BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

Oh bother. I think this is going to be an epic fail... 1. A foolish man insults all men who do not insult themselves. Does the fool insult himself? No 2. A set contains only all sets that do not contain themselves. Does the set contain itself? No. 3. Do you agree with your current positions on your "BIG issues"? Yes. 4. Do you believe that the government should set up welfare for the poor? Yes. 5. Is Barack Obama usually Right? Yes. 6. Is Rush Limbaugh usually Right? I don't know who that is. 7. Should all carbon emissions be regulated by the government? No. 8. Should any consensual economic activity be regulated by the government? Yes. 9. Is the killing of innocent life wrong without consent from that life wrong? I don't understand the question. 10. Is democracy by the majority (similar to Athenian democracy) justified? Yes.
I will not contradict myself

Thank you, tvellalot, for challenging me to this debate. 1. A foolish man insults all men who do not insult themselves. Does the fool insult himself? 2. A set contains only all sets that do not contain themselves. Does the set contain itself? 3. Do you agree with your current positions on your "BIG issues"? 4. Do you believe that the government should set up welfare for the poor? 5. Is Barack Obama usually Right? 6. Is Rush Limbaugh usually Right? 7. Should all carbon emissions be regulated by the government? 8. Should any consensual economic activity be regulated by the government? 9. Is the killing of innocent life wrong without consent from that life wrong? 10. Is democracy by the majority (similar to Athenian democracy) justified?
The United States should get rid of political parties

As Pro has once again forfeited, I can only conclude that Pro has no arguments to offer. As the burden of proof lies with the Pro to uphold the resolution and substantiate his claim, and as Pro has neglected to both argue why the status quo party system is bad, and explain what the proposed alternative would be, the Pro side has not upheld the burden of proof in this debate. As such, until such a time when the Pro offers argumentation, the Con has the round.
The United States should get rid of political parties

I accept the Con side in this debate; as such, I assume the stance of supporting the current political party system of the United States. I move that for this debate, we hold a criterion of net benefits-therefore, whichever side demonstrates their position to hold greater 'net benefits' for society and the American political system, should win. I would ask that the Pro side clarify precisely what said "bracket style elections" would entail, though I am sure Pro will be fully elaborating on the style in their first argument. Here's to a great debate!
Same-sex marriage

For the third time, I reiterate the fact that natural order is *completely* and *entirely* irrelevant in terms of a citizen's legal standing before the law. We cannot and will not use natural order as our basis for law in this country, much in the same way that we will not recognize religious dogma as our basis for law. So, regardless of whether a man and a woman can reproduce, or two men or two women can't, we cannot allow this to be the deciding factor for marriage Also, my opponent seems to be working along the premise that marriage hinges upon one's ability to reproduce, even though I've clearly shown that marriage and procreation are separate from one another, even though one may coincide with the other. My opponent says that she's never seen two males caring for offspring in animals, but this is actually extremely common in Black Swans with an estimated one-quarter of all pairings are homosexual, mostly between males. They steal nests, or form temporary threesomes with females to obtain eggs, driving away the female after she lays the eggs [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Computers are *not* natural, tools are *not* natural. Natural is described as: adjective 1. existing in or formed by nature [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Seeing as I can't go into the forest and find a Macbook tree or a power drill bush, neither of them are natural. However, homosexuality is indeed natural, as it occurs in nature without any outside influence. As for polygamy, there also isn't any reason for it to be outlawed; however, it would become extremely complicated when one considers things such as, if a man marries multiple women, are all the women married to one another? And if so, would those women all have to file marriage licenses for all the other women, and if a man divorces one of the women, must all the other women divorce her too? What would occur if one of the women should die? Would her estate only go to her husband, or would it be separated among all the women? Lastly, those demarcations on what is and is not permissible would be based on constitutional law. We cannot allow for a marriage between an adult and a child, as this is depriving the child of his rights. I hate to be arrogant, but my demarcations are naturally superior, as anything deviating from the "natural order" of our law systems is automatically sub-par, as it is in direct contradiction to the law which is not permissible for the simple fact that it defeats the point of a law if we're going to go against it.
Same-sex marriage

it is not ridiculous to use gender as the demarcation of who is able to reproduce when we're talking about marraige. what is ridiculous is to assume that just because two males can reproduce... that we should also give them marital status. nature shows that males and females have kids. i've never seen two males caring for offspring etc in animals etc. even if they did, it'd be a deviance from the natural order. while homosexuality may serve a purpose, that doesn't mean that it's a purpose that we're intending to recnogize. that is a nonsequiter for that reason. we intend to recognize the natural worth of male and female being together, and stress the importantce of kids in that environment. if homosexuals are causing poulation control... then they dont fit the purposes of marriage. a computer is not not part of hte natural order.... we use computers that emans it's natural, it's means it's part of nature. tools are a natural part of nature, as is a computer. sexual orientation is a deviancy of normal purposes of nature... at least the normal purpooses what we're trying to recognize. i never argued anything about age or bestiality. i did i concede say "everything under the sun"... but i would assume we'd keep the debate within reason. minors are not consenting adults, and animals are incaple of consent. incest produced kids, allowing that, is unfair to the child who had no choice. we live in a society that is based on allowing as long as it doesn't hurt others... but that doesn't mean we can't recognize the undevianced natural order. incest is an example. what about incestuous couples who absolutely cannot bear children, or incestuous males? and you didn't mention multiple marraigte. i mean, i might be willing to extend civil rights to them or incestuous nonproducing kids... because we want to respect people. but i look to the undevianced natural order for marriage. how else would you demarcate what is permissible than what isn't, as far as simply what should be permitted, or by extension constitutional law? unless you can show, which you have yet to do, show how your demarcations are superior. to act as if constitutional law isn't based on demarcations that won't affect other theories of what should be permitted... is flawed. you show me how you demarcate... and i'll show you how you'd be discriminating against some other theory. ( that is at least soemwhat more reasonable and worth considering than kids, animals, and incestuous producing couples.
Same-sex marriage

My opponent makes her argument from natural law; however, our laws and regulations in the United States are based on constitutional law. Therefore, it is benighted to deny marriage rights based on someone's ability to reproduce. And if my opponent is going to make the argument that infertile couples have the potential to reproduce, then the same rights should be extended to same-sex couples. While they may not be able to reproduce with one another, they still retain the ability to reproduce. This is all regardless, as I said before, because it's ridiculous to use the sex of the people involved as the determination. (As I side note, I would advise you to not use "gender" in terms of reproduction, as gender is only how a person mentally identifies and is separate from biological sex). As aforementioned, the United States is based upon constitutional law, so to not grant equal rights to gay couples because it is not "what we want to recnogize [sic] in nature" is completely disregarding the Equal Protections Clause. And as for my opponent's argument about a deviance, then my opponent should stop using her computer, as that's clearly a deviation of nature, where computers do not exist. Also, homosexuality does serve a purpose it nature, as it's an effective manner of population control [1]. Also, in my opponent's last paragraph, she commits the "Slippery Slope" fallacy [2], stating that if the government allows for same-sex marriage, then they must automatically allow for other forms of marriage. Examples being human-animal, adult-child or incestuous marriages. This is based upon the premise that homosexuality is the same as beastiality, pï¿½dophilia or incest. However, beastial marriages are a moot point, as an animal is not a citizen and cannot sign a marriage contract. The United States government sets the age of consent for marriage at 18, so anyone under that age cannot consent to marriage. Lastly, in terms of incestuous marriages between men and women, there is the potential for genetic and hereditary disorders, as they're for the most part they're caused by recessive genes and, "It is much more likely that both parents will carry the same recessive gene if the parents are related." [3] However there isn't really an argument against same-sex couples that happen to be related, as there's no chance of passing on a recessive disorder; though, it is less likely anyway, as close proximity as children often leads to a natural aversion to any type of romantic or sexual feelings toward family members. 1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2) http://www.fallacyfiles.org... 3) http://www.healthcentral.com...
Same-sex marriage

I didn't leave my initial argument with procreation only. I also included recognizing nature's natural distinctions for their own inherent worth. also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. we can increase financial and socal status through civil unisons. we don'th ave toe elevate gay couples beyond what we want to recnogize in nature. race and homosexual orientation are different. this is how we can have laws restricting two dudes marrying and not a black and white. race involves nothing but skin color. gender invovles whether a person can have children, and nature also has males and females who combine naturally. homosexual activity is genetic deviance, and a deviance in nature as well. it serves no purpose in nature.. it's a deviance. it does occur naturally, but it's still a deviance from the natural norm, the way things are meant to be without mutations etc. we have to draw lines. i personally don't mind civil unions for two dudes, or for multiple people. but, if we allow all genders to marry etc, then tehre is effectively nothing stopping us from marraige for everytihng under teh sun. if we can draw limits to certain things like that, then we can draw limits on same gender marraige. the only way to draw a distinction that is not arbitrary is to follow the undevianced natural order.
Same-sex marriage

To clarify, this is a debate about the legality of same-sex marriage, as I realize that I didn't specify that. While I agree with my opponent that there are distinctions between males and females, these differences should not be the premise for the basis of marriage. My opponent seems to be working off of the argument that marriage is only for the purpose of procreation; however, this ideal of marriage for procreation is a fairly new concept, only coming about in the past century. Previous to that time marriage for the most part was reserved for increasing social and financial status. This is the reason why a woman's family would present the male suitor with a dowry of land, money or physical capital. And to address my opponent's last argument, it would be unconstitutional to, "have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage." What you've stated here is the concept of "Separate But Equal", by providing a similar, yet different institution. Civil unions do not provide the same rights (around 1,000) that come with marriage, and as such, not only is it separate, but it is unequal. Now I'll make my own argument. If we are to base our laws on the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals. According to the federal court case of Loving v. Virginia, it was determined that outlawing interracial marriage was unconstitutional, as it violated citizens' guarantee of equal protection under the law. If were carry this over to same-sex marriage, then one can clearly see that the same argument applies.
Extending the School Year from 180 days to 210 days

First of all my opponent obviously does not care about schoola nd would rather be hanging out with friends. I on the ther hand would and do care about my education. At least I want to be successful in life. On the other hand I am unsure whether my opponent wants to be successful or not. Secondluy I ahve the proof about the studey conducted. I may not have posted it in my rebuttle, but I most certaily have the proof. If my opponent would take a moment to ask teachers instead of coming on here and attacking me like I committed a crime, then he would see that although I may not have strong arguments for extending the school year, I am and have stated possible acceptable arguments that members of Congress would use during a debate about extending the school year. My opponent may not like this idea, but that is because he is a typical student, who would much rather be at home playing video games than get a decent education. Whether my opponent likes it or not, my Congressm and senator have taken my proposal to washington, and members of Congress and Secretary Duncan are very interested.
Extending the School Year from 180 days to 210 days

For my rebuttals I shall address the following points from the Pro's argument: 1. ". .. there has been a study conducted a number of times that have shown a high number of teacher who have rise in favor of extending the school year. " - Where is this study? What did it show? You show no proof of this study at all, therefore, what you stated was irrelevant and non-convincing. 2. My opponent states that students need to be ". .. reciving a equal education in an eual enough time during the year. " The only thing I can really say about this is maybe you need more time because your spelling is horrific. 3. Students nowadays go to school and then directly after report to sports or extracuricular activites. Most kids don't get home until late (7-9pm). If we extend the school days then kids would be getting home later and having less time for HOMEWORK and family time. Plus, those kids who do complete their homework will be up well past their bedtime. This would drastically decrease their sleep at night. Lack of sleep affects learning. 4. "I am be the only one with this view, but I feel that my ability to learna nd gain knowledge is limited because of the little time I have to recieve an education. " - Your personal view and opinion of your own education is irrelevant. 5. "If the school year will not be extend then I am proposing that school hours are extend by 90-100 minutes per day. " You added a new argument. Your topic was extending the school YEAR not the day's length. Therefore, the voters should disregard this "argument" if you may call it that. In conclusion, my opponent has made a dispicable attempt to counter my argument. I was expecting a great debate but it seems that my opponent lacks spelling and any form of counter argument. My God has mercy on his soul. Thank you.
Extending the School Year from 180 days to 210 days

I welcome my opponents Views. However there has been a study conducted a number of times that have shown a high number of teacher who have rise in favor of extending the school year. Regardless of whether family vactions would be limited or not, its about whether we as students, are reciving a equal education in an eual enough time during the year. About the extracricular activies, my argument would not limit or end the activies, it would simply allow schools to find extra times for sports and after school events. I am be the only one with this view, but I feel that my ability to learna nd gain knowledge is limited because of the little time I have to recieve an education. If the school year will not be extend then I am proposing that school hours are extend by 90-100 minutes per day. Especially if these budget cuts cause schools to be limited to 4 days per week. I hope that viewers will view both this argument and the sneak-peak argument I am proposing if we can't extend the school year.
Extending the School Year from 180 days to 210 days

I am a High school Senior, who believes that the school days ought to be extended by 20-30 days. As we speak, I currently attend school for 180 days per year, with a mandatory 180 days attendance needed to pass to advance tot he next grade. However I have notice over the past serveral years that teachersre force to rush through lesson plans each school yera to prepare students for standardized tests and Common-End-of-Course-Exams. As a result many students have struggled to keep up with these lessons plans either because their missed school, or (like me) it takes them a little longer to comprehened a lesson. How do school officials expect students to succeed if the teachers are force to "breeze" through lesson plans each school year. Extending the school year would allow students to have extra time to comprehened lesson plans and expand their knowledge at a normal educational rate, rather than having to worry about falling behind or ECT.
Obama is a muslim

Debate accepted. Firstly, I'd note that as the instigator Pro has the BoP that he/she has ultimately failed to fulfil in this single round. In fact, absolutely no evidence for Obama [I.E the current president of the U.S] has been provided. Simply using his name as an example is not classified as viable proof due to the fact that a name does *not* necessarily dictate to ones religion. In addition there's many people of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern origin that have similar names that do not identify with the Muslim faith. Another example is that Jews can have the name 'Barak'--discounting the 'C'. As for ISIS, this claim is again unsupported. On the basis of their resolution and roumd one statement, the position of Pro is thus negated.
The Hadith prove Muhammad was not divinely inspired.

In the Name of Allah (God) The Most Compassionate The Most Merciful ,In not the slightest of way is this a fight or altercation as you stated my brother Peace and Guidance to you and all of the viewers : 1. You are right about the and Germ Theory . In the hadith you're referring to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh said "Who infected the first one?" Here he pbuh is showing there are no contagious disease conveyed to others WITHOUT permission of Allah (God). Nothing happens without the will of Allah (God) 2.The implication behind the resemblance to mother or father is that if spermatozoa are lodged long before ovulation then the activation of the male genes will be at a more advanced stage than those in the ovum, and therefore they will play a greater role in showing the characteristics gained from the father especially if these genes follow co dominance (with variable penetrance) or have complex inheritance characteristics. 3. a HUMAN BEING is PUT TOGETHER in the womb of the mother IN forty days, he's not saying that the SPERM STAYS in there for 40 days. 40 days after the last month in the first trimester around 120 days (112 to be exact )In the second trimester 16 weeks the skin is thin, transparent and still developing . Take in consideration that this a broad description, with precision about the human creation and development at a time where there was NO SCIENTFIC KNOWLEDGE and any advanced medical equipment to acquire these facts.
The Hadith prove Muhammad was not divinely inspired.

My opponent has forfeited the last round. I cannot stop my opponent from forfeiting but it goes again the rules of DDO and it should be left to the voters to decide the penalty. My opponent said in the comments that he has a refutation for the allegations but that leaves me with one round short for the debate. Thus it will be an unfair fight anyway, but I will have to see my oponent refutation. Good luck.
The Hadith prove Muhammad was not divinely inspired.

This debate will argue about the Hadith and the scientific errors they contain. My argument will be that, due to the scientific errors in the Hadith (The words of Muhammad), he cannot have been divinely inspired. Thus, I will present three Hadith and my opponent all that he has to do is to refute them efficiently. Bear in mind that I will only use Authentic Hadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Also that Muhammad according to the Qur'an never spoke on his own inclination, but from a revelation revealed. (Surat An-Najm 53:2-5). Few definitions: Hadith : A report of the sayings or actions of Muhammad or his companions, together with the tradition of its chain of transmission. [1]Bukhari : Sahih; al-Bukhārī (Arabic: صحيح البخاري‎), is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major hadith collections) of Sunni Islam. These prophetic traditions, or hadith, were collected by the Persian Muslim scholar Muhammad al-Bukhari, after being transmitted orally for generations. Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith along with Sahih Muslim and Muwatta Imam Malik. In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an. The Arabic word sahih translates as authentic or correct. [2] Muslim: Sahih Muslim (Arabic: صحيح مسلم,); Muslim, full title Al-Musnadu Al-Sahihu bi Naklil Adli) is one of the Kutub al-Sittah (six major Ahadith) of the hadith in Sunni Islam. It is the second most authentic hadith collection after Sahih al-Bukhari, and is highly acclaimed by Sunni Muslims. It was collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, also known as Imam Muslim. Sahih translates as authentic or correct. [3]. Rules of this debate: R1 - No Plagiarism. Copy and Pasting is not allowed. R2 - Con will need to reply to each of the three Hadith I present and refute them efficientlyR3 - Only reliable sources to be used. R4 - No diversion from the cases presented. Only the hadith Pro presents will be discussed.R5 - First round is acceptance only, Con only has to say "I accept" Good luck, wish for a fair debate. ---------------------[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...