BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

Observation: My Opponent is claiming that catspwnclubpenguinrules (known as CPCPR for the rest of the debate) is the same person as catsrule. He has no proof for this.=More than one account=1. I see no proof that he stated that, and even assuming that he did it's unjustified to ban him for it because:2. A simple statement on his profile isn't enough proof to show that he DOES have multiple accounts, perhaps it was mis-interperated. =Spam debates=1. We do not know where these debates could've gone, because CPCPR was unjustly banned before he/she had the chance to actually debate a single round. How can this site expect to get new members if it bans people for reasons such as these? I'm sure we've seen many obscure resolutions that turned out to be good debates. These might have as well.=Hate Debate=Racial purity: "Racial hygiene (often labeled a form of "scientific racism") is the selection, by a government, of what it considers the most physically, intellectually and morally superior people to raise the next generation (selective breeding) and a close alignment of public health with eugenics."[1]While I agree that such an idea is morally wrong, that's not a bannable reason, after all people on this site debate morality all the time.Furthermore, as you can see with my definition racial purity =/= genocide.=The relationship between catsrule, iownu, and CPCPR.=1. No evidence that they are the same. Even if you sould show that iownu and catsrule are the same person, it isn't relevant because theres no proof showing the CPCPR is catsrule.=Cross Examination=1. What exactly was said on CPCPR's profile that led you to believe that he was catsrule?2. Can you provide any proof that anything WAS said?3. Do you believe that breaking the lisence agreement once is enough to justify banning?4. If a new member is confused as to the rules, is it justified to simply ban them without explaining to them how what they did was wrong?=Source=1. http://www.google.com...
Resolved: That catspwnclubpenguinrules was unjustly banned.

I shall point out that caswnclubpenguinrules is the same user as catsrule as he admited on his profile. Catspwnclubpenguinrules opened up more than one account! According to the DDO standings, you are not allowed to open up more than one account. Catsrule did that. He admited, on his PROFILE that he opened up another account. . http://www.debate.org... code of conduct letter ACatsrule/catspwnclubpenguinrules creted multiple SPAM debates! Whether you agree with the moderators choice or not, the mods have decided that the debates that catsrule/this new user created were considered spam. Those debates he created are as followed: Sunglasses do more harm than good We should change to a feudal theocracy Racial purity is desirable Catsrule/catspwnclubpenguinrules created a hate debate! Ladies and gents, may I please have your attention here . http://www.debate.org... this user is pro that "Racial purity (genocide) is soemthing to be desire Catsrule/catspwnclubpenguinrules was misrepreseting himsef/herself We all know and love the user known as iownu, I believe that the evidence is clear that iownu=catsrule/this new user. Thank you and good luck to my opponent.
The Muslim females should disassociate themselves from the mainstream feminist movement

First of all, I reffered to the Muslim females who are not self dependent. Such as the Muslim females of the Middle East. The government of those are still not that much liberal regarding woman rights. My argument was about these women of the Mid East. The mainstream feminist movement should have worked to make the government of this countries more liberal. But as they didn't, the women of this countries(most of them are Muslim) should form a movement of their own.
The Muslim females should disassociate themselves from the mainstream feminist movement

What you are inferring in your argument seems to be that Muslim women are not considered women. I have known many Muslim women personally that live in America. They share the same cultural likes and dislikes, they attend the same college lectures, they live and breathe just like any other citizen in the United States. Just because they are Muslim does not mean their rights as women are any less or different than non-Muslims. The women's movement is partially about making governments aware that women are equal to men and should be treated as such; it's about changing national policies that will give women the rights they think they deserve. If a Muslim woman feels like she is being mistreated by her employer, or her husband, or her government she has every right to join the "mainstream" feminist movement. Maybe the feminist movement means different things to women in other countries, but your religion by itself does not affect your views on women's rights. Are Christians the only ones allowed to join the "mainstream" movement? What about Jews? Hindus? Should they not be allowed to join the mainstream feminist movement too?
The Muslim females should disassociate themselves from the mainstream feminist movement

Feminist movement is undoubtedly one of the most appreciated movements of the current world and it has brought wonders by relieving women of social norms and superstitions. But the current worldwide feminist movement is led by higher class working ladies. As a result, they are able to apprehend only the problems of the higher class ladies. They have a minimum idea about the mid eastern ladies of Saudi Arab, Sudan, Egypt, etc. , about their condition, their values. Also, the lower class(poor) women fall into this category. So, I believe that these women should detach themselves from the mainstream feminist movement and start a movement of their own.
should the u.s government substanially increase public assistance in sub-saharan africa

I am opposed to the notion that the United States should give aid to the Sub-Saharan region of Africa. My opponent seems to think that our government is responsible for poor conditions in another country. I'd like to hear his reasoning behind that. The conditions may be as bad as you say they are, but it's not our job to take care of them. It's the responsibility of private aid groups and the respective country. http://www.redcross.org.za... The Red Cross is a private charity that provides aid to South Africa, as well as many of the other Sub-Saharan countries. There are many other groups that do the same thing. Why do you believe our government must get involved? I can't really say or negate much else until my opponent fleshes out his ideas. I'll wait for your next round, and we'll see where this goes from there.
should the u.s government substanially increase public assistance in sub-saharan africa

i roberto collazo would support the resolve by saying that the u.s. government should substanially increase public assistance in sub saharan africa because the water in africa is caausing different diseases. animal are put thier faces in the water and the animal might be sick and that could effect a person the water they have is polluted so its dirty and when they get out of they smell.the order the person is carrying could lead to malaria. it could to malaria because the smell could atract different bugs especially mosqiutos.
Christmas Is Annoying

Christmas is a tacky and an annoying gimmick that gives shops the excuse to put plastic tree with rubbish on them for a period of three months. not to mention the silly costumes people have the excuse to wear in public. When did it become acceptable to put a santa on a tree and feed relatives disgusting birds with berries that taste foul and sprouts that nobody likes. BECAUSE ITS A PLAN TO GIVE THEM DIABETES!
The majority of religious people fallow a religion they did not choose for themselves.

Each country around the globe has a relitively high percentage of one religion. And different time eras produced many religions that were popular then but are not fallowed today. So if your born in any given place or time you most likely going to be part of the popular religion that exists within the demographic to which one is born. Its not likely a someone is going to be christian born into a muslim nation. Its not really a choice but more a way of social exceptance. The fallowing link shows religions by nation: https://www.google.com...
Eating glue is probably okay for me

http://www.youtube.com...Eating glue is probably okay for me. This doesn't mean I should eat glue. It doesn't mean glue is healthy. But it does mean that if I eat glue, I will probably be okay. I won't die.Elmer's glue, for example, is described by the Elmer's Company as being "safe and non-toxic."[1]A toxic substance is one that is "harmful or deadly."[2] A non-toxic substance, therefore, is one that is "not harmful or deadly." Therefore, I can eat Elmer's glue and probably be okay, despite whether it provides no health benefits, and as long as I eat other healthy foods.Sources[1] http://www.elmers.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. 5. Therefore, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is a sound argument. My burden is to undermine the argument, and/ or the support for it. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."PS. I would respectfully ask that nobody who has been a debate on the KCA with me recently accept this debate. I want to keep it fresh.
Beauty is only how you look on the outside

I'd like to start off by saying it's nice to be nice. It's great if you do nice things, say kind words, so on. But we live in a society today where "beautiful" means attractive, pretty, or good-looking. The first thing people notice is how you look. If you are attractive to the eye, you are deemed by the viewer "beautiful", even if you have a crappy personality. There's a difference between beauty and a good personality. Even if you aren't pleasing to the eye, but you have a heart of gold, you are still not "beautiful", you just have a good personality. And if you are very pleasing to the eye, but your a bully, you are still beautiful, just a bad person. If a do a Google image search for a "beautiful woman" or a "beautiful man", it only shows models and people pleasing to the eye. There is no such thing as "inner beauty", it's just having a good personality.
Kobe better than Lebron

Hey! I am Radicalguy44 and I will take on the Following: "Kobe is better than Lebron" First, a little about me. I am an LD debater, and I am quite new to debate.org as well :) Having said this, I wish you luck my friend! CONTENTION 1 : There are many aspects in which we have to see in order to call one better than the other. Points per game isn't the only thing that makes you better. Your personal life also makes you a better individual. I agree that both are great, but one is better than the other. First, a better look at the stats. According to NBA.com, Kobe Bryant leads in 3 point shots, Freethrow shots, steals, and blocks. A lot more than what Lebron leads in CONTENTION 2: Lebron James has agreed that he has used drugs in high school. This is not a very good example to what young people these days should do. This, therefore makes a bad influence on others. Kobe, on the other hand has no historial on drug use on his part, therefore making him better in this aspect CONTENTION 3: Kobe Bryant is a better example. He has done fundraisers, and has visited the sick in hospitals a number of times. Something that James has failed to do. If we were to look at this in point aspects, Kobe wins. If we were to look at this in personal aspects, Kobe Wins again ~radicalguy44
"We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians"

On Australia Day we come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future. We are not a country that discriminates and have moved on from our past. What happened over 228 years ago does not and should not reflect or represent that people we are as Australians, therefore, to say that we are not an equal country is not true or fair to Australians that eknowledge the wrongdoing of the British in the First Fleet, and have apologised for this, as we have as a nation. We are an equal country. Australia Day is much more than what most of us celebrate it for. It is more than another public holiday. It is more than the pride and excitement of new citizens who call themselves Australian for the first time on 26 January after being conferred citizenship. At its core, Australia Day is a day driven by communities, and the celebrations held in each town, suburb or city " unified by the celebration of what"s great about Australia and being Australian " are the foundation of its ongoing success.
"We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians"

Australia Day is no longer seen as a dark, day full of regret. Today as a country that has moved forward from our past, we see it as a day where we recognise the unique status of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.We recognise that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and some non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians may have mixed feelings about celebrating this day, and as a nation have apologised for the acts that were performed by people who do not by any means represent our country at all. There is no discrimination against any culture in Australia, no matter the language, colour of your skin or where you are from. We are one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world today, proving just how much we have grown and developed as an accepting and united community. To state that Australia is an environment that people of dark skin feel uncomfortable or aren't equal, is by no means fair, as we are an extremely culturally diverse country.
"We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians"

My name is Matilda Hart - Di Rosa, and today I will be arguing against the statement that "We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians". January 26th, or Australia Day is an anniversary of the day that the arrival of the First Fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain, and the raising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove by its commander Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. Although, this is not what we celebrate Australia Day for today. As a united country, we no longer see Australia Day as something simply just to commemorate the arrival of the First Fleet, rather to celebrate the country we are, and who we represent today. Although the 26th of January marks this specific event, we have grown and developed as a country to no longer honour this day in regard to the First Fleet, but to recognise the importance of this day to Indigenous Australians, and to reconcile and come together as a community to celebrate and take pride in our country's ability to move forward, and grow for the better. January 26th has become a day to reflect on our country's past, and how we have, and will continue to work together to build a better future.
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

PAGAN SUN WORSHIP AND CATHOLICISMTHE MONSTRANCE and the WAFER GOD" 1Co 11:17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not that ye come together not for the better but for the worse. 1Co 11:18 For first of all when ye come together in the church I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1Co 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 1Co 11:21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry and another is drunken. 1Co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. " Did Christ eat His crackers/bread in a temple or church? Luk_22:7, Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. Luk_22:8, And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat. Luk_22:9, And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare? Luk_22:10, And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in. Luk_22:11, And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples? Luk_22:12, And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready. Luk_22:13, And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover. Luk_22:14, And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. Luk_22:15, And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: Does he Pope wear a hat? " 1Co 11:2 Now I praise you brethren that ye remember me in all things and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you. 1Co 11:3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonoureth his head. "
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

"Christ never ate crackers in church! Why do men?" People in church eat wafers during Communion to symbolise the sacrifice that Jesus made during the Last Supper. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." The wafers that Catholics eat as a part of Church symbolise the bread. Eating wafers to symbolize Jesus' sacrifice is in no way Satanic. "Well God said His people are sottish=Stupid! Jer_4:22, For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge." This is completely irrelevant to the debate.
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

Your supposed to put arguments in your round and in your own words, not just post links that debate for you. Debates are supposed to be put in your own words and your own argument. Your argument consisted of disjointed Bible chapters that said nothing of Satan, and paragraphs/arguments that other people wrote. You somehow try to tie in the Pope wearing a hat, the changing of the Sabbath, and the Catholic Pope ignoring the Jewish tradition of Passover. Jesus not handing anybody a wafer, but only bread, does not mean that the communion was satanic. Also, in Jeremiah 4:22 God is talking about the humans that cause destruction, not humans in general. My points of Jesus' sacrifice still stand, as you have not taken them down at all. Finally, don't assume that I am a Catholic, I don't know what I am. I am going to take time to choose my religion, instead of looking at one and deciding that all are untrue. Good day.
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

My Opponent babbles on! I nothing, because I left the link from everyplace I use to prove my point. Why Lie? You offered nothing. Eat your crackers and kiss your Pope! Jer_4:22, For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

First I would like to note that my opponent plagiarised one of his paragraphs word for word from this website: https://custodialsmackdown.wordpress.com... Secondly' my opponents argument is one of the most confusing ones that I've ever seen. As far as I know, Changing the day of the Sabbath has nothing at all to do with the Eucharist or Satanism. You seem to just put in pictures at random just for filler. Well look at this! Checkmate Atheists.Of course I'm just being facetious here. If I can't understand how your argument is trying to tie moving the Sabbath, Passover, and hats with the Eucharist being satanic, then will the voters understand it? Most likely not.
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

Try common sense? Christ ate the Passover honoring the Sabbath. Keeping the Jewish Law. I refute your arguement because the Lord's supper is done at home or an upper room. Ever read a bible? 17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
The Lord's Supper as it is currently done today, is actually Satanic.

There are two main holes in your argument: 1. Paganism = Satanism Pagan - a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) 2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person. [1] It does not, however, mention worshipping satan at all. 2. Contradictions in the Bible mean nothing in this debate. This is solely about Eucharist being Satanic. The pope wearing a hat has nothing to do with either Satan or Communion in this case. You have still not brought forward any solid proof on your topic, nor have you refuted my arguments. Sources: [1] http://i.word.com...