BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Second Amendment should be repealed

NOTE: I prefer to go up against an experienced debater. If you want to accept this debate and have not completed more than 20 debates or have an ELO score below 2500, please post in the comment section before you accept. Resolved: The Second Amendment to the United State's Constitution should be repealed. DefinitionsSecond Amendment: The second amendment and part of the Bill of Rights which reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Should: Should implies that we have some obligation to do so on the basis of the evidence presented. As such, this debate implies that there is a moral and/or legal obligation to repeal the second amendment.Repeal: the removal or reversal of a law. Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals/ClosingTerms and Rules1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossTime: The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms. If any terms are violated or the debate is forfeited, I reserve the right to reset the debate back to its original setting. Voting standards: The voting standards will be the normal moderation standards. Thanks in advance to whoever accepts this debate.
increasing # of debate rounds

Thanks to truthseeker for the debate.Clarification: When I say that no one will read the debate, I mean no one will red all six rounds. My opponent thinks I contradict my contention 1 by saying that a 6 round debate might get someone to read most of it. But reading most of the debate =/= reading all of it, which is whats necessary to vote fairly. Even if you think that someone might read an entire 6 or 7 round debate, you can still extend Contention 2 which indicates that voting on long debates is inaccurate because its not possible to keep track of every point in the round and decide a winner fairly. Thats because of the sheer amount of arguments, which makes voting difficult. Pro says that he has given reasons as to why one might want more rounds, and that I explained why they might not, so we should just let 6 rounds be an option. However, I refuted all of his reasons for longer debates, whereas he's conceded my reasons why there should not be. He has still not defended his case, so there is no standing reason why someone would want a six round debate.Especially regarding my contention three. It directly responds to his argument about acheiving a more in-depth discussion through more debate rounds. Long debates don't encourage deep thought, it encourages recycling arguments and ranting.Thus, we shouldnt allow more than 5 rounds because it has no real advantages, but has several disadvantages.
increasing # of debate rounds

Although I still believe that I am correct I hear the other point of view and I am much less certain of my conviction. Perhaps more experience will pull me to his way of seeing things. I thank my opponent for a most enlightening debate. Rebuttal: My opponent seems to have contradicted himself in the opening paragraph. I wrote that I assume he does not mean "no one" literally. He said indeed he does. but, in the next sentence he clearly implies that he doesn't. so I maintain it is not true that "no one" will read more than 5 rounds. Any one genuinely interested in the topic will. People read entire books on some topics debated on ddo. In some cases many books. Why is it inconceivable that some one will want to read a long debate on it. Many debates go on for hours and people are interested. This debate boils down to the fact that I provided some reasons why people would want a longer debate. While my opponent provides reasons why people would not want a longer debate. The obvious conclusion then would be to give each person the option, since it doesn't hurt any one else, that doesn't want a long debate. My opponent questions however, whether there is any valid reason to want more rounds. It seems to me that this is the crux of the debate weather some one could have reason to want more rounds: I maintain that some issues as complex as the ones in ddo may need more rounds to go through the issue properly. My opponent maintains more rounds will not help. It is up to the voter to decide.
increasing # of debate rounds

I do indeed feel that no one will read an entire 6 round debate. Now, maybe one out of every ten long debates might get someone to read most of it. But 90% of the time, any voter a 6 round debate gets will be from people who have merely skimmed over the debate. But in almost every case, 80,000 - 90,000 characters will not be read by anyone. This also means there will be inaccurate voting because skimming debates causes key points of the round to be missed.Onto the other points.My opponent has accepted all of my arguments. He still thinks you can affirm because of the reasons he gave as to why someone might want a 6 round debate. Well I responded to all of those reasons in my last round. Since he didn't answer my responses, its established that there's no good reason to allow a 6 or 7 round debate, but there's a lot of good reasons to prohibit it. Vote Con off my C3 alone. Since he's conceded it, it means that any six-round debate will devolve into needless ranting, which will not acheive a more in-depth discussion like my opponent thinks it will. Thus, extending the maximum amount of rounds will produce lower quality debates and turn off potential voters, which is the opposite of what we want.
increasing # of debate rounds

(For the record this ascertain that no one will read them I am assuming is not meant literary "no one" if it is meant so I reject it on the grounds that some one genuinely interested in the topic most certainly will read a long debate.) My opponent offers several very good reasons why debaters would not want to have more than 5 rounds. This is not a reason that they should not be allowed to have more than 5 rounds if they'd like. These are very good reasons that debaters should limit their debates. But as I pointed out previously there are potential reasons why debaters would want a longer debates why stop them?
increasing # of debate rounds

I apologize for the wording indeed I will not play games like that my only intention was to protect myself from anyone playing semantic games with the word "should". I thank my opponent for accepting, I hope to have an enlightening debate. My argument is simple it doesn't hurt to give people more options. some debates are very long and very complicated and more rounds are needed to sort things out especially with regard to culture based debates It can take quite a few rounds to get a paradigm shift. The reason for limiting rounds would be bec. then they would go on forever. to that my response is 3 fold 1) that's up to the debaters let them chose what they want. No one is being forced or tricked just read before accepting. It can also be discussed in the comments box prior to accepting. 2)the fact that it can go on forever just proves my point that more time is needed. 3) I never said no limit I only said a higher limit.
The Autobahn SHOULD have ENFORCED speed limits.

Thanks for this debate carman. The best of luck! Definition (translated): The autobahn (high speed highway in Germany) has a RECOMMENDED (advised) and LOOSELY ENFORCED (only enforced in extreme cases of speeding) speed of 130 km/h. (81 Mph) We will be referring to the GERMAN autobahn through out this debate. Also, it is a high speed express way in many parts of Germany. =Points= (Play video when cued) 1. It is very unsafe for local drivers 2. It is unsafe in general Point 1: a) citizens who depend on the autobahn have to deal with insanely fast drivers. Imagine you are just commuting to work on a fine Monday morning. You take an on-ramp onto the autobahn. Then from behind you, a gigantic truck going 180km/h [1] smashes into you in the back. Crashes like these are very common on the autobahn and have killed many people [1]. The citizens who have to cope with these driving conditions are simply dying because of either people speeding around in high-speed cars getting an adrenaline rush or trucks moving at extremely high speeds (trucks that cannot handle breaking and crosswinds at such high speeds). Point 2: a) The only cars that should be driving that fast should be driven by professionals and on a track. Not just anyone who has need for speed. If any untrained citizen can drive at unlimited speeds, it's a recipe for disaster. This doesn't just hurt the reckless driver, but also the innocent men, women, and children killed. The government of Germany is being irresponsible by letting such a dangerous road run through their country. b) cue video http://www.youtube.com... I may bring up more points in later rounds, but for now this is all I need. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
48/2(9+3) -- The answer is 2

OK, this is what I got. According to the distributive law of math, a(b+c) = ab+ac. So, in this case, 48/2(9+3) = 48/2*9+2*3 = 48/18+6 = 48/24 = 2 I apologize if my opponent feels that this was a "planned" debate and my answer was already prepared. It is not. Anyway, Con, you seem like a pretty intelligent person, I hope for some interesting arguments.
48/2(9+3) -- The answer is 2

I happily accept! I do not think that 48/2(9+3) = 2 but rather it equals 288. Be warned I learned how to divide by zero. On the side not of dividing by zero here is my proof: 12/4 = 3 or 4 * 3 or 4 + 4 + 4, going on that same logic C/0, where C can by any number, it would go 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0... or in other words 0*infinite and anything times 0 is 0 so therefore C/0 = 0. And cue world ending.
48/2(9+3) -- The answer is 2

Hello, readers. This is a simple mathematical problem. 48/2(9+3) I would be arguing that the answer to this problem is 2. I know, some of you are thinking "How the hell am I supposed to argue that the answer is not 2? There can be only one right answer to this mathematical problem! " However, if you try to solve this problem, I can bet that at least one of you readers will get a different answer from 2. If you do, I would be more than happy to debate with you. I urge the voters to vote for the arguments that made the most sense, NOT the arguments that answered the question right. I thank my future opponent, voters and the viewers for making this happen.
48/2(9+3) -- The answer is 2

Well, wasn't this debate just quick? Anyways, there are no parentheses around the 2(9+3) so therefore you must assume that is is done by 48(divide)2(times)(9(plus)3) which you must use order of operation to solve for this equation and the answer is 288 and not 2. If the problem looked like this: 48/(2(9+3) then it would equal 2, but unfortunately it is not. Besides if you plug it in directly like that in any calculator then it would come out as 288. So vote for Con. And remember kids, stay in school! :D
48/2(9+3) -- The answer is 2

My opponent stated that the order of operation in my equation is used wrongly. However, in my opinion, I don't see any problems presented. In the mathematical equation : 48/2(9+3) = 2 , the slash ( / ) sign is used to make a fraction, so, 48 would be the numerator, and 2(9+3) would be the denominator. In a fraction, a numerator and a denominator are treated separately, until the fraction becomes divisible. For example, if you had a fraction 2+4/3+6, you cannot make this fraction into a decimal unless the values are added, in that case, it will create a fraction 6/9, which equals 0.666. .. Therefore, in this particular situation, the denominator part of a fraction is calculated first, and then the value of the fraction is calculated. Also, my opponent has stated that the distributive law is mainly intended for variable math. Which is true. However, even though it is used in a non-variable math, it still doesn't change the answer. For example, 1(2+3) If calculated normally, 1(2+3) =1(5) =5 If calculated using the distributive law, 1(2+3) =1*2+1*3 =2+3 =5 In conclusion, I find my opponent's rebuttals to be false, and I urge the viewers to vote for Pro.
48/2(9+3) -- The answer is 2

. http://www.purplemath.com... for all the rules of it. Because there was no parenthesis around the 2(9+3), it can not be assumed that it is 48/(2(9+3)) but it must be (48/2)*(9+3). 24*12 = 288. I also wish to point out that if you type this equation exactly in a calculator it shall return 288. I do agree that there is um lets say "different ways to skin a cat. " But one cannot just use the distributive law when ever but you must follow the rules of operations which would go as follow. 48/2(9+3) 48/2*12 You must go left to right when there are a Multiply and a Divide. 24*12 =288. The distributive law was mainly intended for variable math such as 3X(4+11X) = 12X + 33X^2. For these reasons I ask you to vote for Con because clearly 48/2(9+3) ! = 2. (! = means does not equal fyi)
Animal rights

I am actually unsure of animal rights, but I will be arguing against them. Rebuttals... "1. Many famous people agree that animals should have rights. If they agree, we should listen to them because they are the experts on what we should do." This appears to be an appeal to authority, take this for example. A scientist must provide sufficient evidence for his science, if he does not then his ideas are invalid. The same goes for debating. We should never listen to someones ideas without sufficient evidence or logic, if they lack this their ideas are invalid. If one is famous, their ideas are not valid by the fact that they are famous. "2. Humans have evolved from animals as Darwin's theory proves. As humans have rights, animals too should have at least the basic rights. Not giving rights to animals is equivalent to not giving to human beings with mental impairments." The difference between other animals and people with mental impairments is that people with mental impairments belong to our race. Humans are social creatures, so we take care of each other in many settings. Humans have evolved to be omnivores, through both social and natural evolution. Though we originally ate less meat, we now eat much more partially because we now raise live stock. "3. Animals suffer, too.Since all pain and suffering is undesirable, humans should not inflict pain of animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments." Pain and suffering will always occur. In nature species dominate other species. Once again, it is different than discriminating against those who are handicapped. Because those who are handicapped are of the same species, they are familiar to us and we have the instinct created SOCIALLY, not naturally, to protect them. Humans destroy that which is foreign to our species to survive and thrive. My own arguement is this, because the debate only specifies general animal rights I would put forth this arguement: It is impossible to get rid of meat because we will never be able to deny our own nature. Full animal rights are as likely as world peace, both go against our nature. Perhaps one day when we can alter our nature we may be able to stop eating meat. Thank you for this debate.
Animal rights

1. Clarification of topic I will be arguing that animals should have the right to live without fear of being killed inhumanely by humans, the contender will be arguing that animals shouldnot have the right to live without fear of being killed inhumanely by humans. 2. Rules -No swearing 3. My points 1. Many famous people agree that animals should have rights. If they agree, we should listen to them because they are the experts on what we should do. http://www.betterworld.net... 2. Humans have evolved from animals as Darwin's theory proves. As humans have rights, animals too should have at least the basic rights. Not giving rights to animals is equivalent to not giving to human beings with mental impairments. 3. Animals suffer, too.Since all pain and suffering is undesirable, humans should not inflict pain of animals. Discriminating against animals because they do not have the cognitive ability, language, or moral judgment that humans do is no more justifiable than discriminating against human beings with severe mental impairments.
America needs more socialism.

I am still new to debate. org and hope to improve on clarifying my side of the argument. America needs more socialism because the country is facing an economic crisis in which 99% of the country owns 1% of the wealth. With a more equal wealth distribution, poverty and homelessness would decrease, as well as the power of individual business owners. In order to improve the public ownership of capital, business owners and others who qualify as the 1% need to pay significantly higher taxes, including college taxes. With socialism, more government spending would help smart and capable individuals reach their full potential, so all Americans can bear the same natural rights preached by John Locke: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
America needs more socialism.

As the Pro for this argument didn't write any definitions, I would like to present them here for our agreement as to halt any form of semantical debate or misunderstanding. Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (In Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism. We can thusly assume that under strict definition, more government authority and government regulation of economic and political matters, as well as any anti-property means undertaken are to be labeled "Socialism". We can also agree that from the current economic standpoint, we are a Capitalist economy with an enlarged welfare state and corporatist policies, rather than a completely "free market". With these basic postulates established, I wish my opponent good luck and may we have an interesting debate. I await your response.
The Normative Contingency Thesis (NCT) is a compelling objection to Moral Realism.

I've finally decided to open this up to any and all challengers. Everyone knows me, my argument, and my method. All that's missing is someone to take up the fight. As a consequence of this openness, Con may begin presenting arguments for realism/against the NCT in Round 1, or may choose merely to accept and defer argumentation until Round 2. I leave that decision to my opponent, who may not be penalized for opting to argue in R1. http://www.youtube.com...The Normative Contingency Thesis, or NCT, can be explored in some of my previous debates on moral realism [http://www.debate.org...] [http://www.debate.org...]; however, I will formulate it briefly here:Moral realism entails a justificationalist approach to affirming moral propositions. Value judgments and normative conclusions (e.g. "life is valuable", "murder is wrong") are contingent on logically prior propositions ("Do not murder" --> "Murder is wrong" --> "Life has moral value"). These chains of derivation can be traced back to one or more "first principles" from which the remainder of the system may be deduced. Succinctly stated: the problem of regression threatens the tenability of moral realism. However, the contingency inherent to the justificationalist structure can be regressively applied to the first principles, as well. According to the NCT, the contingency of both moral propositions and the meta-ethical first principles which found them require a rejection of moral realism, which is understood as follows:1. Ethical sentences express propositions. 2. Some such propositions are true. 3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.So, for this debate, the phrase "compelling objection" can be taken to mean that, if one were metaphysically constrained to affirm or reject realism on the basis of arguments presented in this discourse, the normative contingency thesis would provide an overriding impetus for rejection. In other words: just having read this debate, you'd side with me, rather than with my opponent, on the issue of realism.Good luck to whomever accepts.
Chess is not need in Schools

Children with special needs do struggle with other subjects as well but Chess will just add more to the problem. Chess would be part of the school curriculum if it was added AND it would add to those subjects. So what the Con has said is false it would add to the subjects as the Economist John Adams has stated on the ABC news. Chess is a great game, but why chess? there are many other games that are easier or more fun and sometimes even have more benefits then chess. Adding chess to curriculum is basically random. why not add monopoly? it teaches life skills and about money. Go is a great game as well and many people believe that as well, as when you search up "that Go is better then Chess" there are so many topics about it. Go is a mix between chess and checkers and other games as well. it has risk taking, it broadens the mind and the imagination as well as many more! And thats why Chess is NOT needed in Schools because there are many other games out there in the world that have the same fundamentals and maybe even more
Chess is not need in Schools

There are kids who have disabilities that will hinder their learning, but they are gonna have trouble learning any subject regardless, and chess can be an extra way of teaching that may help them understand. I've taught children who's had ADHD, anger management problems, dyslexia, and chess was a game that they learned and use to help them in their studies when not even medicine was working. It took a while for them to grasp the game, but it's so rewarding once they actually did learn the game. Adding chess is not adding another subject, its more of enhancing what they are already leaning in a different way. Chess opens so many doors that people don't realize, and chess helps open their minds, so they can see these doors that other people may miss.
Chess is not need in Schools

What you have said is true but what about the Kids that have disabilities? some kids don't want to play or if they wanted to they would have to gone to chess club but not every student is at chess club. Students are already learning Math, English. Science, PDHPE, Swimming, Singing, Art, Drama, Languages, Computer skills, Business skills, Typing, Learning to talk, Count, Learning the alphabet and much more in just 5 days 8:30 - 3:00 and not even homework will count for that. lets face it school has a lot of subjects and its just too much to just add one in even if its just chess
Chess is not need in Schools

As a person who's worked with with students, they can pick up the game and learn it. Students minds are sponges, so they can learn stuff pretty quickly. Even a 4 year old can learn the game. There are a bunch of other board games that can teach life, but chess is a game that teaches the most, such as: planning ahead, learning consequences, being respectful, showing good sportsmanship, etc. Chess also helps with math studies since it deals with algorithms, graphing, and probability.