BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People treat the debates like a poll. "Vote for who you already agreed with." and I can Prove it.

Well thank you very much. I have great hope for this place, and the concept it embodies. In my book I suggest a form of direct democracy that uses the internet as a medium for both suggesting and debating laws, as well as voting for their establishment and appeal. This is the first example of a such a system, never before has been controversy and public opinion been the goal of an internet project so directly. I had hoped to be the inventor of a place like this, but sadly I have neither the resources or the skill. You give me hope for the future. And actually your concession is the most damning argument against my general position on the pettiness of the current generation, because as you said people are petty, and my argument was meant partially to point that out, and your concession is the precise opposite of petty. It's actually rather grand and I think scores you so much of amoral victory that its safe to call this a tie. If there were a mechanism for it I'd offer a draw. I recently had to totally concede a point also. And I must say that I did not feel bad about it, I hope you are equally proud of yourself, because you should be. And you're absolutely right I should not have made it 5 rounds, but I did not expect a concession, despite my opinion that my opinion was correct. :) An important fact that history has taught us is that if rationality won battles we'd have given up on the concept of war long ago. Thus, I did not expect you to to respond to rationality. My deepest apologies for underestimating you. I look forward to our next debate, I'm sure it will be more fair than this one. :) Thank you all for your time and attention.
People treat the debates like a poll. "Vote for who you already agreed with." and I can Prove it.

< > Perhaps others are able to draw natural conclusions that you are unable to grasp. Some folks are accepting of 2 + 2 = 4, as opposed to needing 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. < > Many would disagree with you here. There is no proof that any gods exist, but Christianity has endured for millenia. If a crowd does not provide any given idea with validity, then the idea does not matter and eventually dies, thus invalidating it, as indicated by the quote from Max Planck which you cited. It was the same case with the Greek and Roman gods that are now considerd mythology. Public opinion denotes factuality very much so. People are smart, much smarter today than ever before, and they treat the debates like a debate and their votes are based on the presented arguments. < > Again, I disagree. People do not necessariy come online to represent themselves, but more so the individual they perceive themselves to be and the individual that they want to be perceived as, actually. People are striving to be the best they can be; better than they themselves think possible. < > I'm confused. If you've conducted this experiment time and again, why haven't you posted the results to "prove it" as you've claimed? It calls your debating experience into question, again. I have a high school diploma, as do the majority of the users on this site, so we're not only qualified to think logically, but we possess the education to critique a debate and vote accordingly. <> But in making the obvious flaws that you're making in this debate (and like in the others), don't you think people will see right through what you're doing? I think it may be a deceitful and possibly spiteful way to insult someone's intelligence and maneuver them into voting for your debate.
People treat the debates like a poll. "Vote for who you already agreed with." and I can Prove it.

"You're basing this argument on…" No I'm basing it on the fact that in every debate I've lost, it was to the most popular position in each case. Despite the presence of numerous logical errors in my opponent's arguments. In many cases key portions are left unrefuted, and in some cases replaced by straw man arguments. "…but yet have to prove if you're worthy of swaying public opinion." Fallacy. Public opinion does not denote factuality. I may be correct and simultaneously wildly unpopular. The ability to convince a crowd of a given idea has no relation to the validity of the idea. Hitler, evangelists, heaven's gate, Moonies, scientology, etc. "You cannot possibly "know" what the voters are thinking.." Their actions demonstrate a high likelihood of a given thought process. Unless you want to get into deep epistemology you're going to have to grant that actions reflect thought. My proof will be in the other arguments I've posted. I'll get votes, despite a total lack of defense of my positions. I may even win one or two. I could further prove the point if I was willing to select absurdly popular points, such as the existence of Jesus, or stereotyped partisan politics. "If you were truly skilled, you would have conducted your experiment…" You assume that my experiment here is the first experiment of its type I've conducted. Not so. I've been debating online for well over a decade. I noticed long long ago that people ignore ideas and evidence. Greater minds than me have noted this fact. My favorite of which is… "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck "…that you willfully announce that you cannot win with this statement." I merely commented on how wins occur. I believe most people agree with me on this point, and they will vote accordingly. Of those that actually read the arguments, I'll have them too, I expect to win this one. But you are right in terms of actually winning the debate via points covered and logic, no, debates aren't won here in that fashion, if ever. Excellent arguments. Thank you.
People treat the debates like a poll. "Vote for who you already agreed with." and I can Prove it.

[I believe that even the voters that agree with your statement will appreciate that my argument is stronger.] You wrote < > You're basing this argument on the fact that you've lost all of your debates, but yet have to prove if you're worthy of swaying public opinion. Perhaps you aren't as skilled at debate you think you are, a point I will get to in just a moment. You also write < > You cannot possibly "know" what the voters are thinking unless they leave comments freely admitting this behavior. Just because you admit to being tempted to do this yourself does not mean that others are giving in to the same notion. You end with < > This is the comment that has led me to question your debating skills, as I did above. If you were truly skilled, you would have conducted your experiment and attained the sought results, as opposed to locking yourself into a debate that you willfully announce that you cannot win with this statement.
Stanford team is better. XD

Since my opponent did not write an argument in time, I will reiterate some of the main points of my argument thus far. The California Bears team is better than the Stanford Cardinals because our teachers excel in simplifying complex topics, and are also very understanding and are always thinking in terms of students' best interests. They always take the time to assist students, and are very intriguing to speak to. We have more direct ways of learning that prove very effective, and our system of homework and other assignments being due at a later date allows us to plan everything out more thoroughly, resulting in better work. I think that's about it, and I thank you for starting this debate. It seemed to go relatively well, considering it was each of our first debates. Now all we can do is wait and see whose argument the voters prefer.
Stanford team is better. XD

In your argument, you pointed out various points that give reason to believe that you waste most of your classtime. Taking breaks, singing songs and using the smartboard don't seem to amount to much in the long run of improving your educational experiences. Our team also had us memorize the quadratic formula, and the method I used proved just as effective, and took less time to learn. One of the main purposes of school is to educate students thoroughly, in a wide range of topics. Also, intellect and over-achieving are two different things entirely. People with a very high intelligence level may not apply their brilliance to specified assignments given by teachers, just as some people who have perseverance may not be overly intelligent. You seem to be hinting on the fact that we have an equal amount of over-achievers. This may be true, but the type of person doesn't necessarily amount to more or less success. My team's teachers usually take time out of their schedule in order to help students in need, and are very engaging conversationalists during spare time. Large amounts of homework don't necessarily amount to success, it's the amount of information you glean from the work. By turning in assignments and projects at a later time, we are able to work more on the task at hand and are able to understand the concept more thoroughly than if we just created something quickly and carelessly. More time doesn't always amount to procrastination, but a more well-thought-out, planned assignment, executed with amazing precision. Thanks to WeaponE for assisting me in the basis of this argument.
Stanford team is better. XD

Thank you for replying. In defense of my statement, that the Stanford team is better, I have to say that the math teacher(s) is/are very nice, let us use calculators, teach us wisely, let us use the smartboard, let us have breaks during class, and play the very helpful and silly Quadratic Formula song. Although your team may have quite smart people, we also have over-acheivers. Our teachers are very generous in helping us when needed, and it is enjoyable to spend time with them, whether it be just talking or getting help. We are rewarded when we behave nicely (which is a lot) and the 'large' amounts of homework will be good for us in the long run. I also noticed that your team turns in projects/assignments later that we do; we do not prcrastinate. We turn our work in at our earlier deadline. Um... I'll come up with more later.
Stanford team is better. XD

The statement that Stanford team is better that California Bears team isn't necessarily true. The California Bears team has excellent teachers who make learning enjoyable and complex topics broken down into more simplistic ideas that are easier to grasp. We also have very understanding teachers who have the students' best interests in mind. One example of how the California Bears team surpasses the Stanford Cardinals is that our math teacher allows us to both use all of our notes and the textbook on tests, as well as letting us redo said tests as many times as we wish. From my knowledge, the Stanford math teacher is somewhat strict and doesn't let the students have this much leeway. I would write a more lengthy argument, except I am relatively tired at the moment, so I guess I'll just let you post now...
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I waited as long as possible for my opponent to answer cx questions. He did not. Onto his case. My opponent offers the value of life and the criterion of justice, yet he never mentions them whatsoever in his actual case. I win the value/criterion debate by default since he never links any of his arguments to the framework. He also never attacks my case at all. He simply copied and pasted a bunch of quotes. If he wanted to use his case to attack mine, he should have explained how it does so; he doesn't. I win the aff by default due to a lack of clash. The only thing that leaves is his case/kritik. It seems to be about drugs being primarily found in poor areas, then gives you a bunch of quotes saying targeting the poor is bad. 1. I do not target any one group. My pharmaceutical regulation policy is available to everyone over 18, it is not limited to being rich or poor. That would be ridiculous. 2. The Backer card on point B claims social services to the poor are used rather than trying to actually improve the economy. This has nothing to do with the resolution or my case, as neither one mentions social services whatsoever. 3. His Stanley 09 card talks about blaming the poor for their poverty being wrong. But since the link to blaming the poor is targeting them, and has already been disproven, this has no merit in this round. 4. His Royce 09 card claims that we need to address power imbalance to prevent poverty. I asked my opponent in CX how this supports his position at all, and he did not answer. Thus, go ahead and assume that this card has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 5. The Berube card states dehumanization leads to. .. nuke war? My opponent needs to give you actual reasoning and examples in order for this point to make any sense. In short, my opponent does not debate the topic and instead runs this kritik, which I'm sure 90% of people on this site had no idea what its trying to say until I summarized it. He never even mentions the words "life" and "justice" in his case so he loses the value and criterion debate. He never attacks my case, and needs to explain in his next round how half of these cards have anything to do with criminalizing drugs.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

This is the current LD resolution, therefore I ask that whoever accepts this be either aware of how to debate ld, or preferably, actually be a current or former ld debater. Whoever accepts this MUST BE COMMITTED AND FINISH THE DEBATE. I dont like to use caps, however, only 25% of my opponent have actually finished the debate. As this is for practice, i ask that my opponent post arguments for every round. First round will be for intros, questions, etc. Round 1 pro: This. Round 1 con: Intro Round 2 pro: Aff case Con cross examines pro in comments, max 8 questions. Round 2 con: Neg case, refutes Pro asks con questions, max 8. Round 3 pro: Attack/rebuild, 5500 characters or less Round 3 con: Attack, rebuild, voters Round 4 pro: Attack con voters, give own. 3000 characters or less Round 4 con: Forfeit to maintain LD format, or post anything that isn't an argument. I wish con good luck, and hope for a fun and helpful round.
Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"

What you just said was agreeing with my side: " Furthermore, I am not suggesting that an unisexualist who was born a male human should be prevented from dressing up in ladies' clothes and adopting the life of a woman, or even going the whole hog and deliberately mutilating its sexual organs." Because what you are saying is that they have a right to their own bodies however slaves do not have a right to their own body's being that they are slaves. The rest of your "post" was simply saying; "However, being a member of the human race has responsibilities as well as rights." which goes against the topic; "Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"", you admit that I am right which defeats the purpose of this debate. The rest of your post, was saying your opinion on other topics, which would require another debate(s). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to give a thanks to some poeple just as folows: IAlwaysLoseDebates : For telling me to accept it. Gustav_Adolf_II : For helping me compose this. And of course anyone who reads/votes on this debate. Sources: https://www.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"

I would like to thank IAlwaysWinDebates for accepting this debate and to respond to his comments as follows: In this debate I think it is important to respect the wishes of intersexualists who do not wish to be classed as either male or female human beings. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that an unisexualist who was born a male human should be prevented from dressing up in ladies' clothes and adopting the life of a woman, or even going the whole hog and deliberately mutilating its sexual organs. However, being a member of the human race has responsibilities as well as rights. For example, people can't just do what they like with their own bodies. Pregnant women cannot have an early-term abortion. Similarly, two consenting adults cannot strip off and have sex in a park full of families. Also, you are not allowed to urinate in the street (except in France). If you do not take your responsibilities to seriously you will be removed from society and put in jail. Surely, unicyclists "under slavery" are better of than in prison? Thank you.
Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"

One of the first points you made was that a human being defined as ""man or woman of the species Homo sapiens" [1], that makes intersexuals non-human animals, doesn't it?". I would also like to point out that humans are not the only species with intersexuals, some male horses have their genitals removed and they are called geldings. However, these horses are still allowed in horse races, but under your logic, these geldings no longer count as horses since they have no gender. But, geldings are allowed in horse races, the people don't care what gender the horse is or even if it happens to have a gender, they only care that it wins. Intersexuals can be just as successful as people that stick with their birth gender, and certainly not animals. For your second point you said, "there's nothing immoral, much less illegal, about putting animals to work is there?" but intersexuals whether or not they have a gender or identify that they have a gender, still have human level intelligence. Even if they are no longer considered human beings, they are still sentient creatures, and should be respected and treated as such, not like the other animals such as fish and cows that do not have a theory of mind. You can say that intersexuals are no longer human, but you cannot deny their sentience. Therefore; if we're going to put these intersexuals to work as animals are it would be more akin to slavery than anything else. This would also coincide with another thing that you said: "sold off to the highest bidder", when I think of that I think of the slave markets of America, before the Civil War. I bet the slavery supporters of that time used similir arguments; "These transactions would, of course, be subject to sales tax and would be a valuable extra revenue stream for the government." Of course it would, but at what cost? The cost of ruining millions of lives around the world, I think that, that it too high of a price to pay for a little "sales tax" or should I say "Slaves Tax". And thank you, good sir.
Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, etc. should be classified as "non-human animals"

Transsexuals, ladyboys, transgenderists, cross-dressers, eunuchs and transvestites, hereinafter collectively known for convenience as "intersexuals", do not self-identify themselves with either human gender: that is to say; they do not consider themselves either male or female human beings and, since a human being is defined as a "man or woman of the species Homo sapiens" [1], that makes intersexuals non-human animals, doesn't it? Yes, of course it does, and there's nothing immoral, much less illegal, about putting animals to work is there? No, there isn't, and animals perform a lot of useful functions in our society, all in return for nothing more than food and shelter. For example, we have guard dogs, racehorses, guide dogs for the blind, horse-drawn carriages and gundogs so why not guard ladyboys, race-eunuchs, guide cross-dressers for the blind, transvestite-drawn carriages and gun-transgernderists? According to a recent BBC report, there are about two million intersexuals in India and they "live on the fringes of society, often in poverty, ostracised because of their gender identity. Most make a living by singing and dancing or by begging and prostitution."[2] Surely the solution to India's intersexual problem is to export these poor creatures to the West where they can join dogs and horses to become productive and beneficial assets to human endeavours, or even just as cherished household pets? Otherwise, enterprising companies in Europe and America could round-up home-grown intyersexuals and corral them into enclosures to be sold off to the highest bidder. These transactions would, of course, be subject to sales tax and would be a valuable extra revenue stream for the government. However, this will only be possible if governments officially classify hermaphrodites as non-human animals, which I duly urge them to do. Thank you. [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.

This was my project for science and besides your arguments are weak. Source: BBC article: How environmentally friendly are electric cars? My arguments are not invalid because if you analyse any graphic of the amount of pollution that electric cars produce in countries(almost every were) that produce electricity based on burning coal you will see that the electric cars are more pollutants but they are way more expensive to keep so boarding the matter from that way electric cars are not an option, besides there are still deposits of oil to find.
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels.

If what you are saying is electric cars are too expensive to be worth the environmental problems that it tackles, I can only say that Electric cars are not the only alternative source of energy. In fact Electric cars have little to nothing to do with alternative energy sources. If what you are trying to say is Electric energy is not a plausible alternate source of energy i can rebuttal that Electric Energy is only one of the major alternative energy sources at our disposal. Your argument is invalid because it has nothing to do with the debate. Also, please cite your sources before you copy paste.