BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That debate.org's 'big issues' should be changed.

First off, I'd like to explain why the big issues portion is significant. The big issues portion can get debates started about certain issues, although that is not the only reason why it is there. The profile is someone's personal page, where another person can see what a person is all about. It is more helpful to know about a person when your debating them, so you know exactly what they are proposing and why. Finally, it will be helpful for deciding who you want to be your friend or who you want to be in a group with with the upcoming updates. I will now respond to my oppnent's arguments: 1. < > This is not pointless. It shows where people stand on certain issues, and it sparks a lot of debates among people. Also, just because it is pointless, it does not mean it shouldn't be changed. This whole website is unnessecary; it's just for fun, but that does not mean it can not be changed. 2. <> No, it most certainly is not. A debate is not to ask question on what someone believes, it is to debate if that belief is right or not. My point was that the issues are not explained clearly; I am not IN FAVOR of abortion, I just don't want the government telling me what I can and can not do. 3. < > Yes, but that is irrelevent. I never said you can not debate if it doesn't have it on the big issues. It simply shows where you stand on a certain issue. Also, some people would want to debate certain people. Like I said, humanitarian aid is not on there. If it were, and you disagreed with someone, you could debate them. But, seeing as how it was the 07-08 policy debate topic, that person would want to debate a policy debater, so having the first come option would be less useful. 4. < > First, this is irrelevent. Secondly, you're right, there is no quota to be a 'big issue,' but seeing as the stimulus package is a the number one issue on voters minds, and it occupies 3/5 debates in the challenge period, I'd say its a big issue. 5. < > Some people don't want to get into a debate about everything. In order to do what your saying, you'd have to create about 30 debates. Plus, not everyone sees those debates, whereas everyone could see your big issues portion. 6. < > Nothing is really NECESSARY here, but it would be easier to see how a person feels about something, and may challenge that person if they are strongly for and the other person is strongly against, for example. 7. < > This is another area of confusion. People do not answer because of two rteasons: Either they don't know what it means, or they are indifferent. It would be more clear if there were two seperate buttons. 8. < > I did not know they had this coming, but we can still debate it. The fact that they are changing it proves that it needs to be changed. Offense- Please apply my first round points into this round: 1. The confusion about whether to put 'for' or 'against. ' 2. It doesn't cover all of the big issues. 3. It doesn't allow you to put your thoughts on a subject. 4. It doesn't allow for a more expressive 'strongly agree' or 'strongly disagree,' or a more accurate 'indifferent' 5. It does not have a 'what's this? ' button.
Resolved: That debate.org's 'big issues' should be changed.

When you think about it, the whole "Big Issues" section of the site is pretty pointless to begin with, therefore there is really no need to change it. 1. I understand that you want to elaborate more on your stance in favor of abortion, however, isn't that what actual debate is for? 2. You mentioned that not all of the "big issues" are included, such as Bush's new stimulus package, and to that I say: So what? Just because something isn't included in the list doesn't mean that we can't debate about it. If that is a topic of particular interest to someone, they can simply start a new challenge stating their opinion and someone who does not agree will accept that challenge. Plus, just because something is a "big issue" to a few people does not mean it is a big issue to all. What constitutes a "big issue" is subjective in the first place. 3. It's true that there is no space for people to elaborate on their positions of "in favor" or "against" certain issues, however, like I've already mentioned, that is what actual debate is for. In truth people could leave those in favor/against things blank and still participate actively on this site and get just as much out of it, as many people already do. 4. The strongly agree or disagree buttons are unnecessary. How strongly one feels about a particular issue will be demonstrated if they choose to debate it or not, along with the content of their debate. Plus, an "indifferent button" already exists... People choose to take an indifferent stance when they choose to select neither in favor or against a certain issue. 5. Your last point about a "What's This" option confused me. The site already has something that elaborated on what the question at hand is; it comes up in a yellow box and spells it out for you in brief black and white terms what it is that you are either for or against. If you are still confused, you can choose to leave it blank or take it upon yourself to look into the issue further. That is if you even care, which most people probably won't. Thank you for this debate. Back to you.
Resolved: That debate.org's 'big issues' should be changed.

The 'big issues' portion on this site should be revamped. I contend this for a few reasons. 1. Take this for example: It asks you, "in favor or against abortion". Obviously they are trying to say pro-life or pro-choice, but that's not what the question asks. I am not IN FAVOR of getting abortions; I don't want everyone to go out and have one, I just think its a person's choice. So, we are left confused about how we should answer, not only in that area, but others as well. 2. It doesn't cover ALL of the big issues, like humantairan aid or anything about the economy like Bush's stimulus package, to name a few. 3. It doesn't allow for a place to put your thoughts on each subject. Some things need to be explained, like why it says I am against Civil Unions but for gay marriage. 4. It should have a button that says, "Strongly agree," "Strongly Disagree," or "Indifferent" to accuretly portray what you think about our society. 5. The big issue portion should feature a button that says something like, "Whats this?" It would allow people to learn about things and formulate an opinion on a subject right there. Thank you, I look forward to my opponents response.
The fantasy relationship of 'Helsa' will never happen.

First and foremost, I find it highly impossible that Hans can even feel love. I think, from the evidence from the movie, that Hans is a psychopath. This is probably due to the fact that he had 12 older brothers, and was therefore likely emotionally neglected, and possibly physically abused by his older brothers. The mental strain of being royalty likely also contributed. Hans is also charming and understanding, but through his interactions with Anna we can see an ability to manipulate people and a general lack of consideration for human life/feelings. Basically, give this man a knife and even more of a lack of accountability, and we have Disney's Dexter (he even has the red hair). So, if he was a psychopath, he cannot feel human emotions and therefore cannot fall in love. But, one does not need to love someone to fulfill a ship, they must only enter a romantic arrangement.During the time and location Frozen is based off of, marriage wasn't an institution to fulfill romantic endeavors. It was largely a power play, as Hans had intended. It is said that Hans couldn't marry Elsa, but I don't know if this is true. Elsa, who had just inherited a large amount of power and responsibility, while losing the parents that served as her only social interaction for a number of her formative years, could easily have been feeling lost and powerless. It is easy to imagine that Elsa would submit to social pressure to marry, especially to the son of the Duke of Weaseltown, Arrendelle's key trading partner. This does theory does manage a slight reimagining of characters, but that is exactly what a head cannon is. I do not personally ship Helsa. I don't think that it would be a healthy relationship, nor do I think any healthy relationship is possible involving Hans, but to say that is impossible is unfounded. You are pro. You must show the premise is true beyond a doubt, and it is my job to refute your arguments, or to substitute them with my own, as I feel I have just done.
The fantasy relationship of 'Helsa' will never happen.

The relationship that the Frozen fandom has created called "Helsa" will never occur. Hans' plan from the beginning was to fall in love with Elsa, marry her, and become king. However that couldn't work, so instead he fell in love with Anna and later left her to die and went on to kill Elsa. Helsa will never be a reality because Hans never had any good intentions, committed attempted murder on the both of them, and it's a stupid 'ship' people have created.
Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

Earth can only be constructed with multiple photographs or a video that covers four quadrants, into what looks like a sphere. The fact it requires geographical construction to look like a sphere means that it's shape is truthfully a supermicro cube. Yes, when looked at closely Earth is lots of shapes but if we are to discuss what geographical nature Earth is best understood by it's a cube; because of the geographical construction process. It's not how it's perceived from a collection of four photos, but from someone's standard perception. The best answer for understanding the geographical nature of Earth is a cube because that's how the supermassive is fathomed - it's logical opposite! I ask Con to provide evidence that Earth can be understood as a sphere without multiple photos or a video that covers four quadrants. I ask Con to tell me how constructing a shape in this way creates a sphere rather than a cube? It's not how If he cannot provide evidence or answer my question, it would have to be considered that my argument the winner. I hope Con doesn't become ignorant and arrogant and post more information on Earth without contesting my claim or providing the evidence, or providing an answer to the question I asked for.
Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

A sphere you can hold can be perceived by one half or two thirds. Earth cannot be perceived in this way because of it's mass; it's supermassive. Earth can only be constructed to be spherical if we take at least four pictures; that's four quadrants of the Earth perceived to guess it's a sphere. What's really constructed is cubic, or supermassive; it can't be defined as a singular and must be composed of multiple harmonious parts - in Earth's case, four quadrants. A cube shouldn't be thought of as a drawn cube, as a drawn cube can easily be said to be an Earth rather than vice versa. Instead, assume cubic time in which all things relate.
Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

Earth is a shape that is not a pointless lump of rock; it is also a shape; too broadly defined as a sphere. A supermassive planet in a system of other's of the same type of supermassive; as if a supermassive birth occurred. Earth's gravity links to a greater universe, gravity is not a pointless entity as separate from the shape of Earth; gravity is created from the Earth's cubic nature. The spherical Earth is wrong as it is more a certain shape which fits a system rather than an entity separate to a system; Earth as a sphere is an outcast shape that doesn't have a logical connection to the shape of the universe.
Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

What do you think? Is it worth making the worldwide upgrade of believing in Earth's cubic time continuum? We should accept the fact it's a matter of perception where Earth, a continuum, has a sphere effect, Earth is a monumental shape in a solar system of monuments, the Sun is a Light God to monument planets. The planet is a supermassive shape and therefore is great, to be great it excels by universal standards. If we consider it's shape, we consider more than a sphere, which in a planet's case is a cube, that greater than a particle, a cube logically. It has spin and orbit, therefore is already more advanced than a man-made sphere. The total organism of Earth is cubic, so to define it's shape, we use a cube; a sphere in principle but not in shape, where it is with it's own devices it has cubic property, but is perceived by our eyes as a sphere.
Earth is a cube, or supermassive, not a sphere!

When taking less that four photos only a partial Earth is constructed but we can guess then that Earth is a sphere. If we take two photos, we have 1/2 of the information, we need the other 1/2 to confirm it's a sphere; if we take three photos, we only have 2/3 of the information, we need the other 1/3, to confirm that it's a sphere. Your argument that we can construct Earth in less that four photos doesn't stand, it's impossible and requires guesswork. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between a sphere and Earth's sphere effect. A sphere you can construct on Earth will always be perceived at one side to show 1/2 or 2/3 of it's shape, whereas Earth's sphere effect can only be perceived to show 1/4 of it's shape, meaning that it's supermassive, and therefore not a sphere, but a supermassive planet. Earth can't be defined as a single sided shape, given it is supermassive, it must be defined by it's supermassive quality. A drawn cube is not the same as a supermicro cube; drawn cubes can only be understood when slanted at an angle. A supermicro cube, such as our heads and minds, do not require a slant to understand. You can't see the front of someone's head and the back of someone's head simultaneously, it's what differentiates the supermicro cubic human beings, from cube objects we have created. Understand the technical barrier between us creating a shape that's created naturally. artificially. Earth has many effects: mountains, animals, seas, etc.; a primary effect of the cubic time continuum is Earth's perceptive sphere effect which allows Earth to spin and orbit. Earth's spin and orbit is equally due to the Sun's mass and the stimuli in it's Solar System, as it does by itself; this process is actually a great harmony of opposite Stars and Planets, and as Earth is constructed cubic we can say that this harmony is cubic harmony. A star moves in vertical orbit in the universe; the process of Earth's horizontal orbit and spin is more complex than it seems from a video in Earth's orbit. The continuum of all solar effects surrounding Earth allows it's supermassive shape to exist, and it's supermassive shape is a cube. You're correct in saying what's perceived from a photographic construction of Earth is a sphere, but that's because of Earth's spin, orbit and perceptive sphere effect; it's geographical nature and how it's geographical nature is perceived are different. My case is that Con has not proved that Earth can be constructed without four photos or a video of four quadrants, and he has not answered why a shape constructed this way is a sphere; therefore Con hasn't shown wisdom, and it must be considered that my argument is the winner.
Linux is better than mac

1. "Hard to install?" My opponent's first claim is that Linux is hard to install simply because you actually have to install it. HOWEVER... there are computers that come with Linux pre-installed. My opponent's entire point on this is that "OSX Comes with the system pre-installed their for is easier to use." Ergo, this is void, because just as OSX comes pre-installed on some computers, so does Linux. 2. "Less programs?" My opponent has simply asserted that mac has more programs than Windows or Linux, without giving any sources. Yes, there are some games that run natively on Mac as well as Windows. There are also many games with Linux ports. Neither have "Most" mainstream windows programs, since developers aren't usually willing to port their programs. First, to support my side, I would ask you to do a google search of "OS X programs" or and "Linux Programs" and see which has more results. However, this is not conclusive. Here, I'll give you a quote from a Mac fanboy's page (http://lowendmac.com...): "Yes, despite the hoo-hah about free meaning open, the fact remains that Linux has many more no-cost useable small application programs, such as MP3 players, calendars, PIMs, and so on, than any other OS." The only realm in which Apple beats Linux on programs is in the content creation area. Here I mean video, image, and 3-d model editing. However, this has no bearing on the average user, since the average user does not create content. And when it comes to games, Linux has just as much support as OS X. This is because neither use DirectX, so it's very difficult to port most games, and not worth it for the companies due to the small markets each of them have. And for those normal users who do stuff like edit images, there's a great FREE image editor for Linux (GIMP). Those average users who use Photoshop simply download it illegally, since it costs quite a large sum of money. There are also free movie editors and 3-d model editors, and while they might not be as good as their costly cousins, they're much more worth it. And now to attack your 'defense.' Your school blocking the site I linked does not give you the ability to disregard it. You should have waited until you got home. My source is valid, and Linux isn't just faster for computer geniuses, it's also faster for the average Joe (who, incidentally, doesn't use any of the things Mac is actually good at, i.e. content creation). Linux is a faster OS, Linux is free, Linux has a lot more free programs and supports just as many mainstream games as OS X. Linux does not require specific hardware - it actually runs on the average Joe's computer. For the average Joe, who you even said yourself this debate is about, Linux is definitely a wiser choice for an OS than OS X.
Linux is better than mac

I would like to start off by complementing the aff on his answers. and also to state that i do run ubuntu linux. Ok To start off With >>Linux is Easy to install<< My opponent claims that Linux is easy to install Lets use Ubuntu Linux for an example To use ubuntu linux you either have to install it or get it in the mail. or BUY it. To get it from mail it takes about 3 months And to download it you have to put it in your d: drive or somthing and extract it then reset your computer and press f8 then..... Its not easy at all, for normal people like my mom. Where as OSX Comes with the system pre-installed their for is easier to use. >>2. More programs for osx<< False. Quite false. While it's true that many mainstream applica tions don't install on Linux, even less of them work on OSX. In both cases, a Windows emulator is usual ly needed. Also, hobbyist programm ers almost never make programs for OSX. These are the programs that are usually free, too.I challenge the Con to back up his claim that OSX has a better array of availab le programs than Linux. This is not an argument and the aff knows it, Their are so many more programs for mac then windows, most games know come today also come in mac such as age of empires, world of warcraft. none of those games come for linux and WINE is hard to understand. some people dont even know how to open the console in linux. Most easy emulaters cost money for linux like a monthy bill. Some more programs for osx not for linux microsoft office,Adobe photo shop, VIRTUAL PET ROCK, and more. i rest the rest of my case on this, whats the point of linux if it doesnt do anything ~~now for some defence~~ Note i cannot provide a source nor can i see yours for the linux is faster than mac arguement because my school computer blocks like every single website in the world. But anyways I dont care if linux is faster for the computer Genus we are talking about the avverage joe here ahh gtg....maybe ill finish this in the comments...
Linux is better than mac

I'll now respond to each of my opponent's arguments. >>1. Linux Is hard to operate and hard to install<< As I previously stated, there are different distributions of Linux that cater to the needs of different types of users. Some are made for the non-computer-geek, with an interface just as easy and/or familiar to operate as that of Windows. Also, perhaps it's been a while since you tried installing Linux, but most popular distributions are very simple to install. Just like Windows or probably even OSX, they walk the installer through each step. >>2. More programs for osx<< False. Quite false. While it's true that many mainstream applications don't install on Linux, even less of them work on OSX. In both cases, a Windows emulator is usually needed. Also, hobbyist programmers almost never make programs for OSX. These are the programs that are usually free, too. I challenge the Con to back up his claim that OSX has a better array of available programs than Linux. 3. osx is used by more people For December 2007, Mac was 4.0% of people, Linux was 3.5% However, it's not that I wish to point out. Let's look at Windows Vista and Windows XP for Dec '07. Vista: 6.5% WinXP: 73.4% WOW! XP must be WAY better than ANY other operating system! Wrong. Usage does not make something better or worse. Therefore, that point is void, meaningless. >>4. osx is better quality for picture work<< WHAT? I can understand how you could come upon that conclusion based on gossip, but there's nothing about OSX that makes it better for 'picture work.' It as the same display capabilities as Linux. Please back up your assertion, then I might lend it some credence. >>5. Their is so many types of linuxes its hard to find programs for your certain one<< Let's say I download Ubuntu Linux. _I DON'T HAVE TO USE UBUNTU SPECIFIC PROGRAMS_. You don't need programs for your specific Linux. Your point is therefore void. And now some offense: OSX only works on Maxs - and only on G3's and up. Linux works on, well, just about anything. This is a great boon for Linux, since it's often much better for computer builders or buyers to buy traditional PC's. The prices are often much better for the same amount of power, since they're more widely made. OSX only supports up to 2 processors, while Linux supports up to 16. While this may seem trivial, it is not so trivial for some, especially the people with ultra-high end systems, you know, the ones more likely to be doing that 'picture work.' As in 3d model development, etc. Once again, OSX limits your hardware options. OSX is slower than Linux. http://sekhon.berkeley.edu... Has benchmarks and other information. While the gap used to be quite large, it has been reduced. However, Linux remains faster than OSX. OSX costs money - not only for the operating system itself, but also for the special hardware you need in order to run it. Linux is free, and works on a wide variety of platforms. That should suffice.
Linux is better than mac

i am sorry for this, i did not intend to say mac, but osx the primal operating system for mac is better then linux for mac. but i do not have very long to answer but i will go over my next arguements. 1. Linux Is hard to operate and hard to install 2. More programs for osx 3. osx is used by more people 4. osx is better quality for picture work 5. Their is so many types of linuxes its hard to find programs for your certain one
Linux is better than mac

Being free of cost does not make something better. In fact, all other things being the same, that makes it worse. A higher cost is bad for the consumer, and we're arguing from the viewpoint of the consumer. Keep in mind, also, that Linux is a wide variety of operating systems. For instance, some people are simply not computer-savvy. There are Linux distributions catered specifically to these people's needs. On the other hand, many other Linux distributions cater specifically to the computer-savvy among us. No matter what your computing needs, Linux likely has something for you. I'll leave it at that for now, since it's 4 rounds and my opponent must still make his case.