BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

The example I gave was a very important andif alid example of my point, and it gains even more weight as evidence for my rebuttal when used in contrast with your debate. In your example, the power placed on the word "just" lost imabench the debate; you make the conclusion that the instigator's rules are too powerful because of the easily dismisable details. When you look at my example, the instigator lost the debate in spite of these rules; I'm making the conclusion that the instigators only suggest power, while the voters actually use it. Voters generally use the instigator's rules because the contender generally accepted them, and it should be assumed that they did if the rules were possible to accept; a contender could easily cheat by saying that They did not know the rules when they did. An instigator's debate can be formed in almost any shape. They can absolutely be unfairly in their own favor, but this once again comes back to the fact that the unfair debate was the one the contender accepted. If they accept rules because they "seem fair" without actually thinking about it, then that is their fault. The contenders decisions affect their loss in these situations, not the instigator's rules. If the contender is not careful when "he" checks the first round, you claim that "he could loose unfairly", however there is nothing unfair about "his" loss. If you can understand a bet that I offer, but ignore what I tell you and accept without grasping the opportunity for understanding, then your loss is completely just. Instigators have one opportunity where they lack the power to forfeit. An instigator can absolutely never force their opponent to forfeit. A contender accepts the debate, and then they choose to loose. Forfeiting after the person who accepts the debate forfeits is understandably more appropriate conduct, thus giving them those points. In these situations, con could technically win while not even writing anything at all, but the voters have used their power to judge otherwise.
The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

"The supposed power that the instigator has truly rests in the voters. " But most voters agree on the fact that the contender has to follow and agree the rules posted by the instigator, no matter how ridiculous or hard to follow. That debate you posted was a bad example, the instigator was trying to defeat the contender on itsy-bitsy little errors that really didn't matter. A debate similar to this one was one of Rational_Thinker9119's unfair seires, this one against imabench. Had imabench tried to actually argue his way out of the unfair stress on the word "just" and followed the rest of the rules, he more than likely would have won. It is true that if an instigator misses the contender's points, he would more than likely lose as well. However, it must be noted that the instigator goes first within a debate, and the contender goes next, followed by the instigator again. The instigator can easily set up a debate like this, where he posts his stance, makes the contender reply, and he rebuts again, and the last round must be concluded with "thank you for the debate". Although this might seem fair, with one round of debate versus one round of debate, the instigator can respond to the contender's arguments while the contender cannot. Furthermore, the instigator can still stress his original arguments and back it up with his rebuttals, making it impossible for the contender to win. By this point most of my arguments are rebutted, so I shall make a new point here. ForfeitureForfeiting is crucial in a debate, deducting conduct points and possibly making the whole argument collapse. The instigator definitely has one round where he does not forfeit--the first round. This gives him a slight advantage, and if he forfeits the rest of the rounds versus his opponent forfeiting all the rounds, it is 4 vs 5 rounds of forfeiting. By starting the debate and stating the rules, blah blah, the instigator can technically win even if the he or she posts NO ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER, if the contender fails to post any argument. In conclusion the instigator of a debate is OP.
The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

Thanks pro. You say yourself that the power of the instigator is bad when combined with the failure to read things carefully. If the person accepting the debate is in a situation where they are not careful or could easily misinterpret the instigators points, then they should not have accepted the debate. When an argument is presented, that is the argument that must be accepted. If there is ever a point in time when the rules presented are impossible to acknowledge, it is up to the voters to decide the conduct. In fact, in any situation the power rests in the judgment of the voters. A great example of this is here: http://www.debate.org... . In this debate, the instigator provided rules which were broken, but did not have the power to win. The supposed power that the instigator has truly rests in the voters. You did point out that the instigator may choose the judges, but this leads to my next point. When a person accepts a debate, they need to fully understand it. If you are not paying close attention, then you deserve to suffer the consequences of that. It would be unfair to propose a debate, only to have a completely incompetent person accept it. You argue that people who are new and inexperienced are vulnerable to the power of the instigator, and although this is true, the fault continues to lie with them. They were not skilled or competent enough to pay close attention to the debate, so they lost. In your example, this continues to be the case. An instigator only has as much power as the contender allows for. A contender may miss their points and loose, but an instigator may also loose a debate if they fail to pay attention the other debater's points. The bottom line is that ignoring aspects of the debate is not a claim for unfair treatment. It is only evidence of their own errors. Back to you, pro!
The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

Although the instigator's rules and definitions are most times checked upon by the contender, sometimes the contender can miss some important points and misunderstand. A great example is the expert tier's finale debate, between bsh1 and imabench. Because imabench misread and thought the last round did not allow any new arguments or rebuttals, as he stated himself: "I could have bet a billion dollars that somewhere it said that the final round for me would be no new arguments or rebuttals!!!" Imabench could have technically won at least tied the debate, had he read the first round carefully, and know that the final round was for "rebuttals and summary", and post his rebuttals and not just his summary. source: http://www.debate.org...This incredibly important debate shows how much power the instigator has. If con is not careful within checking the first round for any twists, he could lose unfairly, and that would be a shame! In conclusion the instigator is overpowered, especially since he can hide twists in his first round. If a very clever troller started out a debate and put a rule in super tiny & faint font, right in between a huge paragraph of text, the contender could easily miss it. In fact, the voters, when scanning over my "wall of text" right there, they probably missed the "in super tiny font" too.Imabench showed us the power of the instigator and the results of failure to read the first round carefully. Had he started the debate, the outcome probably would have been different, more than likely, if resulting in a loss, at least some points would have been rewarded to him instead of a total beat down of 8 to 0. Onto you, con!
The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

All of the ideas pro has presented come down to one thing: the proposal of the debate. The instigator can propose a debate as much in his favor as possible, but he can never force anyone to accept. An instigator can propose a debate where the rules dictate his automatic win, but if nobody accepts, then really the instigator would have no power at all. So if all the power an instigator has is the power that is agreed upon by the contender, then how is the intstigator overpowered? Any contenders either understand the challenge or should be more careful as they concede anyways.
The instigator of a debate on DDO is too OP

Reasons why the instigator is overpowered1. He gets a 25 point advantage, and the contender gets a 25 disadvantage2. The instigator gets to decide the topic he startsSo, the instigator would obviously start a topic he knows very well. He technically has infinite time to prepare, whilst the contender, if decided to accept the debate, technically only has the time before the instigator gets impatient and cancel the debate.3. The instigator gets to decide who he can battle--whether it's a specific opponent, or anybody with a higher elo, he gets to decide so4. The instigator gets to define the terms, and the contender who accepts has to accept the term's definition5. The instigator can make ridiculous rules that the contender still has to accept.Normally, the instigator has rules such as "round one is just for acceptance" and/or "last round no (new) arguments". However, some debates are plain impossible for the contender to win, one such example as Rational_Thinker9119's series of "my opponent will not win this debate", which makes it impossible for his opponent to win, as capitalizing every other letter is extremely time-consuming, and one error could destroy all 7 possible points. This truly shows the instigator's powerfulness.6. The instigator gets to decide how many rounds the debate is, and how long/limited each round isThis is crucial to the debate, as the difference between a one round noob snipe and a 5 round incredibly serious argument is so high, and the instigator gets to decide whether he wants to get noob sniped or have a 5 round super serious 8,000 character argument.7. The instigator has the ability to decide how much time each person hasThis ability gives the instigator the advantage of being the "moderator", and deciding the time, between 5 minutes, and 3 days is very essential to the debate. 8. The instigator can decide who votesEver since the new update, the instigator can decide the elo limit of who votes, or simply limit the judges down to 10 people. While the contender does have to agree, and the judges as well, this new update only furthers the power of the instigator. In conclusion the instigator is OP to the contender.Onto you, con!
Affirmative Action

I fully believe in the idea of affirmative action, but I am against how it is currently being done. I believe that there should be a way for minorities to advance more efficiently in society, but the current form of affirmative action, while indeed advancing the minorities, declines the majorities. I believe if the current form of affirmative action continues, the minorities will become the majorities and we will be forced to change our perspective once again. I get that affirmative action is made to balance and integrate society as to where racism no longer exists, but frankly, that is impossible. For one thing, affirmative action within itself is racist, as racism is not only the negative discrimination of a race, gender, age, or culture, but also the positive discrimination of a race, gender, age, or culture. Secondly, humans are within themselves biased on where they live, what the majority is, how there parents and peers act, and how they are raised and whom they are raised around.
ALS is a fictional disease

Furtherless you state motor neuron doesnt apply to plasisty. Why?" Because the neurons aren't entirely encased within the brain, they run down the spinal cord and as such they have the attributes of a nerve not a brain cell [1]. "Your source assumes motor neuron desiases is a true deiaseses and therefore is biased." Look, motor neuron disease exists, it has been shown hundreds of thousands of times [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. "Hawking was lazy. Youre assertion is that an assertion." Hawking was not just lazy please show me that an effect of laziness can be paralysis. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org... [2] http://www.nhs.uk... [3] http://www.mndassociation.org... [4] http://metro.co.uk... [5] http://healthtalkonline.org... [6] http://www.express.co.uk... [7] http://www.theguardian.com... [8] http://www.nice.org.uk...
ALS is a fictional disease

Amazing what these ALS doomsayers go thru to defend their baseless theory. Let me refute his first assertion aboutr a permentalty weakned mussel.The muscle has not been damaged via internal means only external. Therefore it follows it doesnt apply to ALS. Yeah motor neuron damage but it still pisses on the muscles. Furtherless you state motor neuron doesnt apply to plasisty. Why? Your source assumes motor neuron desiases is a true deiaseses and therefore is biased. Brain plasisicty applies to all parts. Why would it not apply to motor neuron what mechanism would prevent it?Darwin didnt know what genes were but his theory still proved it. How can it be passed on when its late onset? It still f*cks with reproduction.Hawking was lazy. Youre assertion is that an assertion.Other guy posts names of people will supposed ALS. This is amazingly wrong. Let me go thru the reasonsLou GehrigHe played too much baseball and all his energy went away. Nothing to do with the ALSHenry WallaceHe never had full on ALS, it was most likely TIAs or strokes. It is claimed he experienced the first onsets which can be accounted for by a varaity of deasies.Mao Tse TungAsians dont share their medical history. Making This unconfirmdJacob JavitsJavits was a liar thru and thru. no reason to trust himMaxwell TaylorBetter explained by war injuries and PTSD.Jon StoneObviously a set up by people wanting to take control of sessimy street. Dmitri ShostakovichHe produced music long after he supposedly had ALS. Impossible if he really had it.David NivenNo evidence he ever had it. He died over other issues.Morrie SchwartzLOL he was way old. Thats why it seemed like itOnce again I ask. Name a person who has ALS. why cannot we find just one person with it?Its not about shipping water. We have water. its about water in general. There really is no water for the kids. No money problemsI already listed the dam studies. Look at whale.to for all the evidence.The vaccineas arent off topic they show how ytou cannot trust the medical peeoples. wtf do yu mean linking to the website is suspicious? That's stupid, whale.to is a very very crediable organazationI still am winnter hahaha other guy failed.
ALS is a fictional disease

"A muscle cannot weaken permantely."A permanently weakened mussel [1]. From my understanding ALS is predominantly a motor neuron disease which means it doesn't have to target the mussels at all. Furthermore mussel atrophy is a recognised and well documented medical issue [2]."A motor neuron would be fixed automatticly by the brain's plasicicity." No motor neurons are not fixed instantly, from my limited understanding brain plasticity does not apply to motor neurons. But at the very least we know motor neuron diseases exist [3]."Because Darwin proved harmful genetic diseases don't get passed on. ALS would die out quickly for a few reasons."Darwin didn't even know what genes were. And harmful genetic disease's can easily be passed on especially is they are late onset like ALS. "There is no known person with ALS. Stephen Hawking's condition can be explained by him being a lazy f*ck then his body decided to be a lazy f*ck. "I'm fairly sure that Stephen Hawking isn't simply lazy."Can we name anyone else with ALS?"Lou GehrigHenry WallaceMao Tse TungJacob JavitsMaxwell TaylorJon StoneDmitri ShostakovichDavid NivenMorrie Schwartz"The Ice buck challenge is nothing but a way of destroying the world because it removes water from the mouths of thursty romanian children."And how would you suggest shipping water from western Europe, Australia and America to Romania without it being prohibitively expensive?"We already know you cannot trust mainstream media and mainstream medicine. We know GM and fanny mae position us with GMO foods. GMO foods introduce cancer and terrorism into the foods."Please name one study (other that the discredited French rat one) that shows GM foods as harmful. "They position us with vaccines."Off topic but wrong."Scientific evidence proves unvaccinated children are heailther" "They surpress legit healing like Orgonite. Never heard of it? Of course you havent you sheep."Off topic and linking to the same website 3 times in a row is at the very least suspicious. [1] [NSFL .40 bullet wound] http://i.ytimg.com...[2] http://www.healthline.com...[3] http://www.patient.co.uk...-(MND).htm
British food is the worst in the world

With many thanks to my opponent for his comprehensive and enlightening response, I admit that I neglected to include the traditional Sunday roast, fish ‘n' chips and shepherd's pie in my list of favourite British dishes and I do agree that they are both popular (in Britain) and delicious (at least to the British palette). I also concede that British food may be healthier than some others. Moving on to his list of culinary dishes that are even worse than British food, I also agree that there may be a few. I mean, who would voluntarily ingest baby mice, duck foetuses and rancid, maggot-infested cheese? How hungry would you have to be to be tempted to eat that? What's wrong with the people that eat that sort of thing? They must be sick – I know I would be if I were forced to eat "food" like that. But the dishes my opponent quoted are not representative of the respective national cuisines and there are many Chinese, Italian and Filipino restaurants beyond those countries' borders. I would like to illustrate this point as follows: Imagine you are a citizen of Walnut Creek which is a little frontier town in America's Wild West. http://www.walnut-creek.org... Now, even in this remote outpost of civilisation, hungry cowboys can dine in restaurants specialising in both Chinese and Italian cuisines plus restaurants specialising in Cuban, French, Greek, Indian, Japanese, Mexican, Middle Eastern, Pan-Asian, Russian and Vietnamese food.. http://www.walnutcreekrestaurants.com... However, dining on British cuisine is not an option in Walnut Creek. In fact out of a total of 806,820 food outlets in the whole of the United States, 96,059 are Italian restaurants, 27,540 are Chinese restaurants and 26,088 are Mexican restaurants, but the sum total of British restaurants is 0. http://www.manta.com... So, if you did decide to sample British food, the nearest British restaurant would be in Cornwall, England and would involve an 11,036 mile round trip, which is a long way to go for a steak and kidney pudding. Indeed, the online magazine dedicated to the discussion of British food in America wryly observes: "In a culture that prizes authenticity, diversity and novelty, British food is not even conspicuous in its absence. British food does not exist as a viable cuisine in the American popular imagination: It remains only a pitfall to avoid and the butt of jokes. Nobody cooks what they understand as British food at home in the United States." http://www.britishfoodinamerica.com... The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if British food was worth eating it would be available beyond these shores in countries like the US, but there are no British restaurants in America because British food is the worst in the world. Thank you.
British food is the worst in the world

President Chirac of France recently made the following comment about the British: "One cannot trust people whose cuisine is so bad. After Finland, it is the country with the worst food." [1] But Chirac is wrong. I've been to Finland and I can confirm their food is far superior to British food. [2] Here is a selection of favourite British dishes: Tripe and onions =========== The stomach lining of an ox, boiled with onions and served with boiled potatoes – delicious! http://www.allbritishfood.com... Devilled kidneys on toast ================ Fried lamb's kidneys with Worcestershire sauce served on toast – beautiful! http://www.bbc.co.uk... Black pudding, bacon and eggs ==================== A sausage made from pig's blood, pork fat, oatmeal and onions, sliced and fried and served as part of a traditional English breakfast – scrumptious! http://www.bbc.co.uk... Haggis, tatties and neeps ================ A traditional Scottish sausage made from a sheep's stomach stuffed with diced sheep's liver, lungs and heart, oatmeal, onion, suet and seasoning served with boiled potatoes and yellow turnip - super! http://www.bbc.co.uk... F@ggots with onion gravy, spuds and mushy peas ================================ Meatballs made from seasoned pig's liver and heart cooked in an onion gravy and served with boiled potatoes and mushy peas – sensational! http://www.bbc.co.uk... Tongue with lentils ============ Beef tongue boiled and served with lentils – lovely grub! http://www.guardian.co.uk... Roast Pigeon with all the trimmings ====================== Pigeon roasted and served in gravy and served with boiled potatoes and seasonal vegetables – fabulous! http://www.bbc.co.uk... Brawn ==== Jellied pig's cheek, ears, tail and trotters served cold with bread and butter - wonderful! http://uktv.co.uk... Liver and bacon with onion gravy ===================== Fried lambs liver with bacon served with onion gravy and boiled potatoes – tasty! http://www.bbc.co.uk... Semolina pudding =========== A coarse pale-yellow flour ground from hard durum wheat cooked slowly in milk and sweetened with sugar – yummy! http://www.bbc.co.uk... Popular those these dishes are in Britain, it would be very hard to find a restaurant that served them outside our country: British cuisine lacks the international appeal of Chinese, Indian, Italian, Japanese or French food; and that's because British food is the worst in the world. Thank you. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.visithelsinki.fi...
Why women shouldn't be allowed in combat.

On your first point, there is no need for the military qualifications to go down. If a woman feels as though she has a right to be on combat alongside her male soldiers, then she should have to work and put as much effort as they. On your second point, rape doesn't happen only to women. Have you heard of rape within male prisons? Rape should not be only relevant to women because in the real world, it isn't. Besides, rape and sexual harassment does happen BETWEEN male and female American soldiers, so woman could possibly be exposed to any sexual mistreatment anyhow. On your third point, the woman's family would only worry more if they had the same sexist viewpoint I am arguing. If a woman was treated as an equal fighter alongside a man, what is there more to worry about?
Why women shouldn't be allowed in combat.

The first is, as we have already seen with the expansion of the roles of women, steady downward pressure on military qualifications " reductions in strength and endurance requirements in order to get numbers up. The second is the risk of harm to female personnel: he people we are likely to meet on the next battlefield are people who use rape and sexual abuse as actual tools of politics. In Iranian prisons, rape is a frequent practice. Women are raped before they are executed. In Iran, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan rape is a conscious tool of subjugation and it is something women will be exposed to. In the name of equal opportunity they will face unequal risk. And the third point, one I think we should give real thought to, is the stress on military families. So these are some of the reasons why women shouldn't be allowed in combat. Not in direct combat.