BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool

Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.As this is the current LD topic for March/April, I would like this to be as closely structured to an LD debate as possible. All styles of LD cases are acceptable, you don't have to run a traditional value-criterion case. Rounds will break down like this.1. Acceptance from both sides.2. Pro case, con case and rebuttals.3. Pro rebuttals and defense against con arguments. Con rebuttals and defense against pro arguments.4. Pro rebuttal and defend. Con rebuttal and defend. No new arguments.For cases, it's okay if you want to put them in a google document in order to conserve space. Rebuttals must be typed up in the text box alloted by DDO. If you need more than 8,000 characters for rebuttals, then you're probably saying too much.Good luck to whomever accepts.
Worst movie ever.

My opponent hasn't actually made an argument. Just posting evidence doesn't qualify as making an argument. If my opponent is too lazy to write out why his choice beats my choice (keep in mind he was convinced to change his original choice and I wasn't), then my opponent doesn't just get to post someone else's argument and say that's going to be his argument for the debate. (That's actually plagiarism even thought he's citing a source because he's not actually coming up with his own argument). I have been unrefuted. Thank you for reading.
Worst movie ever.

Well, I guess we're even on conduct.But anyway, my opponent is just kind of abandoning the superman deal.Just watching the review makes me physically ill when it comes to the Garbage Pail Kids (by the way, I apologize for the language, but the movie deserves it).Anyway, I mean, my opponent hasn't even responded. I have provided evidence of a movie that sucks way more than the first one he posted. All he posted is a rotten tomatoes review. Keep in mind that audience reviews don't mean a ton, because your average audience member probably doesn't think as critically they should for a review.So may I direct your attention to the top right.http://www.youtube.com...Thank you.
Worst movie ever.

I found a worse movie. With a total of 0% on the Tomatometer [1], an amazingly insightful view from the nostalgia critic [2], and just overall "no" [3] I would like to submit that the Garbage Pail Kids was the worst movie ever made. The story line was terrible. The acting was sub par to being sub par. The relationship between like a ten year old kid and some teenage high school girl was no. But of course, the worst sin of all: they freaking sold the movie and people spent money on it. That's pure evil. Villainy at its finest. Sources: [1] http://www.rottentomatoes.com... [2] http://blip.tv... [3] Jonbonbon's Unabridged Encyclopedia of Movies
Worst movie ever.

I will start off with Superman IV: The Quest For For Peace I feel bad for choosing this becauseof christopher reeve but 12% on rotton tomatoes is a sure sign of how bad it is. The audience score? 16%. But now it is time to analize it ourselves -cheap special effects. -actors don't look interested in the plot. -and the acting is boring. It earned two golden razzies. I don't think you can find a much morse movie.
Would Children be Prepared for the Real World by going to School or being Unschooled

My first argument is that without a school, there is no basis on which a child may thrive on to learn. If unschooling (not radical unschooling; the type of unschooling I was suggesting on the basis of no punishment for bad/irregular behaviour) allows children to learn anything they like with no formal basis, then they could be interested in somethings, but not everything. If you were to be unschooled, then along with most of the students in public schools, the ratio of children who enjoy mathematics to those who don't is about 1:6 (based on a small survey I have conducted at my school). This would show that if most children don't enjoy mathematics, then they would have no reason to learn mathematics if they didn't want to. But, math is needed in everyday life, and weather someone doesn't like it doesn't mean that it's not important. During school, children are taught by a professional on a more formal basis. I am not saying they should use Common Core in school, for the curriculum is absolutely ridiculous, but to use a curriculum that would involve all needed aspects of math, such as finance and multiplication and division in a more easy, simplified way, in which some states do without the Common Core Standards.. There are other subjects, but this is one that is needed throughout everyday life. I conclude my point.
Would Children be Prepared for the Real World by going to School or being Unschooled

I accept. In the topic, my opponent uses the word "children" as if we can generalize the topic to all children. Also, when my opponent says "Real World," we must assume that he is talking about financial success since he did not specify and did not provide a definition for the debate. Therefore, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that all children would be better prepared for success if they went to school. My primary counterexample to my opponent's claim are children who will go on to inherit a family business. These children do not need a formal education in order to succeed "in the real world." Here is a summary of the arguments I will run in this debate. 1. Children can expect to have lower stress levels in an unschooled environment. 2. Putting children through a system teaches everyone almost the exact same way is not efficient. Different children have different preferred methods of learning. 3. Children are curious and natural learners. However, they would rather learn at their own pace than be forced to go at the same pace as a traditional school. Here is how I refute my opponents argument. My opponents argument against "unschooling" is that children are not punished by bad behavior. That, however, is false. Unschooling is characterized by freedom in choosing what to learn, not freedom to do whatever the child wants. Parents still punish their children for misbehaving, even when homeschooling. If my opponent is arguing against unschooling, then he is advocating for a system like Common Core, in which the learner does not have a choice as to what should be learned.
A Skilled Martial Artist could Kill a Lion with his bare hands

Hi, I'm arguing that a skilled martial artist could kill a lion with his bare hands CON must argue that the lion would kill the martial artist before being killed itself. The Lion is a Adult Male West African Lion The Martial Artist is a extremely fit man who has studied martial for years, and is fast and strong himself. I thank CON in advance, and let's have a good debate! *Disclaimer* I'm not encouraging you to go out and just punch a lion in the face, so don't. Also, no lions were harmed in the making of this debate.
Resolved: Debate.org should change its round forfeiting rules.

I respect you as well, but my argument was purely part of the debate, so "no harm - no foul". Now on with Round Three... In the case of friends debating one another, arrangements could be made between the two. You and your friend could debate via email, then post your arguments at the site to be voted upon. Also, back to your alternative, you are assuming that everyone here votes like you. They do not, as you can go to many closed debates and see that voting has not been absolute for either Pro or Con, but split in most cases. < > Having an outstanding debate is kind of like having an outstanding balance on an account. It is something that is due in a timely manner. By initiating your proposals, debates will fill up the queue unnecessarily and disappoint many of the audience of this site. This is a debate, not a weekly television program -- three days is reasonable. < > Your proposition also allows for unfairness. If a debater predicts their own defeat, you make no mention of what would happen if he decided to forfeit in order to save himself from suffering a loss. It's a flawed plan that does not need to be implemented. < > Thank you too. Have a great weekend!
Resolved: Debate.org should change its round forfeiting rules.

I totally respect you and your ideas and I'm sorry if I made that less than clear. I am extremely appreciative of you taking part in this debate with me. I never said your opinions were invalid. I do agree that the three day time limit should be sufficient, but I do not see why it should be mandatory. For example, if I forget to post a response to a friend in a friendly debate, I don't see why that round should be forfeited if neither of us want it to be forfeited. If I start debating my friend and then a huge math test comes up and we both want to take a few day break to study, why should we be forced to forfeit rounds and restart the debate? In this sense, it's not a lack of respect, but a mutual agreement to quit. In cases where debaters feel that it is a lack of respect, then they can choose to have their opponent forfeit the round. My opponent never says what the downside to having a choice on forfeits would be, despite the fact that I invite him to. He simply states that it everybody should be able to respond within 3 days. I allow both people who want the 3 day standard and people who don't want it to have their way. Therefore, there is no reason not to vote for me. My opponent states that forfeiting "leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the voters" because of the statistical part of the website. This goes back to a point that I raised before... forfeits allow some people to get unfair wins. He claimed that this came simply as a result of my competitive nature, but apparently other people (including my opponent) buy into this. If people don't want to vote for forfeiters because they mess up stats, then we should find a way to fix this problem. Thank you very much. This has been fun.
Resolved: Debate.org should change its round forfeiting rules.

< > My responses are valid and just because you deem them invalid do not make it so. I could just as easily say that not only are you not an adult, and you do not even have a complete high school education, therefore your opinions are not valid. It just doesn't work that way. Also, each debater is given THREE DAYS to make an argument. If a debater cannot get his/her act together in THREE WHOLE DAYS, then the debater should not have accepted/posted the challenge. It's just that simple. < > Again, you are wrong because I posted, "it also leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the voters". By forfeiting a round it makes a huge impact on many of us. It is disrespectful and I cast my vote on such debates taking that into consideration. You are focused on the voting and the statistical reflections that the voting casts, so my points are very relevent to how the system works and how it is fine the way it is now. <> Forfeited rounds comes down to a matter of respect. If you don't respect your argument or your opponent, it makes a huge impact on the voters and they vote accordingly. To change the site because you are not satisfied with it is laughable, but I suppose the voters will decide who is right in this matter. Thank you.
Resolved: Debate.org should change its round forfeiting rules.

While my opponent does make valid responses, they fail to respond to my alternative itself. Although some people do like the competitive nature of the site, others do enjoy the discursive nature. Therefore, if Debate.org allowed people to extend their opponent's times in hope of a response, that would be a completely valid change. You can vote right there, because that is a change in the forfeiting rules (albeit a small one) that could cause no harm (at least as far as I can see). My opponent also failed to respond to my second point, which states that forfeiting rounds makes it impossible to respond. I'm somewhat confused as to what to make of the response my opponent did make. He never explains why this point is not valid, so hopefully he can clarify that in his next speech. I don't really need to extend my first or third point. I feel like the alternative and the "impossibility to respond" argument cover it.
Resolved: Debate.org should change its round forfeiting rules.

<<1) The Debate.org rules actually prevent the discourse that they try to promote, therefore defeating the purpose of the site. The debates, although offering some competition, are not supposed to be purely competitive. This is best evidenced by the lack of a leader board or any rating/ranking system. The main point of the website is to allow people from all around to argue.>> I fail to see where you're coming from -- the site IS supposed to be purely competitive. There doesn't need to be a leaderboard, as we have individual statistics in our profiles. The site does as it was intended: it allows "people from all around to argue." <<2) The problem with forfeiting individual rounds is that it leaves the opponent left with nothing to say. There's little point in just putting out more arguments, because that spreads the purpose of the debate too thin and wastes time, seeing as nobody is responding. Also, it cuts a round out of the debate, which in a short debate can lead to no actual debating at all.>> Yes, it also leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the voters. The system is fine the way it is and should be left alone. <<3) If we do view Debate.org as competitive, then forfeiting allows certain people to inflate their record without doing anything. This is inherently bad for competition, because it makes good debaters look comparably worse than their peers who have gotten lucky.>> Is it fair? No. But there's going to be flaws in changing the system. I prefer the forfeiting rules to remain as they are because there isn't anything wrong with them. If a person gains status because their opponent forfeits, sobeit. I think your personal competitive nature is clouding your judgement. <> It seems to me the reason you've created this debate is to help make the ratings more accurate, but you cannot do that on a site of this nature. Many of the voters don't vote with the same criteria, so YOU will never be pleased with how the site works. The site is fine. Leave it alone.
Resolved: Debate.org should change its round forfeiting rules.

This should be a fun one. 1) The Debate.org rules actually prevent the discourse that they try to promote, therefore defeating the purpose of the site. The debates, although offering some competition, are not supposed to be purely competitive. This is best evidenced by the lack of a leader board or any rating/ranking system. The main point of the website is to allow people from all around to argue. 2) The problem with forfeiting individual rounds is that it leaves the opponent left with nothing to say. There's little point in just putting out more arguments, because that spreads the purpose of the debate too thin and wastes time, seeing as nobody is responding. Also, it cuts a round out of the debate, which in a short debate can lead to no actual debating at all. 3) If we do view Debate.org as competitive, then forfeiting allows certain people to inflate their record without doing anything. This is inherently bad for competition, because it makes good debaters look comparably worse than their peers who have gotten lucky. Alternative: If somebody forgets or chooses not to respond, the opposing debater should have the choice of whether to extend time or to end the debate. This allows those who view these debates as competitive to get the wins they feel they deserve and those who view these debates as forums to get the discussion they deserve.
Gay marriage should be legal.

Both of these contentions will be addressed. -Contention I: "Slippery Slope" Argument This is invalid because: 1. There is no "slope" or "floodgate". Each step in the proverbial slope must be analyzed, critiqued, and evaluated on its own merits. To make gay marriage legal would be just that: making only gay marriage legal. This does not mean that polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages would instantly be made legal once gay marriages were. We can only determine whether it is fundamentally unfair to bar an entire class of citizens from a privilege afforded to the rest of us. 2. One can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state. None of these arguments can be made against gay marriage. -Contention II: Natural Law This is invalid because: 1. Gay animals are found in nature. 2. If the reason for marriage is to produce a child, we should not let elderly people or people who are unable to have children marry. The fact that both can marry proves that marriage is not for the sole purpose of producing children. 3. There is no requirement that two people who marry have sex.
Gay marriage should be legal.

I negate: Gay marriage should be legal. [Contentions] Contention I: "Slippery Slope" Argument By allowing gay marriage and not defining marriage between a man and a women, then the law is open to all types of other definitions. Gay Rights Activists claim that marriage should be based on nothing more then love. If this was true, why isn't polygamy allowed? Why isn't incestuous/family marriages allowed? It's all based on love right? By allowing gay marriage, the state is being opened to all sorts of other acts that are seen as wrong in society. Marriage cannot be based solely on love. This leads to my next point. Contention II: Natural Law The question now arises how should marriage be defined and why. Marriage should not be defined based on love only (As proven in my above point). Therefore, for the sake of this debate I will explain natural law. Natural law dictates that society should not condone an action that violates the natural law. Marriage should be the contract between 2 people admitting themselves in the natural process of sex. The reason for a married couple is to be the basis for child making, and thus a natural family. Gay marriage violates the natural law because 2 men cannot naturally make children, that goes for 2 women as well. Marriage should be the sacred bond for the fulfillment of this natural law of sex and family. [Affirmative Burden] My opponent has claimed in his opening round that the reason he thinks gay marriage should be legal is because there are no arguments that say it shouldn't. As a reminder, my opponent is the one with the burden of proof for this round. He must submit an argument/contention affirming the resolution. If not, then you must vote Con. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
flaw in debateing system

I am posting this from my phone, as I am on vacation and do not have access to a computer. please forgive my lack I'd formatting and my brevity. My opponent has still note overcome their confusion between causation and correlation. He cites statistical information given by a user on the site. However, while these statistics may or may not be accurate, the are insufficient to provide causation. For example, what impact does being pro have in victory rate. The instigator is often also pro, and since pro carries burden if proof, this may be the actual reason for the higher victory rate. The simple fact is that we do not know what the cause is, and to assert that it is sure to being the instigator is a Hartley conclusion that has not been proven by my opponent. since this fallacious conclusion is the crux of my opponent's argument, and he had failed to prove it, I urge you to vote con inthis debate. thank you.
flaw in debateing system

Apology: I apologize for my links in the previous round that did not work It may be unfair to include them now. never the less my case stands strong without it. Anyone interested can view them on other debates of mine. Protest: My opponent has severely misrepresented my claim using the words "is a near insermountable obstacle toward victory". (I consider this not merely a mistake but Prof that I am correct). Rebuttal: My main statistic is the one provided by Ore_Ele: "Historically, the Contender wins 65.4% of all debates. Given that this applies to 12,500 debates, that is hard to say that there is no correlation. We also see this trend leaning more and more towards the Contender, with the last 5,000 debates favoring them 68.9%. " My opponent does not challenge this stat, nor does he challenge that my reason is a significant one. Rather he challenges the connection. I see this as a contradiction in logic 101, if he agrees that my reason does have weight and that the #'s imply that instigator loses more often. It stands to reason that it is (at least partially) due to this "significant advantage". Furthermore My opponent goes on to provide a list of reasons why the 1st has an advantage. I would like to point out that these points are meaningless since at the end of the day the #'s clearly show a large (nearly double) difference in the winning rates of contender to instigator. Furthermore my opponents reasons really provide evidence for me that despite all these factors there is still such a gap (65.4% to 34.6%) in favor of contender, show that there must be (a) very strong factor(s) in favor of the contender. It is beyond doubt that this is (at least partially) due to the last word factor.
The US is not land of the free

I believe that freedom is a state of body and mind and that whether or not a country can be defined as free lies in the mindset of the populace. Freedom to me is an idea. I think that no matter how oppressive a government the idea of freedom is there even if the people cannot express it. I think that the United States is the land of people who embrace the idea of freedom and act upon it consistently thus making us the land of the free. Every civilization has growing pains, especially ones that began relatively late. Assuming the native American culture is not considered the first Americans, on average the U.S was created many years behind other modern civilizations. The United States had some very dark decades as has every culture; all cultures have to get dark and dirty in order to reach the light. Slavery, genocide, and other atrocities have been committed by every culture. As such for this debate I believe that whether or not the U.S is the land of the free should be determined upon modern times. Whether or not the acts of the current regime are here to stay, the amnesty of illegals, affordable healthcare act(Obamacare) and increased environmental regulations that America is becoming more free. I think that no culture in the history of the world has been better off than Americans today and that in many areas the U.S is the prime example of freedom and standard of living. The most prevalent example of this is debate.com and our debate. We have the education, time and freedom to debate about a relatively unimportant philosophical issue without fear of reprisal. No matter what race, culture or ideology we are, we will not be attacked by the government for bashing on it. The importance of this cannot be overstated. Another point of freedom that we take for granted is the peacekeeping forces of the U.S are not our enemy. In the majority of countries police forces and the military are the enemies of the people and not a source of safety. The fact that our forces are protecting us and not shaking us down is a concept that would be very alien in other nations. Finally the people of the United States have a sense of freedom unrivaled by any other people. In the U.S we have people who turn themselves into cheetahs, the devil, and other animals. We have people who pull themselves from poverty into billionaires. Most importantly the majority of Americans have dreams, hopes and desires and actively pursue them. No matter how much hatred and contempt the government shows towards gays they keep pushing for reform. Despite the taxes levied against businesses every day, people are creating new businesses. Despite government actions this will never change, and I believe Americans embody true freedom and in that regard I think America can without a doubt in my mind be called the land of the free.