BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Con will break a rule

Second, since it would be useless to post new rules, I won't. Summary of Debate: I am thoroughly dissappointed in this debate. IMO, my opponent was not clear with what the debate was about and I put forth a very sloppy and poorly composed debate and I plead for the audiences forgiveness. I made many mistakes, as did my opponent and am a little "put-down" at the effort put forth by both sides. My bad half may be due to a biology project that I have been working on for the past 5 days, which has consumed much of my spare time. But I do not wish to make excuses. All I ask now is the audience to vote for the best debater, which, of course, should be me. Please vote Pro. .. Now please change your vote to CON. Thank you for your time, theitalianstallion.
Con will break a rule

2) Pro must follow all rules made before and after this rule. 3) Pro cannot use the words: I, will, debaters, sides, rule, both, summary, summarize. 4) Pro cannot restrict Con's use of the English language or remove the ability to use English. 5) Pro cannot use the letter "s". 1) All rules created to be biased to either side are automatically nullified. 2) Rules that are not restated in the following round are nullified. 3) Each side must break a rule and state which rule they broke. 4) From here on, a broken rule cannot qualify as creating a rule that violates a previous rule 5) Each side must state something random. First, a summary of the debate so far. In his second round rules, Pro broke many rules while writing rules instead of A RULE. He breaks his first, third and fourth first round rules, my first, second, third, and fifth first round rules. This debate was made on the premise that both debaters will follow the rules made. The title of the debate is "CON will break a rule. " This is the title and that alone. Although the title is correct as a statement, it serves no purpose other than telling the audience what might happen in the debate. "we get to set 5 rules per each round that both players have to follow the round the rules are posted. " This is Pro's opening statement and what I took as what both debaters were to try to accomplish. If we go by what Pro said his/her opening statement, the debate is merely to show which debater will break the least amount of rules. Here is the count of rules broken Pro-7 rules broken (Some multiple times) Con-1 rule broken Count of rules that could not exist without the use of breaking rules Pro-5 rules Con-1 rule 1) This rule is and will always be the supreme law of the land. 2) No rules shall be disallowed from this point forward. 3) All rules typed for bias means shall be allowed. 4) The rule following this rule will be typed but not created with bias and is not to be nullified by any means. 5) Pro cannot use the words rule, rules, summary, summarize, I, Con, round, Pro, opponent, broken, break, debate, debaters, both, sides. I broke the rule of stating something random.
Con will break a rule

Note that I stated before the debate that the rules would be followed by both sides. No matter. 1) All rules created to be biased to either side are automatically nullified. 2) Rules that are not restated in the following round are nullified. 3) Each side must break a rule and state which rule they broke. 4) From here on, a broken rule cannot qualify as creating a rule that violates a previous rule 5) Each side must state something random. Though neither you and I are no longer obliged to, I will still summarize this debate. CON fails to realize that the resolution doesn't consider the actions of PRO, but only regards that CON will break a rule. Thus, this debate set up CON from the beginning, since the PRO can break the rules and still win the debate. Also, CON is forced to make rules for HIMSELF that he is REQUIRED to follow if he wants a chance to win the debate. Yet, technically, I dont have to follow any rules, and I could still win this debate! "(My second rule breaks his fourth rule)" Exactly! You in the act of following a rule you broke another! Two contradictory rules are bound to be broken! I forced you to break a rule, and therefore, you already lost this debate! I have proven that CON has broken a rule, where the only way possible way for CON to win this debate is by following all the rules that both I and he have set! :) Assured Victory!
Con will break a rule

2) Pro must follow all rules made before and after this rule. 3) Pro cannot use the words: I, will, debaters, sides, rule, both, summary, summarize. 4) Pro cannot restrict Con's use of the English language or remove the ability to use English. 5) Pro cannot use the letter "s". Summary: While Pro thinks he set me up for failure, he also set himself up too. I have followed his rules with the exception of his fourth rule to allow myself to follow his third rule. (My second rule breaks his fourth rule). Something Random: Alligator love-making.
Resolved: That the U.S. Should end all agricultural subsidies.

Unfortunately, con didn't get back to us in R2. Was looking forward to a good debate. However, if con wants, I have no problem with some brand new lines of argument in the last round. I of course reserve the right to respond with new arguments as well (not brand new arguments, but new ones in response to anything new con brings up). And just to clarify, my initial description of Pareto efficiency is a framework for discussion of subsidies. My point was that, if we could spend all the money that we currently spend on subsidies in a different manner (or preferably just not levy those taxes at all), social utility would be higher, and this is, other things equal, preferable when it comes to constructing public economic policy. Thanks, and I hope to see con back for round 3.
Resolved: That the U.S. Should end all agricultural subsidies.

I'd like to start off by thanking whomever takes the time to read this for giving me some semblance of importance, the voters for voting, and whomever decides to argue in negation for offering the alternative perspective. I would also like to precede my arguments by offering a couple of definitions: "agricultural: of, relating to, used in, or concerned with agriculture" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) "subsidy: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) I will argue in negation of this proposition on two main contentions - (1) subsidies stabilize the agricultural market and (2) agriculture accounts for a large portion of the U.S. economy. To begin, subsidized farming stabilizes the agricultural commodity markets overall. Granting agricultural workers these funds ensures that there will not be price spikes in general necessities (food, clothing, etc.) because the subsidies can compensate for poor yields for reasons including poor weather (an uncontrollable force). Not only that, but this money would also make for a predictable farming system. Farmers would have the ability to stay up-to-date with farming systems and equipment, and, consequently, increase productivity. What"s more, is that agriculture holds a large portion of the U.S. economy; therefore, ending these subsidies would only hinder the economy. Looking at the U.S., agriculture accounts for $789 billion of our GDP (but this isn't the entirety of agriculture's effect on the GDP because this number does not take relying industries - like forestry, fishing, food, apparel, leather, etc. - into account. Agriculture also accounts for 16.9 million jobs in the U.S. (9.2% of U.S. employment). This being said, removing the subsidies would deter and push workers away from the agriculture industry, increase the unemployment rate, and decrease the U.S. GDP. In conclusion, ending agricultural subsidies only hinders people overall. Maintaining them, on the other hand, has the potential to maintain a stable market for necessities for both the farmers and the consumers, and to maintain (or perhaps benefit) the nation's economy. Q95;
Horses verse War

I'm not sure what you're arguing for or against, and I'm not sure anyone else knows either. Please clarify in round 2. You seemed to be arguing both for and against war: "We must always be in the battle for..." and "War is good only if out side wins." Then you made a point about horse racing being unfair to the horses. I'm not addressing these statements, since I don't know what my supposed position in this debate is, but I'll respond in round 2 once my opponent tells me what his position is.
Best hip-hop/rap tracks: Round II

If you're going to bring Pac into this I'm afraid I'm going to have to bring some Biggie. Hit em up is really just Tupac crying and slugging at a bunch of people because he got shot. 'Niggas Bleed' is the perfect harmony of artfully violent lyrics and Biggie's hypnotyzing voice. Enjoy and vote for me. http://www.youtube.com...
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible

Your point on me not going to college, I went to Sierra college in California where the we have some of the best UC Colleges in thecountry: UC Santa Cruz, Davis, Merced and Berkley and the western assoaciation of communitite colleges which California is a part of, So education in California is surprisingly one of the valued things in this state that being said I completed Sierra college with two degrees one in AS-T in Law Enforcement and a AS in Behavioural Sciences in a California College. Secondly I did mispell words in college all the time and still passed so I don't know where you got your facts. Also states vary on education cirriculumns so your comparison is illogical, also there's a time variation from 92'- 2018, so again your comparison is flawed. Which brings me to your next point, "you really think you have a ghost of a chance interpreting your bible?" Well I have been practicing my religion for 15 years, been baptized and avidly read the bible so yes I do think I can interpret it. Again you don't know me or know my credentials so I'm not sure why you think I can't read and analys the bible or as you stated earlier "Christians can't read" which you still haven't proven. Another fallacy, your ad hominems. You're saying my points are weak, becuase I can't spell?! Just becuase you're rude to me doesn't mean my argument isn't any less sound. Your whole side of the debate hasn't been anything, but accusations and insults, seriously you don't think people are gunna read your side and see that all you did was say watch the video and call me a stupid Christian? Not to mention how you red herring about my spelling and Donald Trump which this debate topic has nothing to do with. Also you corrected my spelling and grammar yet you put "K?" And "soooooooo" not to mention you didn't even cite your sources for the videos or verses you put.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible

Wow. I cannot even debate with you. Come back when you learn to spell. Good thing kid that you've never entered college, kid because if you have ALL of your professors, no exceptions would give you an F every single time. One word of caution, don't go to college. Wow. Its not my job to feather through your mishaps and interpret what you are saying. And you REALLY think you have a ghost of a chance at interpreting YOUR bible? ARE YOU SERIOUS? One word, just one word that was misspelled when I went to college back in college in 92 - 93 was an instant F. And we did not even have a spell-check back then. Now you have no excuses. Horrific. Tell you what. Don't even bother. Your English is truly atrocious that is to be left for pigeon droppings in black holes. So what's left? VIDEO in which you will not even look at. Crawl back from wherever it was you came. K? This it clearly not for you. And I mean that with the kindness of words.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible

Awe well gee you dimwitted dullard snot meat sow, you don't believe for a single second that your beliefs should be attacked the way you treated me? ARE YOU SERIOUS? You absolutely attack me when you refuse to look at pure 100% evidence right at your fingertips and yet you expect me to look at something that you present from your horrific bible in which you clearly have not read? I HAVE READ YOUR BIBLE. And well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all there's 0% of a possibility that YOUR god would ---ever--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible - a double whammy punchline. Oh but wait by gum, its perfectly OK for you to once again be the contradictory hypocrite that you are and attack atheism from something in which you clearly know absolutely nothing about. " I literally put in qoutes from the bible about freedom which you claim Christians dont have," DID---YOU---WATCH---THE---VIDEOS? Now you are really p**sing me off. Here's an example... What would you do if I were to come up to you and say "here's something for you to read that's pertaining to this subject" naturally you'd pass that up as well because it is known that so called christians (because there is no such a thing as a christian) as a whole simply cannot read nor comprehend what is in from of them as I have found out so so sooooooooo many times. In other words you and your kind are phenomenally lazy and you do not pay attention to evidence. So really, why did you accept this debate? And why bother accepting any other debates? And really, wow, one thing you attempted to counter. Gee, how many subjects do I have as to why accepting atheism is clearly the right path? See, that's what I mean. And even so, you don't even pay attention to your bible from the verses put right in front of you. Wow.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible

Um... I don't know where you're getting the kid comment from im 22, secondly you're literally attacking my personal beliefs as a person that isn't even related to my religion, thus what you're saying isn't even related to the topic anymore, in fact you are straw man falacy comparing trump and God. We aren't even talking about Trump. Secondly Trump wasn't an all knowning being who made the world and led the isrealites to jerusalem or had a son who was nailed to a cross and God never ran for president and just like your other points to try and counter you're gunna insult me and say watch the youtube video, but we already knew that; it'swhat you've been saying the whole debate. In the first round I literally responded to all your points and even cited qoutes on how you're wrong. Everyone reading this go ahead and look at the other rounds, I had multiple sources, but his whole thesis or counter is "go watch a video, your God is stupid" I made no attempts to refute your argument? I literally put in qoutes from the bible about freedom which you claim Christians dont have, I put in a qoute from a Dr. With a PH.D about how 7% of people are atheist, I put in a cite about Jesus's remains and much more and you say I cant refute you?
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible

I read Your 1. of the second RD. That's enough, kid who supports Donald Trump, the worst president of all time who has a lot of things in common with your god, kid. For more on that you can go to http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... Oh and oh yeah, everything is backed upped in the first RD in which you cannot refute, kid and made absolutely no attempts to refute, kid because you can't kid. Bye kid. You lose, kid.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible

OK I'm not even going to bother with you AT ALL until you take a look at the videos. They flatly prove unto you that if you believe in YOUR god that you do in absolutely no way shape or form have Free Will of any kind. I really hate it when supposed christians like you skip rock solid evidence especially when its slapped right in your face. And speaking of "time"? Wow. Only someone as tepid as you would state something like that. How long did it take you to type out your argument? I 100% guarantee you that its longer than 2 of the videos entire length. And I also don't have the "time" to type up 500,000 characters or more to get a wingspan of what they were talking about in which you would NEVER read or comprehend. It is also so-called christians (don't worry there is no such a thing as a christian) that have, as a whole, a serious hard time is READING, from what is put right in from of them. You are rock solid proof of that. See, I unlike you can back up what I say with something called "evidence". The videos are evidence. Wow and you being the contradictory hypocrite, you use YOUR bible to speak for YOU? Jeez. So if you are not going to look at the videos, there's 0% of a chance I'm going to look at the verses you posted. Oh and to slam the door shut, and you deserve it, YOUR god, in which you cannot even prove even exists, would NEVER use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD

I accept the challenge.I will be arguing the CON position. In this debate, I will argue from the perspective of reformed theology, holding firmly to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith.My burden is this:The Eastern Orthodox Church is not the "one" Church.The Eastern Orthodox Church is an apostate of Christianity.The minority element of misled, truly saved Christians within the EOC are part of the undivided body of Christ, which encompasses all True Christians, regardless of denomination.I'd like to thank my opponent for the resolution and the patient voting audience for it's unbiased, honest review.In Christ,-GC-
The Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD

My goal with this debate is to conclusively prove that what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church is the same Church founded by Christ. The same "one, holy, catholic and apostolic" Church referenced in the Nicene Creed. I suspect that prior to the debate, the position I am staking out will be accepted by an extreme minority here, and I know it is quite taboo these days for any Christian to claim their Church is the true one (infact, truth of any kind is pretty quaint these days, isn't it?). But I am hopeful that both my fellow debater and our audience can set aside their biases and hear the arguments out in as objective a manner as possible. This is after all how I came to the Orthodox Church - I was not raised in it (I was raised agnostic), and did not even know much of anything about it until my late 20s. Let the first round be for acceptance and also for clarification on any definitions as deemed necessary by the con side. I would also like to point out that I intend to stick as closely as possible to facts and reasoned arguments, in the spirit of this site, and will avoid unnecessary polemics. I would ask the same from anyone who would take up the challenge. This could be a doozy!
Lower Drinking Age

and show why I've won. First lets look to the military point, my opponent claims that there is no difference between this and the choice to drink; but look and you'll see that he agrees that this is a moral choice, and not one of pleasure as would be he choice to drink. with-out a military the United States could not survive, we would be invaded and taken over, this justifies a persons desire to join the military whereas it does not justify drinking. Second my opponent claims they're where actually trying to advocate that the legal drinking age should be lowered not heightened (as I would assume they where) But the attack they made toward me in this regard is not synonymous with this desire; they've made a grave mistake which will cost them the round. Third, most people have their entire lives to be primed to join the military. at young ages feelings of patriotism are instilled within them. by the age of eight most people have fully developed their moral standing (which granted can change over time) whereas drinking is not primarily an issue of morality, but of pleasure. fourth, my opponent only proves that alcohol kills brain cells, he does not prove the drinking age should be lowered; but instead this logic points that we ought to abolish drinking all together. and if you know your history, that would lead to mass crime. so in closing, I urge to vote for the Con, as my opponent utterly fails to prove their point that we should lower the drinking age, but instead spent their time between bashing the military men and women who give up their lives for the protection of the american people, and advocating the ill-effects of drinking. through no logic my opponent has presented should the drinking age be lowered, but instead their logic gives the idea that the drinking age should be heightened, and that we should abolish the military. But instead leave the drinking age alone.
Lower Drinking Age

Yes, the character limit is not allowing for much room here, my apologies. One point that you touched upon was that joining the military is a moral choice. This is something that I of course agree with, joining the military is a moral choice, presumably, unless there is a draft (in which case, it is commonly known that it is mandatory that one fights in the war). However, this is not such a stark difference to the consumption of alcohol. Drinking is not a "moral" choice, but it is a choice. In point one, I was not saying that it should be changed to 25, i was questioning why it wasn't. According to you, one of the reasons the law is the way it is, is because the brain needs to fully develop. I do not believe it should be increased, my main point of the argument is, and shall remain that the age should be lowered. What you're saying is that it is okay to go straight into the military without any adaptation time because it is a moral choice. That still does not change the fact that a young person of 18 is putting their life at GREAT risk. How can the government be so accepting of this? If adaptation time was truly needed then a person should not be able to go straight into the army. The reason I agree with the fact the alcohol kills brain cells is because it is scientifically proven. If is a fact. If I were to disagree with that fact, I would be completely discrediting myself form even having a valid opinion in this argument. My point, which was obviously over-looked, is that alcohol kills brain cells no matter what the age of the person. It is a simple side-effect of its consumption. I at no time, said the drinking age should be more than 21.