BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

Whether theLwerd's record is valid or not is up to her, whatever religious deity you believe exists and probably Phil. However I do not believe the fact that all her losses/ties being post - voting period have anything to do with suspicion. Due to the fact that all her losses/ties are post - voting period it means that it is impossible she could win those debates and improve even more on her record so therefore it is beneficial and rather inconspicuous that her losses and ties are post voting period.
It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

I did not copy what Alex said, I still do not know what you mean by that. It doesn't matter if other people have near perfect records, we are not debating whether they are suspicious or not, we are debating the validity of theLwerd's record. Those others could be subject to another debate, but I will leave that to someone else. In the time I have spent re-reading old forum threads, I have found that votebombing has only been reported if it is against someone. I noticed that the CWO votebombed to help their members, but that is the only other case I found. Because that is the case, votebombers would not be banned, and their votes would not be cancelled. All because no one would report something that is helping them, would they?
It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

Way to copy exactly what Alex said. Anyways, I thank bearsfan for his fast response. "Using your definition, it does arouse suspicion, and it is questionable that she has won every debate in which the results could be changed, except for one." She has obviously not won every debate with the exception of one or else we wouldn't be having this debate. There are many debaters on this site that have near perfect records[*], or pretty good records at that. In addition to this, some debates can and often do have votes removed if the site mod believes that they are vote bombed, so even if a debate is post - voting period the result of it can still be changed [**]. Whether or not her losses are post voting period does make very little sense - she has already lost, she cannot lose any further. Although some of her wins have been questionable at best, most of her voting periods are of a respectable length and probably don't contribute to her win or loss record. I will not protest the fact that there are indeed vote bombers on this site, if you need proof look no further than Mongeese's win record. But to assume that because someone has a decent win record their debates HAD to have been vote bombed is a little absurd. * - These are debates were votes have been retracted. One was a debate with Mongeese on S.C.H.I.P. in which I forfeited everyone and was still voted up, and the other one was with Alex_hanson on Gay Marriage that may or may not have been a landslide. - http://www.debate.org... - http://www.debate.org... ** - The following users have perfect, or near perfect win records. - alex_hanson911 - vi_veri - feverish - sportsguru - theitalianstallion - burningpuppies101 - Inquiretruth etc.
It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

"The fact that theLwerd's losses/ties are, for the most part are post-voting period should actually deter suspicion. If her losses/ties were still in the voting - period they would be more susceptible to vote bombing and could increase her win ratio further." This makes absolutely no sense. My point is, is that someone, or many people, vote bombed every debate they could. The fact that they are in the post-voting period means that if someone votebombed her, they couldn't make her win those 7 debates. Using your definition, it does arouse suspicion, and it is questionable that she has won every debate in which the results could be changed, except for one. I have a feeling that her record is going to change to 134-4-3 after this because I have showed the votebomber(s) that they forgot one, but I sincerely hope that it does not.
It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

I thank bearsfan for instigating this debate and effectively switching the BoP. Anyways, I look forward to an interesting exchange. Resolved: It is not suspicious that almost all of theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post - Voting Period. I negate. -- Burden of Proof: I must prove that it is not suspicious at all. that theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post - Voting Period. On the other hand, my opponent must prove the exact opposite - that the fact that her losses/ties are inherently suspicious. --Terms : Suspicious - 1 : tending to arouse suspicion : questionable 2 : disposed to suspect [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] TheLwerd - debate.org user --> (http://www.debate.org...) The fact that theLwerd's losses/ties are, for the most part are post-voting period should actually deter suspicion. If her losses/ties were still in the voting - period they would be more susceptible to vote bombing and could increase her win ratio further. Granted, some of her voting period debate losses/ties do seem a little fishy, like the seven points for her entire forfeit (http://www.debate.org...) the fact that they are post voting - period seem rather obsolete. Due to the fact that her debates are post - voting period, they have little to do with suspicion. Resolution affirmed.
It is not suspicious that almost all of the theLwerd's ties and losses are in the Post-Voting Period

I find it somewhat suspicious that all of theLwerd's losses and ties are in the Post-Voting period with the exception of one. It's almost as if someone votebombed all of her debates in her favor. Just look at it http://www.debate.org.... Her record is 133-5-3. This seems very improbable even for one of the best debaters on the site. This may be seen as kind of a dick move, because I put the word "not" in the title and took the side of CON, but my opponent has the burden of proof because they are PRO. http://www.ddofans.com...
All Propositions Are True

You seem to be broadening the debate into how best to present your proposition. I'll just stick to your base argument. Your primary argument is that p is true and false at the same time and under the same conditions. Your argument relies on a contradiction. Unfortunately, this goes against a fundamental law of existence. Aristotle's Law of Identity. i.e. A is A. This means, existence cannot contain contradictions. No valid or meaningful statement can be made if Ideas, Propositions, Knowledge are looked at in isolation. i.e. taken out of context. In other words, "You can't have your cake and eat it too"
All Propositions Are True

You could argue that "A rectangle is a square" from the second sentence of my argument in Round 1 is not the same proposition as "A rectangle is a square" from the fourth sentence because the rectangle being referred to in the second sentence isn't the same rectangle being referred to in the fourth sentence. While I agree the rectangles aren't the same, p does not require them to be the same. The three textbooks I cited use propositions such as "A quadrilateral is a parallelogram" in a manner such that they apply to each member of the subject's type. Likewise, I am using "A rectangle is a square" in a manner such that the proposition applies to each rectangle. "A rectangle is a square" is sometimes true. You could argue it's more likely presenting propositions in this manner is wrong than it's likely all propositions are true. While an honorable argument, this prevailing manner of presentation has withstood the test of time and has survived every criticism against it.
All Propositions Are True

p is true if and only if a rectangle is a square. More information isn't necessary. Propositions of a similar form seem prevalent. The word "is" implies the present time. "Larson Geometry" (2012) p. 509, "Geometry" (2012) by Burger, Chard, et al. p. 403, and "Geometry" (2012) by Carter, Cuevas, et al. p. 403 all state the following proposition as a theorem. If a quadrilateral is a parallelogram, then its opposite sides are congruent. The hypothesis of the conditional statement is a proposition with a form similar to "A rectangle is a square." "Larson Geometry" p. 86-87, "Geometry," Burger, et al. p. 81, and "Geometry," Carter, et al. p. 107 use symbolic notation to express conditional statements. This use suggests the hypothesis "A quadrilateral is a parallelogram" is a proposition, which further suggests "A rectangle is a square" is a proposition. "Some rectangles are squares" does not have the same meaning as p does. The former is always true, but the latter is sometimes false.
All Propositions Are True

The proposition p is invalid and essentially meaningless as it does not make any reference to the circumstance under which it is true. i.e. it has no context. You may as well say p = "The sky is blue". Isolated from its context, this too would also be invalid and meaningless. The valid statement would be p = "The sky is sometimes blue in the daytime" (i.e it's grey when it's raining, black in the night time etc..) Your very next sentence however, does give the correct context though. i.e Only "some rectangles are squares" So for the proposition to be valid it must become p = "Some rectangles are squares". I'm afraid the rest of your argument falls apart very quickly after this.
All Propositions Are True

Consider the proposition p = "A rectangle is a square." Since some rectangles are squares, a rectangle is a square. Thus, p is true. Since some rectangles are not squares, a rectangle is not a square. Thus, p is not true. So by Conjunction Introduction, p is true and p is not true. But that is a contradiction. Since every proposition follows from a contradiction by the Principle of Explosion, the proposition "all propositions are true" is true. Therefore, all propositions are true.
Five-Round Debates Are Inferior To Three-Round Debates

Five-Round Debaters are equal to three-rounds debates regardless of the amount of characters and either way, any debate has the chance of being vote bombed by Josh. You can see all my debates: http://www.debate.org... You can even see yours: http://www.debate.org... You can't even refute what I just said because this is the last round. But regardless of who won the debate, I know that one of us will be vote bombed my Josh regardless of the length. Both of us has been vote bombed by Josh and this debate will probably be vote bombed too. Josh hates both of us so regardless of the amounts of characters we post or the amount of rounds we have, this debate can still be vote bombed easily by Josh.
Five-Round Debates Are Inferior To Three-Round Debates

I sincerely hope we can stay away from semantics. This is obviously limited to debate.org, and I really hope we don't get into the definitions of "round", "debate", "inferior", or anything equally absurd. With that said, I strongly affirm the resolution: "Five-round debates are inferior to three-round debates." ---- Contention 1: For the Reader ---- (1) Reading a possible eighty thousand charachters for a debate is absurd. There is a place for extensive discusion, but the sacrifice of readability is far too great. (2) Furthermore, because less people will take the time to read a five-round debate, vote bombing will be more effective. Vote bombing is a plague on debate.org, and five-round debates actually encourage it. (3) Five-round debates can lose readers in a smear war of circumlocution. With eighty thousand charachters to deal with, points will be lost through clever writing, and shyful ignorance. ---- Contention 2: For the Debater ---- (1) No one needs eighty thousand charachters to successfully evaluate an issue. For the debaters, it will cause head ache. (2) There is almost always a winner and loser to a debate. Eighty thousand charachters is a big sacrifice. Because of this big sacrifice of time and energy, the loser will feel bad for sacrificing so much, only to lower his/hir win ratio. (3) Like I stated previously, debaters will lose themselves in a multitude of points and clever circumlocution. ---- Contention 3: For the Webmaster ---- (1) Eighty thousand charachters are completely unneccesary to extensively evaluate a topic. Five-Round debates wastes the webmaster's server space. ---- Conclusion ---- All around, five-round debates are shown to be far inferior to three-round debates. I leave the floor open to my opponent.
Resident Evil 5 VS Left4dead2

Hi. This is my first debate, so I decided to choose a easy, fun topic. Resident Evil 5 VS L4d2 I believe Resident Evil is a much better game. - The varities of weapons. - Many types of hand gun. - Shotgun - Submachine gun - Assualt rifle - Rifle - Co-op mode - Superior Plot -Popularity -The downloadable demo of Resident Evil 5 exceeded 4 million downloads worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org... Why L4d2 is bad. - Technical issue -Xbox 360 version showed serious issues with the lag and slowdown problems. - Australin Ban - Too graphic and violent, so Value had to modified the game. Good luck my opponent!
Resident Evil 5 VS Left4dead2

Hi Trolling. Just wanting to say that next time you shouldn't make 3 hour limit. You should have made the rounds loger next time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Left 4 Dead 2 is a better game than Resident Evil 5 * The varties of the weapons is greater in Left 4 dead. * There is different types of shotguns, sniper rifle, assualt rifle, submachine guns, and even grenade launcher. * Also Left 4 ead 2 has melee weapons such as guitars, chaisaws, crowbars, and even cooking pans. * The guns can also be modified wth laser attachment and incernery ammo. * L4D2 has a better plot because the stroy unfolds and explin it self as time passes. * 4 player game or solo. game. * Popularity Over 4 million copies of the game was sold. * Varities of the zombies. * Such as Smoker, Hunter, Boomer, Tank, Spitter, Jockey, and so much more. * Many maps and add-ons online. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.l4dmaps.com... Why Resident Evil 5 is worse than L4D2 * Racism isssues because the protagonist was a white soldier killing infected african americans. Rebuttal The techinical issue was fixed soon after the problem rose. Resident Evil 5 is graphic and violent as L4D2. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fun time debating with you, but still next time you shoul make your debate more hours and rounds.
Omnibenevolence is meaningless

1) Since one action can be considered good by one person and bad by another person. And every particular action can be considered bad by some person, in order to be infinitely good, being would be unable to do anything. 2) If A loves something he will try to protect it. If A loves something, he will try to help it. If B is always trying to eat C, A's love can't be manifested for both B and C.
Mass Effect (pro) vs Halo (con)

Although Halo has good gameplay mass effect's gameplay is more strategic forcing the player to decide which squad mates to use from mission to mission to acquire a good combination of tech mastery and biotic mastery (both are squad mates as well as your own's special powerups). While Halo requires you to primarily to use your guns, grenades and sometimes energy shields to take out an opponent mass effect requires you to use your powers and different combinations of your squad mates as well as your own to take some enemies out. Different combinations can cause and inflict devastating damage to your opponents health, barriers, shield and Armour. Both games have an equal distribution of different types of opponents each having unique abilities that can cause difficulty to the player. Mass effect takes the player to uncharted world around the milky way galaxy and through various space stations as well as futuristic cities. Halo only takes you to places that are limited which I don't blame considering the story usually takes place in one place. In terms of character masterchief is very poor. Sure he has some awesome moments in the game as well as emotional moments with cortanana but that's it. Never once does the player see his facial expression and he barely talks throughout the game. Shepard on the other hand has awesome moments as well as emotional moments and the player can see how he feels through his facial expression and the tone of his dialogues. The player can see as well as shape shepard's character in any way he or she wants while masterchief is very bland. Con may argue that it shows how cold-hearted masterchief is and that it's the reason why the player never sees his face but that seems more of an excuse than an actual reason. My argument ends here.
Mass Effect (pro) vs Halo (con)

I admit halo has a good story but not as good as mass effect's storyline which I said earlier was unique and entertaining. Mass Effect also has what you call 'replayability'. The game has multiple endings which are unique which include's mass effect 3's ending that is if you download extended cut DLC(Con can criticize about bioware having the player to download a dlc for a better ending if he/she wants and also about he DLC's presentation as I agree with him/her). Every time a player replays the game they will have a unique experience as the player's choice may vary from previous playthroughs. The average gameplay for a mass effect game is 33.9 hours (that is if the player also takes part in side quests). Both male and female shepards have unique dialogue and moments throughout the game making each play through vary. Multiplayer contributes in this experience as your actions in multiplayer can effect the story. Also I disagree with Con's target of an enjoyable game being 1000 hours. 1000 hours is approximately 42 days straight without any breaks including sleeping. The average game is 34 years of age (source: http://www.esrb.org...). They also play an average of 8 hours a week as stated by the source. That means that an average gamer must play halo for 125 weeks for the game to be considered 'replayable'. Con can argue that this can be achieved if the gamer is engaged at halo but it should be considered that most if not at least 50 percent of gamers would have a game in their household other than halo. It should also be considered that since the average gamer is 34 based on the source provided then an average gamer must have a job. One Mass Effect game (including side quests) is on average is 33.9 hours excluding multiplayer based on these sources:http://howlongtobeat.com...http://howlongtobeat.com...http://howlongtobeat.com...Let's say the gamer would replay the game five times in order to experience every ending as well as playing mass effect in different variations. That would mean that the gamer would have to play a total of 169.5 hours for one mass effect game. That would take an average game a total of 21 weeks to fully experience the game which although may be less that halo based on con's calculations but can be achievable by an average gamer. An average gamer is more likely to play one game for 21 weeks than one game for 125 weeks. This is because of boredom,I imagine playing the same game for 125 weeks can be tedious. As for con's last statement, it is completely up to the voters based on their experiences playing the two games.
Mass Effect (pro) vs Halo (con)

I will argue that halo is better than mass effect. Scratch that, I will argue that Halo 3 and Halo Reach are better than all 3 Mass Effects combined. My argument will take into account total number of potential hours of replayability. Campaign is fun and all, but when it comes down to a game that you want to play for years to come, campaign won't cut it. There isn't enough variability in these games to keep a normal person entertained after the third or fourth playthrough. With a 12 hour long campaign, this only accounts for 48 hours. So where do the other 950+ hours come from that I have personally invested into Halo Reach alone? It comes from multiplayer, custom games, forge, and theater. My premise is that a game with more replayability is more worth purchasing than a game that doesn't have as much, since the goal of a game is to keep the gamer entertained. Then, my second premise is that Halo has more replayability than Mass Effect, which I will justify in my next paragraph. My conclusion is then that Halo is better than Mass Effect.Here is my suggested replayability equation: Total Hours = Campaign + Everything Else the Game has to OfferFor Halo, Everything Else the Game has to Offer = Multiplayer + (Forge)(Custom Games) + TheaterFor Mass Effect, Everything Else the Game has to Offer = MultiplayerNotice that for Halo, I have custom games and forge multiplying eachother. This is because they are linked. For those who don't know, Forge is a Halo gametype in which you can create your own maps. Custom games is a gametype in which players play on maps that were usually created in forge. Without forge, custom games would become stale very quickly. Without custom games, forge would be pretty much pointless. Although there are limitations of what you can do in forge, there are an infinite number of possibilities of worlds. To see this entire point illustrated by a video, please watch this. ; That is why I game. That is why I can put in 1000 hours easily from just $60. "The story takes you on the role of Commander Shepard (Who's face you can actually see, unlike master chief)" Even Chief is bamboozled by this point.Anyways, Pro only tells the story of both Mass Effect in an over exaggerated manner and Halo's in a lack luster way. I will not do that, since we won't get anywhere. Pro is illuding that people will experience higher levels of enjoyment out of mass effect and not Halo. I want scientific data backing that up. I want to see dopamine levels in the brain of many users in a casual playthrough of the game. Without it, your argument is only subjective. Team Halo Rules!!
Mass Effect (pro) vs Halo (con)

Mass Effect is a game made by Bioware who are known to make great games like Dragon Age and Star Wars: the old republic. Mass Effect has a great interactive story with unique characters. The story takes you on the role of Commander Shepard (Who's face you can actually see, unlike master chief) an alliance military soldier(at least for mass effect 1 and 3) who is on a mission to save the galaxy from a threat that can cause the extinction of all species in the milky way. He is in command of a stealth ship, Normandy, and in it contains his crew of which he can interact with and have humorous encounters in. Throughout the story you will encounter unique characters (as mentioned before) and make key decisions which can change the outcome of the mission, ending and the loyalty of your crew. The player also can choose unique classes before starting the story. Each of these classes contain unique abilities in which the player can use in the battlefield when going up against an enemy. Halo on the other hand has a handful of unique character and the main protagonist is more boring compared to Commander Shepard. The story is good, being a fan of both franchises, but when compared to Mass Effect, who's story is more complex than that of halo, the story of Halo is inferior. The enemy in Mass Effect require a more strategic plan to overcome than that of Halo as each enemy in Mass Effect also have abilities and weapons similar to the player and his/her squad mates. Mass Effect also enables the player to choose their own gender at the start of the game so that players can choose their desired genders as well as customizing both the protagonist's face to their desire, to ease the player, going with the default face. Furthermore, the player can also choose his/her background story which can be lead to unique interactions in the story.