BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Foolishness in the bible that no god would ever put into effect thus proving that god is false

I didn’t read ---any--- of what you stated for your round II and I’m not going to. I am way way way too good for you. And I will not sink to your level. Neither will nearly 100% of this planet’s population. You have got to be one of the sorest losers out there that I have ever encountered, if not the sorest that doesn’t know how to take “no” for an answer. 3 debates. 3 complete failures on your part. You are also an expressively dismal child going round and round in preschool desperately seeking negative attention because after all getting negative attention is better than getting no attention at all.. Look at it this way… If you were to squeal your beasteality ideals to anyone, especially to little children in which your arrogant bible is supposed to be geared towards and you were to flaunt it to them, do you really think you’d stand a ghost of a chance in this country’s penal system? Regardless for you to defend it in any fricken way, it only shows just how diseased your teeny bopper coughed upped sickened diseased mind truly is. Oh and oh yeah, no GOD/ SUPREME DEITY would EVER make a stupid little law in regards to it and print it in his stupid little book in which there should be no book in the first place because this god of yours can do something like talk to people or think thoughts to people so his messages don’t get lost through misconstrued garbled text and translations and copies upon copies and dead languages with no source to trace them back to their originals. Ah yes, but this god of yours uses text, proving he is not a god at---fricken---all. But you are far too stupid and ignorant to figure that out. We’re done. You lose as always (for a 3rd time at least since I've seen you and that's bad enough). Bye. (Be lucky that I haven’t reported you)
Resolved: The Oxford comma should be mandatory.

Hello! I hereby challenge ButterCatX to a debate on the Oxford comma.Full resolutionResolved: The Oxford comma should be mandatory.DefinitionsOxford comma: The comma used between the penultimate and the ultimate items of a list, as in the example apples, bananas, and oranges.Mandatory: Required in written English.Rules1. Debate structure:R1: AcceptanceR2 and R3: Arguments and rebuttalsR3 and R4: Rebuttals and conclusion2. No trolling, no kritiks, semantics allowed3. BOP is shared. I must prove that the Oxford comma can be omitted in most situations, while Con must prove that it should be mandatory in most situations.4. I will be happy to alter the rules if needed, but ButterCatX must inform me before the beginning of the next round.
Computers During School

I'm suppose to give my opening statement. In tonight's debate* I am going to defend two basic contentions. First, my opponent's argument for why students should not use computers during school is fallacious. Second, students should use computers during school. Although my opponent did not stipulate that I should bear the burden of proving the opposite of his claim, I am agreeing to assume that burden on myself anyway. With regard to that first contention, my opponent said, "I Don't think students need to use computers during school becuase when you save files you never know they could get lost or the computer could break. "The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. If the mere fact that a person can lose a file or a computer can break is any reason for why they shouldn't use a computer, then nobody anywhere on earth should ever use a computer. But obviously that's absurd. Computers have many useful functions, and they have become so engrained in the worldwide economy that is it unreasonable to suppose that we should stop using them. So the premise my opponent basis his argument on is false. His argument, therefore, fails. Now, regarding my second contention, I think students should use computers at school because: (a) computers have become essential in the worldwide economy, (b) using computers prepare students to compete and get along in the worldwide economy, (c) using computers will prepare students for college where they'll be required to use Word, Excel, and the internet, and (d) using computers will lift students out of the proverbial stone ages. *I like to say "tonight's debate" just because it's fun. [1] Shyam Soni, "Short essay on the role of computers in today's world," . http://www.preservearticles.com...
Morals and Ethics are a subjective matter

Warabe, I hope that you return to DDO in the future. Summary of the roundThe lack of response from the Pro in R4 should not discount his arguments from being considered by the voters here, please consider his arguments in competition with mine. I'll summarize the Pro and Con case (hopefully without commiting a straw man fallacy) and go on to give the reasons why my arguments are superior. Pro: Knowledge is subjective and defines our morality. We have the personal agency to interperet knowledge and make descisions on how to act in the world based upon our interpretations. Con: Morality is defined by the elites and forced upon the individual. Because of the overwhelming strength of the State, subjective morality is possible but it is fleeting and brief, whereas objective morality, defined by the society we live in and State we live under, is permenant and the most pervasive. Reasons to Vote for Con1. On the merit of sources used: I have identified several emminent authors and used them to support my case. The Pro only uses one in R3 attempting to undercut my counter-case but fundamentally misunderstands the role of the State in enforcing morality allowing Con to turn the Gerson source against Pro. While analytical arguments are persuasive, the validity of such arguments without sources to support such arguments is questionable.2. On the merit of argumentation: I've made solid argumentation in this debate, regularly turning my opponent's arguments against him (e. g. Argument from Authoity Fallacy, travelling to my residence, the Morality of the State).3. The internalization of morality: I have proved throughout my case that it is incredibly difficult to internalize a morality (thereby making it subjective) and that by and large we only operate under an external morality in order to avoid retribution. Since internalization is neigh-impossible, the most common and most powerful form of morality is external and objective relative to the average individual.4. In comparison of the Pro's Case and the Con's Counter-Case, the Counter-Case has been shown to have much more strength in it's application where as the Case pales in comparison since the mechanisms of morality have been shown to lie in the Counter-Case and the Pro has not demonstrated how the individual can successfully resist the mechanisms of the State. I thank my opponent for his participation and hope that we might have the opportunity to do so again in the future. Voters, regardless of Warabe's account status please vote as normal.
Morals and Ethics are a subjective matter

Good to know that how I understood it was not flawed. Without any further hesitation, I shall commence henceforth. KnowledgeKnowledge is such an interesting thing. It allows our minds to expand and acknowledge certain things in life, and allow us to form conceptions of mind about them. Knowledge allows us to form opinions and judgements about the world around us. For example, before I know that 1 + 1 = 2, I need to understand what the numerical values "1" and "2" represent, what it means to add two things, and how to equate two different things together to form one collective thing. Once I know these things, I am able to use that knowledge to accurately assess the statement "1 + 1 = 2". Without this knowledge, it would prevent me from being able to judge that statement. Right and WrongKnowledge allows us to understand things like right and wrong. For example, if a small child tries to sneak a cookie from the cookie jar without his parents knowing, he will get punished and told he was being bad. This punishment gives him the knowledge that "taking cookies without telling the parents is bad". Without taking that action and aquiring that knowledge, he wouldn't have been able to know that it was bad at all. To step up the grievity of the offense, if I hit my sister, not only do my parents beat me with a lead pipe (just kidding), but they tell me that I shouldn't do that and hitting my sister is wrong. Had I not hit my sister, I would've never gained the knowledge that "hitting people is wrong" and may have later gone on in my life to abuse someone more important, like my wife or children (just kidding, again). Knowledge is subjectiveThis is fairly self-evident. We all know certain things and on certain levels. We all don't know the same things and don't know the same things. Therefore. .. .Morality is subjective. If we gain right and wrong from what we know, and we all know different things, then we all know different rights and wrongs. If we all know different rights and wrongs, then we cannot say there is one objective set of rights and wrongs because if this was true, then we would all have to know the same rights and wrongs, meaning we would all have to experience the same things in life. Since this evidently isn't true, morality, thusly, cannot be objective. To put my main argument in a syllogistic form:P1) Knowledge teaches us right and wrongP2) We all know different thingsC) Morality is subjectiveI await my opponent's response.
Morals and Ethics are a subjective matter

After studying a few debates to see how they are structured, I feel that I am prepared enough to host my first debate upon this site. One of my favorite issues. Resolved: Morals and Ethics are Subjective thingsLets get some definitions then, shall we? Morals and Ethics: Essentially a code of conduct that guides the actions of rational beings (for example, humans)Subjective: Differing based upon the view of the person. This is opposed to objective, which would not be differing from person to person. To keep consistent with the "meta" of the site, this first round will be for acceptance and statement of position (opposite of my own). Then the next round is where arguments shall begin in earnest. The final round shall be void of any form of new argumentation, as that wouldn't exactly be fair, now would it?
Cure for Cancer

The pro began this debate with grand claims of a method to cure cancer. Throughout the debate the pro has failed to provide any sources for their claims. Any cure would have to be able to remove both the tumor and destroy cancer cells that have broken away, and indeed the pro side admits their method is only able to remove tumors and not even in all cases. However the technique described does not even remove tumor; it is described as being intended to make them safer to remove. This is not a cure even if there weren't numerous problems inherent in the nature of cancer that make the technique ineffective. Thus the resolution fails on all accounts.
Cure for Cancer

"Cancer can be cured; masses of compressed tissue can be decompressed part by part, and the tumor can be removed safely."--Pro"Though Con may be correct in writing that dangerous fluids may spread further disease, the method I've outlined is lightweight and fluids can be controlled in the curing process. If fluid control is deemed too difficult, then a more apt surgeon is required, not a new technique for removing tumors."--ProThese two quotes demonstrate the crux of the pro's misunderstanding.The first quote is basically a description of surgical removal but adding another step of 'decompressing' the tissue (what exactly does that mean?). The second quote shows my opponent still misunderstands the nature of cancer. The danger of cancer comes wholely from the unrestrained cell growth of cancer cells. The unrestrained growth creates masses of tissue that can damage organs, nerves, blood vessels, and so on. Most insidiously if cancer cells break away from the mass of tissue they can travel through the bloodstream to other parts of the body and grow new tumors. As far as I can tell cancerous tumors do not have any fluid to remove, benign or toxic. Since this is a major point in the pro's argument it must be cited that cancerous tumors contain fluid more often than not, and that is a problem that need solving for surgical removal.To actually cure cancer it isn't enough to simply remove a tumor; any cancer cells that may have broken away from the tumor and spread also have to be destroyed. Modern surgery can already surgically remove a tumor; the pro has not shown the 'pressure, quiver, and unthread' technique has benefits over modern techniques of surgical tumor removal, or that it even works at all."If not a direct cure for cancer, the method of my argument can be used to replace radiation therapy with a greater success rate."--ProMy opponent has yet to prove the efficacy of the method being argued so this statement is entirely unqualified. Furthermore the pro has yet to address cancer cells that have spread away from the tumor. Radiation and Chemotherapy are used to kill these stray cancer cells to make it less likely for cancer to return. It's practically impossible to detect the cells until another tumor has formed from them so a manual technique is out of the question. My opponent still makes grand claims for their 'pressure, quiver, and unthread' technique but has yet to back up those claims with any hard evidence. Further they have not provided any solution to cancer cells that have spread beyond the initial tumor and continue discussing 'dangerous fluids' which the pro has yet to prove is actually a problem with cancerous tumors. Any claims of a cure for cancer must be effective against cells that have spread away from the tumor, and indeed it seems the pro's method has no mechanism to handle those cells. Due to continued unsupported claims and a method which ignores the very nature of cancer and lacks even a theoretical mechanism to deal with it entirely, the resolution continues to fail.
Cure for Cancer

If Con's argument that cancer's are masses of tissue, this tissue can be depressurized and broken down slowly using the pressure, quiver and un-thread technique. Though Con may be correct in writing that dangerous fluids may spread further disease, the method I've outlined is lightweight and fluids can be controlled in the curing process. If fluid control is deemed too difficult, then a more apt surgeon is required, not a new technique for removing tumors. Cancer can be cured; masses of compressed tissue can be decompressed part by part, and the tumor can be removed safely. If anything the pressure, quiver and un-thread technique makes it easier to control fluids. Radiation therapy is used to try and break the tumor; pressure, quiver and un-thread technique can definitely break the tumor. however, as Con quite rightfully put, dangerous fluid must be controlled. If not a direct cure for cancer, the method of my argument can be used to replace radiation therapy with a greater success rate. My case is that the method does work, tumors can be broken and removed; and if dangerous fluids can be controlled, it's a working cure!
Cure for Cancer

It seems my opponent has a fundamental misunderstanding of what a cancerous tumor is. The pro is describing a cancerous tumor as a swelling of tissue containing harmful fluids. However that is not what cancer actually is.In all cases, Cancer is a type of illness where cells in the body divide out of control causing damage to surrounding tissue. Due to the uncontrolled division, the cells can move to spread to different parts of the body making it even harder to treat.According to the National Cancer Institute:"Many cancers form solid tumors, which are masses of tissue. Cancers of the blood, such as leukemias, generally do not form solid tumors.Cancerous tumors are malignant, which means they can spread into, or invade, nearby tissues. In addition, as these tumors grow, some cancer cells can break off and travel to distant places in the body through the blood or the lymph system and form new tumors far from the original tumor."Thus two problems are clear with the Pro's method of curing cancer. First a cancerous tumor is primarily a mass of tissue, not fluid. Even if a tumor did happen to contain fluid the dangerous part, the cancer cells, would be left behind. Second cancer cells can spread to nearby tissues. So even if it were possible to destroy the tumor the way my opponent suggested, it would not guarantee the removal of cancerous cells that have spread from the initial tumor making it likely for the cancer to come back. Indeed, often Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy is to ensure all cancer cells die so the cancer can’t grow back after the tumor has been surgically removed. Ultimately my opponents method of curing cancer cannot work due to cancerous tumors not having the properties necessary for the method to have effect, and even has properties that make it uniquely ineffective as a one operation cure for cancer.To prove the method they advocate, the pro must either provide scientific studies showing it is a valid technique to cure cancer, or disprove the ability of cancer to metastasize and prove that the danger in cancer comes from fluid within tumors instead of the cancer cells.https://www.cancer.gov...https://www.cancer.gov...
Cure for Cancer

Cancer can be cured through a threading technique that a skilled surgeon can perform! My argument is that cancer can be cured in the present day. Lymph nodes can be rubbed and pulsated to reach an orgasm of toxic build-up; a smoker would benefit from cleaning their lymph nodes this way. The same technique can be used to clear build-up in the throat, jaw or lungs. Cancerous tumors can be broken down by using a needle to pressure, quiver and un-thread the tissue which contains the collected fluid - it's a slow process, but within a day a cancerous tumor can be removed by an apt hand. My case is that cancer can be cured in the present day using the method I've explained.
Compulsory voting on debate.org would create fairer results

If there are people voting randomly or based on their past beliefs because they do not care or have the time it would obviously be unfair. It may be true that there will be a wider variety of biases but it is not statistically inevitable that it will produce fairer results. Say that there is a topic being debated where one side is nearly universally agreed upon-certainly not unheard of-if 12 or so people are selected at random they are most likely all or mostly going to be biased against this disagreed upon viewpoint, and they will be much less likely to put thought into voting than someone who entered the debate by free will. This would mean that any one taking a particularly controversial stance would have an automatically unfair advantage. More 50-50 debates also generally get more attention in the first place as they aren't seen by people as "well duh" so doing this seems to only water down the debates that already get attention. Your main argument against me is that 12 voters, since they vary more than 1, will be less apathetic, but the person that goes into a debate to vote by choice isn't apathetic. Sometimes there may be people who vote to troll or attack a certain opinion, but I fail to see how virtually a poll would be more fair than even that. It seems to me that as you have not shown that forced voters will actually put effort into it (or do it at all, I don't know how you would enforce this) that on an evenly agreed upon topic the one voter doing so by choice would sill make the difference, and that other debates would become a "popularity contest"- the epitome of unfairness. For these reasons I urge a con vote. Thank you for the debate, I enjoyed it.
Compulsory voting on debate.org would create fairer results

You haven't negated my claim that my thesis provides "fairer" results. I obviously wouldn't claim that compulsory debating will provide infallible results (or even unbiased ones), but it's simple statistical fact that more participants selected from diverse groups are correlated with a more equal and representative decision. The probability of twelve voter's apathy is much less likely then that of a single voter, and even with said apathy those that were indifferent to the debate would not all vote for the same user. It's not a guarantee at fairness, but it's the next logical step we can take and as such you must vote pro today. It has been a pleasure debating, con.
Compulsory voting on debate.org would create fairer results

I am disturbed by a trend that I have seen on this website. Individuals are winning and losing debates regardless of how reasonable and thorough their case was, because they are subject to the whims of the one member who took the time to vote! I am not suggesting that subjectivity decreases in numbers, but the more users who are polled will provide a fairer outcome for future debates. So I propose that debate.org should make voting on 1-on-1 debates compulsory (not every member for every debate, but perhaps something resembling a courtroom jury- 12 random judges of our peers).
Animals should be freed from zoos

My opponent has forfeited and this means that I have automatically won - as said in Round 1 where the rules were stated. CONCLUSION I'll continue my conclusion anyway. It is our moral imperative to protect this planet and everything that lives on it. You may think that I am implying that we are superior to other animals however we are the only animals that protect many different animals on such a large scale. If we stop now then who will be there to help them and care for them when they are alone and in a time of need. I don't feel like I need to elaborate on why animals shouldn't wear shoes because con has forfeited and therefore not brought up any new points.