BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: While debating, my opponent cannot lose The Game.

Thank you I'll make this brief. So far, I am winning this debate, but I'll elaborate later. Furthermore, I apologize for not taking this debate more seriously or contending properly but you have very cleverly circumvented my, albeit, abusive framework. You're right, it is unfair to ask mid-debate for a rule to be added to the framework. That's my mistake and I may end up paying for it later. Have I not debated Daniel? I could have sworn I did. None of this is pertinent, however and I'm sorry for making small talk. Also, having a conversation pertaining to a specific subject is grounds for Daniel to mention someone who beats him in debates often. It has to do with the conversation at hand. His first girlfriend (warranting he's ever had a girlfriend) is not. Thank you for debating with me. This isn't as interesting as I thought it would be during your R1. Again, very clever. I hope that you are having fun in America and wish you a safe trip home if you leave before your next response. -EG
Resolved: While debating, my opponent cannot lose The Game.

I would like to say that my opponent has not posted any formal argument. This being said, hello Daniel's cousin. May I ask your real name please? Oh, how rude, my name is Eli and I live in America. It's surprising that I've never heard of you from LM. We've debated several times and subsequently had several conversations concerning his debating career and he has never mentioned someone who was a BETTER debater than he. I would also extend my thanks to LM for translating this debate for me. As for the illiterate, I would like to invite you to the debate but forewarn Daniel that if anyone else types even one letter on this debate, Webmaster is within his rights to tear down your account. But being that neither of the debaters I am currently debating can read English, that should be no problem. Also, my opponent has done a good job of maintaining my rules. I would also like to say I am debating contentions to be brought up at any time. If you, being one of my two (perhaps more), opponents would like to bring up a new contention at any point, that is fine. "I'd rather not think about any of the popular Internet memes at the moment if that is okay with both Daniel and my opponent. Hopefully, this debate doesn't revolve around them." It does. The Game. But that's actually not important right now. My opponent will lose this debate. That may sound arrogant but he has already lost insofar as Daniel was required to read every word out to his cousin. My opponent is not truly Daniel's cousin is it? It seems my opponent as dictated by debate.org is Logical-Master whose true name is Daniel. I am debating Daniel. Therefore, Daniel must address me as Daniel, not as a medium for any other debater. In such a case, I am awaiting my opponent's case. This is currently my only contention but is subject to change. I would also like to add one more thing: While contentions can be made at any round, my opponent cannot post any comments about the debate after they have posted a Round 1. I don't know if this matters to you but anything written before my Round 2 response gets posted is acceptable. I await your response, EG
Resolved: While debating, my opponent cannot lose The Game.

We will be debating this topic free style which means any system of debate from conventional to unconventional are welcome so long as each case is refuted in the manner suiting the style they have chosen. Semantics arguments are not allowed and are subject to dismissal by the judging populous. Semantics arguments include any attacks or kritiks on the resolution or any of the rules to follow. Here is my framework, which is not subject to interpretation, should be taken literally, and are not up for negotiation: 1)My opponent must know what the Internet meme "The Game" is. If my opponent is arguing on any other game (ie Clue, Monopoly, strip poker) my opponent forfeits the debate and you must vote CON. 2) If my opponent wishes to win any votes on this debate, my opponent must not mention The Game in any manner or power of suggestion (ie "I don't know what we're playing here and I have never known" is not acceptable. It is a reference to The Game.) 3) My opponent may participate in this debate after they have reviewed the rules before every round at http://www.losethegame.com... . 4) My opponent may run any debating style he wishes so long as it is not a semantics argument (ie "The resolution is flawed because 'x'") My opponent's argument must be regarding the resolution and why it is possible that his opponent can abstain from losing the game. 5) All of these rules apply solely to the Affirmative. The Negative is subject only to contend his opponent and present a case negating the resolution. 6) Any and every person who views this debate, regardless of their affiliation in the matter, must declare their loss of the game in the comment box. Being that I am the Negative, I will let the Affirmative have the first argument.
Resolved: While debating, my opponent cannot lose The Game.

http://www.youtube.com... Hello once again, Eli. I'm glad to have been able to argue in all five rounds of this debate. It is most unfortunate that this debate must end here. I had a lot of fun in this topic, but good things must come to an end. I would like to begin this round by reminding everyone of my words on why I believe I've won this debate as early as round 1 and 2. I said that everything which I've said here is POSSIBLY true. Even if my opponent wants to deny that I am telling the truth, he cannot deny that it's possible. I have a strong hunch that this possibility is what wins me this debate. If there is a word possible or possibly in my opponent's first round, look for it and see if you see a connection. Next, my adversary's tactic is not by any means a surprise to me. In fact, I had it planned for him to do this since the beginning of the debate (assuming everything is as I suspect it to be). One could say that I've been pulling the strings all along. In the first round, Mr. Eli made a rule requiring anyone who reads this debate to declare their love of Apple Pie (which, hopefully isn't mistranslation on Daniel's part) in the comment section. Mr. Eli would like you to believe that since I nor Daniel have done this, that we've somehow forfeited this debate. However, if I've been informed correctly, Mr. Elie never once mentioned WHEN users were required to do this (from what I've been told, users had declared their love of Apple Pie before the debate even started) and that neither Daniel or myself love Apple Pie. This means that neither of us have broken the rule. I understand Mr Eli had made a comment about Daniel not liking sweet potato pie. Whether or not this is true and has anything to do with the debate, I am not Daniel; I am Takahashi Makoto and am the one who is representing the Logical-Master account. But Mr. Eli, you did have a chance to win---no, a chance to not lose like this. Had you only posted an argument when you had the chance, you could have realized that I was well prepared for what you had in store for me and could have conjured up a different approach. But now, we've reached the end of the debate and you have no way of mounting a defense of any kind. I shall not allow you to post a comment of importance to the voting judges as that is what the debate was for. Don't take it personal. Whereas my cousin might have been so soft as to allow that, I debate to win. Sayonara
Fewer women reach top positions in corporate sectors

Women have been empowered more and more every single day, therefore, I find it hard to believe that a woman would sit and allow herself to be left out. Also, yes, they do deserve the same credits, but there is no substance behind that to support your point. You're saying that, because they SHOULD be able to get credit means that they are becoming higher up on the scale in terms of corporate positions. Although that does have an affect, the facts of women vs men in corporate sectors is still as I said: 16%-17%, which if fairly low - or /fewer/, in this case. Just because they prefer to choose women over men does not mean that there are more women in the top positions. Like I said previously, women do not usually grow that far up the chain for them to even be accepted in considering the recent study [The "leaky pipe" theory"] made notice of the fact that, women tend to leave their jobs before they are able to reach that point. To conclude, it's simply a matter of percentages and numbers. Looking at it currently, there are still fewer women that make it to the top. 17% of women are in top positions and the number is growing at a very slow pace - that is due to either the women dropping out or becoming stay-at-home mothers.
Fewer women reach top positions in corporate sectors

I appreciate your point of view. Talking about facts and figures the percentage of women has been very less but then the thing is that i have got my debate competition coming up in my school so just wanted to see where i stand. I have got no other choice. Talking about fortune 500 as far as i had read the reason behind women not being in the list it that men make women fell left out. Consider a women and man join a company at the same time, work at the same post, get promotion at the same time but then when they get retired the amount which the man has earned is quite a lot than the women, though they both deserve the same credits. In an interview with the business forum in oxford union, They stated that women are appointed in top positions and also they told that they prefer picking women over men. http://www.youtube.com...
Fewer women reach top positions in corporate sectors

It was a little misunderstood where exactly you were coming from, but I think I understand what you're debating. You're saying that there are an exponential amount of women that reach the highest position in corporate sectors, but the facts do not prove you to be correct. Now, it should be stated that women are beginning to come to top positions more than what they have been in 2012; which was 16%, but now, in 2013, it is 17%. The rapidity at which women are coming up through the ranks is very sluggish and doesn't make your point valid considering that I would still consider "Fewer" to be around that percentage area. Currently, only a mere 12 people on the Fortune 500 are women. "Catherine Wolfram, an associate professor at UC Berkeley's Haas Business School, studied the "leaky pipe" theory, which says that women aren't staying in positions long enough to rise through the ranks. Her study found that 15 years after graduating from Harvard College, 28 percent of the females who received MBAs were stay-at-home moms, while only 6 percent of those earning medical degrees left their jobs, suggesting the business world is less female-friendly. (Swartz)" I would really enjoy if you were to cite your information, as well. I would like to see where you are getting your information on how many women are reaching the top positions in corporate. Although you are correct in saying that women are an integral part of business and that giving them that position, in the few that have been given away, make work-places filled with 'prosperity, joy and happiness'. Then again, the facts of major firms in America do not match up with your argument - there honestly is fewer women that are in top positions. (Swartz) http://www.sfgate.com...
Fewer women reach top positions in corporate sectors

"If you have the right level of workforce participation of women . . . then the rest will kind of take care of itself," quoted by the ernst and young's global government and public sector leader Uschi Schreiber who is a women. Hello everyone, I am here to speak agaisnt the motion "Fewer women reach the highest position in corporate sectors." We must understand that women have been and continue to be an integral part of the companies across the world. They are considered to be more active in their work; this is not just me who believes it, but also the world famous U.S president Barrack Obama himself considers that women are more dedicated and smarter in their work. And also recent research has stated that women have become nearly majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history. Most managers are now women too. Do bright colors, festivities, or poverty ring any bells when you think of India? And what about Indian women? Exotic is perhaps the first stereotype that springs to mind. Well, don"t you all think Indian woman are certainly more than that! In a country extensive with unemployment, illiteracy and gender discrimination it is quite an achievement that a number of women in the corporate sector have made it to the top. One striking example of a corporate diva is Chandra Kochar the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of ICICI Bank " India"s largest private bank. I believe women bring rich and diverse perspectives to the workplace. Often, they bring management styles which are quite complementary to those of men; having women in executive positions helps ensure that organizations meet the needs of increasingly diverse markets and communities. It is also said by Cyrus Mistry, chairman of Tata group, that when women are insufficiently represented in the workplace, they lose out on 50 per cent of the talent pool. And so the Tata group already has quite a few women who are at different leadership positions and now they are looking forward to appoint more and more women in the top positions. Eventually, there is a general misconception that companies do not appoint women in the top positions but my friends the reality is different, women are appointed in top positions in the corporate because of which the firm leads a life full of prosperity, joy and happiness.
Republican deregulation of corporations

Wow, this entire debate is ironic, for my father is a leading salesman for GP Cellulose (also known Georgia-Pacific), a company owned by the Koch brothers. I won't be bias towards corporations because this though. Since my opponent failed to introduce his own definitions, I'll assume we'll use mine. Here I will address his arguments arguments: 1st, my opponent uses only one corporation to justify his claim. Not only is he categorizing all corporation under the acts of one, but his points still only relate to Koch industries. 2d, all his points blame the company but not various other issues. Perhaps the truck stalling on the road cracked the pipeline enough so gas could escape. Perhaps the lung cancer was caused by something else other than pollutants. There are several coincidental arguments in this argument, and I would like Con to take account of them. 3rd, the blame is cast on the politicians accepting the funds, not the corporations. Giving donations to politicians is completely legal, but if the politicians choose to be corrupt then it is their fault. Now, onto my own arguments. 1: Under my definition of "republican", all Americans are Republicans. We all are under a system of republicanism, meaning that we have representatives vote for us instead of ourselves. Essentially, Con is calling all of America murderers. 2. Corporations do plenty of great things for use. The computer you are using to read this argument? Made by a corporation. The sandwich you just ate? Its ingredients were made by a corporation. The car you use to get the ingredients for your sandwich? Made by a corporation as well. In order to aid corporations, the government deregulates corporations, aids them with tax breaks, and thus allows the company to prosper. Now, while one might think that corporations are to blame for all our problems, and Con most likely does, they do hire 90% of the people in America, and provide us with all sorts of great things. 3. If they do bad things, such as cause the death of people, there usually is a good cause. In the case of the Koch brothers and their corporations, a lack of proper company inspection is usually to blame, or that to save costs the company used cheaper materials. This is not the government's fault, as Con would have you believe, but stead the corporation's fault. In conclusion, Con blames the government when he should really blame corporations. But he shouldn't even do that, because corporations provide us with jobs, goods, and services. But really, even that is not applicable because Con only uses one example to back his claims. This entire debate is flawed on Con's part. He even calls all of America murderers! While that notion may seem silly, it still applies to this debate. For the reasons previously stated, I urge the voters to vote Pro, and stand with me in believing that the stance that the Republican stances on deregulating corporations are NOT killing Americans. I await my opponent's response.
Republican deregulation of corporations

I will take this debate. I take the stance that the Republican stances on deregulating corporations are NOT killing Americans. Definitions: killing: the act of a person or thing that kills. http://dictionary.reference.com... Republicans: a person who favors a republican form of government. http://dictionary.reference.com... Stance: a mental or emotional position adopted with respect to something http://dictionary.reference.com... Deregulating: to remove government regulatory controls from (an industry, a commodity, etc.) http://dictionary.reference.com... Corporations: an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. http://dictionary.reference.com... Americans: a citizen of the United States of America. http://dictionary.reference.com... These are the definitions of the topic that I will use. Good luck to my opponent, and seeing as I have not made any arguments, the first argument will fall to Con. I await my opponent's response.
Republican deregulation of corporations

I don't live in Arkansas, but I do live in the South. 1. Please, use other companies. 2. That's the corporation's fault, not Republican stances. 3. It is the choice of the politicians to be corrupt. Companies can try to influence policy, but really it's on the shoulders of the statesmen to change policy. Blame corporations if you like, but it is NOT Republican stances that kill Americans. 1. You're supposed to list definitions in your first or second speeches. Since this is your first debate, I'll forgive you, but MY definition is still the one that applies. Voters, all of you who have stated definitions in the first speeches, take my definition as the one to be used in this debate. Con's failure to list definitions means the Con accepts mine for the debate. If you wanted to have your own definitions, you should have listed them. Thus, my definitions will be the definitions of the rest of the debate. 2. So, according to you, corporations are not evil but they are heartless entities? Wow, you just contradicted yourself. 3. So killing enemy combatants is wrong because they are human? Even when they are trying to kill our soldiers and win wars against the people of the United States? You claim to go against heartlessness, but you would rather have heroes killed than defend themselves. I would address all of your points and arguments individually, but they all have the same issue: it was the fault of the CORPORATIONS, not the fault of REPUBLICAN STANCES on deregulation. While if we were debating the issue of corporate responsibilities and disasters caused by corporations, you would be right, but this is not the case. Republican stances try and establish a better form of government control of the people and entities of the people, such as corporations, they do not rule on a corporation's actions. That is the fault of the corporations, not the stances. Start a different debate if you want to debate that issue, but don't make this an issue on this debate. According to your resolution, this debate is non topical. In conclusion, my opponent is off topic, states through the acceptance of my definitions that all Americans are murderers, and through his points of rejection of death supports militaristic failure. Though my opponent may reject my claims, I have tried my best to make the logical fallacies of the debate evident, my points clear, and make topicality a ruling issue. For the sake of proper debate, legitimate arguments, and a standard for all debate.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

The Kalam Cosmological argument is set out as follows: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause 2) The universe began to exist 3) Therefore the universe has a cause 4) The cause has to be God 1st round is for Pro's first argument to show why the Kalam is unsound. To make sure we get the same number of rounds, in the final round Pro should just write: 'no argument posted here as agreed'. Good luck!
Prison isn't meant to carry out justice.

My opponent literally thinks that because justice is subjective prison cannot carry out justice.This is absolutely absurd and he supplied zero reasoning towards it (he literally said it 7 different ways thinking he was somehow proving it to be true).The burden of proof this debate lied on Pro and all that Pro has tried to prove is that justice depends on people's opinions and feelings and sociologically differs depending on the nation you are observing. There was absolutely no proof given that prisons and justice are separated in the slightest but there is a lot of evidence supporting the idea that prisons are solely built for the rehabilitation of criminals as well as the punishment to them for the sake of the victims of their crimes.Pro insists that "justice is simple a cuddly term for revenge", this is correct. Prison sentence length is solely base don the concept of revenge. Life sentences wouldn't exist if rehabilitation was prison's only aim and I never said this so Pro should read more carefully. Prison has four purposes, two of which I focused on this debate. The two I focused on were turning a 'bad guy' into a 'good guy' and punishing the bad guy for the sake of the victim's to feel compensated for by the state. The latter purpose is the primary one and thus prisons are indeed meant to carry out justice.Thanks and bye.