in any crowd. I do not exaggerate when I say that they will be better equipped for their lives, simply by having debated and doing so without spreading. With that, I believe I have won solvency and desirability. A I stated, the transition will not be easy. We can all be certain of that. Because of human nature and frequent observations, I can say with equal certainty that the transition will be wholly worthwhile. Con would have you to believe that there is nothing wrong with the current system. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. " However, incandescent lightbulbs aren't collectively broken; they work fine. That, along with the continuing resistance to them, doesn't take away from the fact that CFLs and now LED lights are more effective and efficient. I honestly have no further comments, as there is nothing left that needs to be said. We have a clear winner. Innovation is one thing, but why should there be any controversy about implementing an existing system? Please vote Pro. It's for the children.
Allah exists without a place according to correct Islamic belief

I ask for the opponent to be Sunni Muslim, well if they hold this belief then they would be Wahhabi/Salafi and not Sunni in reality. The reason I ask for this is so that the sources used are accepted and time is not wasted on the validity of sources as has happened in a previous debate. As a member of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamah I believe Allah exists without a place and that Islamic sources agree with my belief. I strongly abhor the wahhabi, psudeo-Salafi and anthropomorphist beliefs about Allah of which is one of their most important beliefs and they say that Allah has a place LITERALLY above the throne. These people are victims of Literalism and need to understand the existence of metaphors in Islamic texts. I shall be bringing evidence from the Quran and Sunnah and from the classical Islamic scholars.
Athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime

Although the US justice system is not perfect, in theory and it's most basic principle is based on fairness. Although not attainable in every situation, fairness is not a foolish goal. I agree that organizations have the right to do what they need to do to protect their image and interests, however the use of this right is often marred with controversies because of the uneven hand in which the punishments are handed out. The decision to punish or to not punish or how severely to punish is purely based on profits, public pressure, and the popularity of the athlete. This creates a condition of unfairness for the athlete. If sports organizations are going to punish employees for off the field/court actions in such a public manner, a level of fairness should be displayed especially when punishing for an "alleged" crime. A pattern or history of this could open up the door for false accusations against well meaning players and in some cases cause problems for the organization. One current high profile case involves a player who was punished twice for the same offense. This called into question the process by which the NFL decides their punishments and may lead to the termination of the commissioner of that organization. There is a player that killed a team mate in a DUI accident that is still playing football, but a player gets an indefinite suspension for domestic violence. Not to downplay the seriousness of domestic violence, but both the player and his wife were initially charged with simple assault. Now, this player's life and his family's life are ruined in part to the way the NFL decided how their punishments are applied. If they had a more fair system, there would not have been as much controversy or fall out.
Athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime

Pro says “In America, our Justice system says that people are innocent until proved guilty. ” I agree that as far as the U. S. Justice system it should be innocent until proven guilty. Pro says “The civilian organizations that athletes play for, routinely punish players for crimes that have allegedly been committed. In some cases, there were not even police reports filed or charges have been dropped but these men are still punished. I think it is unfair. ”Civilian orgnaizations are not the Judicial system. It seems pro wants “civilian organizations” to behave as the U. S. Justice system does. This would be foolish. When you work for a company, weather that is a grocery store, or the NFL, those organizations should be free to hire/fire whom they wish. If an alleged action by an individual is bringing negative attention or harm to an organization, that organization should have the right to distance themselves from these individuals. This is especially true once someone has been accused of a heinous crime. Companies should be free to suspend employment pending the investigation, lest it damage the reputation or profits of the organization. For example, if Adrian Peterson’s “alleged” incidents creates opposition to the NFL, the NFL should be free to distance itself from Adrian Peterson. Companies hire employees to generate a profit, they compensate them for their work. If the employee costs more than the profit generated, the employee should be let go. When athletes are accused of a crime it does not just affect the athlete. It affects the company. That is why the NFL and other organizations should be free to determine what they deem appropriate responses to damage caused to their organization by the employees alleged actions. The resolution that “Athletes should not be punished until convicted of a crime” is true when it is applied to the justice system. No one should be punished for a crime they did not commit. However, this resolution is negated when applied to private companies as the damage is done to the company weather the individual is innocent or guilty.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

"To theorise that there is no God and to believe in no God and to doubt a god must equire a reason. "Indeed, and I gave several good reasons in the opening round. "If you have no evidence, it is logically flawed to think it a more probable outcome than the other. "And once more, I give reason and logic in the opening statement. "It is equally probable for there to be no god or a god of some sort. Not necessarily christian God, but some force some thing that determines what is made and what is not. You cannot claim it not to exist and think that is more probable if you have 0% more proof than the theists have. "1. My opponent is playing semantics. I already defined that "God" would be a Judeo-Christian type God.2. Once more, we are reasonable to reject the claim of God because you need to define God first. Moreover, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. My claims have gone unrefuted.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

To theorise that there is no God and to believe in no God and to doubt a god must equire a reason. If you have no evidence, it is logically flawed to think it a more probable outcome than the other. It is equally probable for there to be no god or a god of some sort. Not necessarily christian God, but some force some thing that determines what is made and what is not. You cannot claim it not to exist and think that is more probable if you have 0% more proof than the theists have.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

Resolved: Atheism is more probable than Theism.For purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined as to include the general attributes of the Judeo-Christian God (i.e.: omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence etc.) That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. "More probable" is to be defined as more likely than not (in other words, atheism is more likely than Theism). Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Forfeiting any round will result in a 7 point loss. Rounds: (1) Acceptance(2) Opening Statement(3) Rebuttal(4) RebuttalOther notes:(1) 72 hours to argue;(2) If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. (3) If one side explicitly concedes or violates any terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other;(4) By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Spongebob is dangerous for young minds

My argument will be simple SpongeBob could be harmful to the human brain A study has been shown that a group of four year olds in a University were split up. Some of them watched a documentary and the other groups watched SpongeBob. Then later on they were tested and the ones who watched SpongeBob did very poorly then the ones who watched a documentary. 2) Causes children to have poor attention spans. With this short attention span children attend to do poorly in school. Which makes your grades go downfall. It also has been proven to cause loss of memory and learning problems 3) SpongeBob has very fast animation which can lead to mimic of behavior and could also ruin and affect the brain cells. 4) It has also been proven to show homosexual activity. According to the Mississippi-based American Family Association, the video subtly promotes homosexuality and all sexual orientations. As showed in a episode of SpongeBob Patrick and SpongeBob brought a toy in a package and when they thought it was no use they huddled together and rolled over on each other. This could affect the brain and children can take this out on the real world.
One World Government

Well, as TheMoose forfeited these last rounds I guess I cant do much more. The sources I have used during the debate. . http://www.rome.info... (the fall of rome) . http://www.europeanvoice.com... (support for EU is at an all time low) . http://rt.com... (the problem with open borders) . http://www.independent.co.uk... (even more problems with open borders) . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
One World Government

"Where does it say so, in the last 50 years the nr of countries has actually risen as larger countries are divided. EU is also deep into massive problems that makes more people wanting to go out and dependable on what happens to Greece, Italy the future of EU might be very dark." If you look through out history of the world more and more people have been moving together. Humans started of as nomads then moved into cities, later these cities joined to make countries or empires. There some exceptions of countries braking down and turning into smaller countries however they did not have the communication that we have today. Also I would like to point out that countries like the Roman Empire did not die out because they decided to brake up into smaller countries but because of an outside force causing issues, and communication as advance as it is today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... The United States Of Europe As for the EU yes there future could be dark however it also could be great. There are two paths that it brakes down and is destroyed or that it evolves into one county over time. If by chance that they don't collapse then I believe that they will form into one nation. There is even talk of The United States of Europe I"ll leave the link down below. As soon as this happens Unions like this will be common. I think that the U.S the rest of NAFTA will group together and maybe join the EU. After that the economical advantages of this mega country will be clear and South America will become one country. After seeing this Asia will spit in two, Due to the culture differences the muslim states will become one country (this will include some of Africa as well). China and the easter asian countries will unite so they maintain there power in the evolving world. "I will not lie, there are bad governments that abuse the people. But to have one government in, lets say Berlin would do nothing against many of the problems you mention. People are different around the world and Im sure that many would oppose having a "one world Government" as I would never think that people in USA would ever allow being controlled from Europe(and the same for all different countries) . Also the amount of power struggles would be massive as many would want to be the leader of this world." Yes the government could abuse the people however any government could. The way that I vision the government working is similar to americas with the exemption that the presidential candidates will be anonymous this way it prevents the countries with the biggest population to monopolize the presidential spot. Another solution is that the house elects the president to try making it more equal. I know that this is far from happening but I strongly believe that if the human race wants to survive this is the direction that the world needs to move in. Thank for joining this debate.
One World Government

Thank you for letting me debating this as Con. I am sorry if I misspell words or have faulty grammar. "Within the next five hundred years there will be far fewer countries in the world that there is today" Where does it say so, in the last 50 years the nr of countries has actually risen as larger countries are divided. EU is also deep into massive problems that makes more people wanting to go out and dependable on what happens to Greece, Italy the future of EU might be very dark. "One government is also better for the entire world, eliminating war, hunger, ands severely lowering the amount of poverty in the world." I will not lie, there are bad governments that abuse the people. But to have one government in, lets say Berlin would do nothing against many of the problems you mention. People are different around the world and Im sure that many would oppose having a "one world Government" as I would never think that people in USA would ever allow being controlled from Europe(and the same for all different countries) . Also the amount of powerstruggles would be massive as many would want to be the leader of this world.
In 1940/1941, Germany had the most powerful military in the world

That's exactly what I meant. In 1941, BECAUSE OF GERMANY, Finland was able to rise out of the ashes and invade the Soviet Union. During Operation Silver Fox, Finland mobilized 5,000 soldiers, not 400,000. Germany provided 20,000 for the offensive. [1] But in the end, the offensive still failed. "Captured 47,000 USSR troops and casualties to the USSR were unknown. Finnish troops had 25,000 dead and 50,000 wounded." Ok now that simply false. Reread you sources. Operation Silver Fox was a Soviet victory. Finnish and German forces failed to capture Murmansk. Axis casualties were over 20,000. Soviet casualties were unknown. [1] I have nothing more to way. Con simply talks about Finland playing an important role in WWII. I would agree with that. However Con fails to prove that Finland was more powerful than Germany. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
In 1940/1941, Germany had the most powerful military in the world

Clearly stated argument from my opponent. " It was only in June 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union that Finland was able to rise from the ashes." Infact, Finland also launched it's own offencive in 1941 against USSR. Finland coordinated with the AXIS power but wasn't apart of the AXIS power. During 'Operation Silver Fox', Finland mobilized 400,000 troops against the USSR. Eight days after the intial invasion by the AXIS troops. Finland did this while their Army was being reorganised, Which should have led to logistical problems. Also during the end of 'Operation Silver Fox', The Finnish forces Captured 47,000 USSR troops and casualties to the USSR were unknown. Finnish troops had 25,000 dead and 50,000 wounded. So I wouldn't be to sure that you have won yet. As Finland may not have had the biggest or most modern Military. But, it certainly will put up a valient fight and will certainly put heavy Causulties on whom they are fighting. Considering that Germany gave Finland Aircraft and weapons in return for being "Staunch Allies". Sources: http://www.thegermanwarmachine.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://histclo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
In 1940/1941, Germany had the most powerful military in the world

Con has already lost this debate. Finland was in no way, shape or form, the most powerful country in the world. Finland would perhaps have been able to invade Poland (not very likely) or France (also not very likely) but against Germany, not a chance. In 1940, Finland was under the thumb of the USSR while Germany was conquering Europe. It was only in June 1941 when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union that Finland was able to rise from the ashes. And Finland did little to defeat the armies of the Soviet Union. Finland was responsible for the defeat of perhaps a few hundred thousand Red Army soldiers while Germany defeated millions upon millions. In 1940 and 1941, Germany had one of the best air-forces in the world. Finland's air-force was almost nonexistent. German Panzer's were some of the best tanks in the world. Finland had none. The Germany U-boats and Navy represented one of the most powerful fleets in the world. Finland had a very small navy. The Finnish army consisted of a few hundred thousand soldiers while the German army consisted of millions. Both numerically and technologically, Germany was stronger. Finland did not really have any successes while Germany conquered most of Europe. Finland may have held the Soviets off, but they did not win the winter war of 1939. I can give examples of multiple countries that were stronger than Finland. Those countries include Italy, Britain, the USSR, Japan, the USA, etc. Anyway, I did not have to write much since Con chose an easy country to refute. Finland's had a population of 3.7 million in 1939. At the same time, Germany had a population of almost 70 million. [1] Good debate Con, but I think you have no chance. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.flamesofwar.com...