BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved, Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS

While I fear that the comical value of arguments may end up out weighing the logical value of them, there is little that can be done about that now. I will not add any arguments but point out some old arguments that were never addressed. 1) Imabench has not shown a single distinguished member that has been harmed, nor any member that has been harmed by his actions. 2) Imabench has not attempted to refute any of the ways that he has helped the site. 3) Imabench has not shown how providing occasional exceptions harms the site, he has only presented a strawman fallacy and dropped it. Without defending that exceptions harm the site, simply violating the TOS does not imply that one should be banned (as an obligation that was pointed out in R1), only that they may if they so choose. Thank you,
Resolved, Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS

Closing statements (arguments will not be carried on, just a statement will be given by each side regarding the banning of Imabench)Imabench is a troll, there is no questioning that. Hell even in serious debates he will stop in the middle of his own arguments just to insert sexually explicit pictures for a quick laugh. Imabench has and will continue to violate the TOS. He will keep trolling, keep spamming, and theres no f*cking way he'll ever stop f*cking cursing f*ck. Other people have been banned for behaviors similar to Imabench's, and we mustnt make an exception just because some people like him. Some people liked Izbo, he was still banned. Some people liked Askbob, he was also banned. Some people like Imabench, but that shouldnt be enough to not ban him for cursing so f*cking much and other things that violate the TOS. The Prosecution rests.
Resolved, Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS

I will admit that I am dropping the points that my opponent listed, for the very reason that they are un-related to my argument. As my opponent has said "People do break the TOS all the time. .. " Therefore, the breaking of the TOS is not the determining factor as to being banned. As such any arguments that rely on TOS violations, are already refuted and don't need to be addressed. My opponent's new main argument is, "The system should not make exceptions. .. " I will address this in two parts. 1) Why? Why shouldn't exceptions be made? Rules are meant as guides, however, it is known that it is not possible to create 100% all encompassing rules that are absolute. Because this limit is known, we know that their must be exceptions to those rules. Now, one could argue that while we could not make the TOS cover 100% of everything, we could definitely make it more thorough so that few exception are needed. Of course, that is a double edged sword, in that making the TOS too long and too full of legalese will mean less people will read and understand them, thus undermine the very purpose of the TOS. 2) This is not a case of an exception anyway. People are not banned for violating the TOS. They are banned for ultimately causing more harm to DDO than good, and TOS violations are just the justification that is being used. Before any member is banned, it is discussed about how their violations may be harming DDO, how that weighs against any potential good that they do. Another factor that is looked at is the likelihood of them being rehabilitated. This is were warnings come in, in an attempt to correct the behavior without having to resort to banning. This was one of the issues with the banning of Askbob and why it had such a polarizing effect with some members. Because, believe it or not, he did do a lot of good for DDO. He just did a lot more harm. With this being said, it is clear that Imabench's violations actually do little harm to the site, while he actually does contribute quite a lot. Under that, it is perfectly reasonable and consistent that he ought not be banned. Thank you,
Resolved, Imabench should be banned for violating the TOS

The crux of the defenses argument comes down to the fact that violation of the TOS does not guarantee being banned, it only subjects a person to the possibility of being banned. People do break the TOS all the time, as brought up by one of the jurors in the comments section. However everyone who can recall the Izbo trial of 2011 knows that individuals end up being banned for violating the TOS consistently despite being given warnings to improve their conduct on the site. If someone breaks the TOS numerous times and continues to do so despite being warned, then that justifies banning that individual because it is apparent that they will not change and their conduct will remain the same. Now is was not questioned by the defense that Imabench's conduct on DDO has violated the TOS numerous times and has been ongoing for months now, that will count as a concession. It is also not questioned by the defense that Imabench's conduct has violated numerous parts of the TOS and it continues to do so. Even as we speak Imabench is debating that Fox News anchors are dumb as rocks, and in his debate he has gone on record claiming that people who watch fox news are less informed then people who dont watch the news at all. This (completely accurate) claim is being used to attack the beliefs and opinions of people on DDO just for sh*ts and giggles (I apologize for my language). Imabench has violated the TOS numerous times and it is apparent from his debates and conduct that this will continue. Other members in the past have been banned for violating the TOS despite being given warnings to improve their conduct, Imabench has done the same thing. Other members have been banned simply for creating sexually explicit debates, Imabench has done the same thing. Other members have been banned for insulting the beliefs of other people over a long period of time, Imabench has done the same thing (in a more humorous manner) The only reason Imabench hasnt been banned is because people like him for some reason. He is here only because there is a double standard that he benefits from which allows him to partake in detrimental behavior that if almost any other member imitated the public would call for their banning. The system should not make exceptions, Imabench has long been an exception to being held accountable for his behavior only because people like him. That is not fair to the true a**holes on this site who do the same thing Imabench does and gets banned quickly. We must ban Imabench for his behavior or allow anyone who has been banned for doing something Imabench has done to come back to DDO. I opt for the former, and I hope that DDO agrees with me. The prosecution rests.
You do not need to be a Theist to have an objective standard of morality.

Definitions: 1. Moral - Expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct. 2. Atheist - One who does not believe in a deity. 3. Theist - One who does believe in a deity. 4. Objective - True/correct regardless of context. I wish my opponent good luck. I will give him the opportunity to argue first.
Equal ism

There is never going to be equal ism no matter what anybody does. No matter how hard the president or anybody tries, people are always going to complain. Never say never. :) And then there are people who don't complain... Here's the definition of equal ism: Equal: as great as; the same as ism: a suffix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form action nouns from verbs ( baptism ); on this model, used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com...=/ http://dictionary.reference.com... There is an equal and there is an ism. For example, this debate you see here; you can see the words equal and ism; therefore, there is an equal ism. And look, we're not even trying that hard. Well, that's all I got for now, back to you!
The abortion limit should be lowered to 20 weeks

Honestly, I think that it is alright. And premature babies have been born. 28 weeks and the baby is barely developed is what I meant. But, I believe that the limit now on abortion is fine!!!!! I chose this debate because I have an older sister. She is now 18, but when she was 16 she was pregnant. The eight weeks was needed. And she was forced to do it by our mum, grandmother and her principal. She needed that last eight weeks. Again, as I said, decisions. Abortion isn't that bad a thing. The media just over does it. And whilst killing a new born is wrong, yes killing a fetus isn't. They both don't have feelings, but it's the parental attachment. You know that first minute you look into your newborn babies eyes. You don't have that with a Fetus. That's why i guess it's ok. Have you ever listened to the song brick? By Ben folds five.
The abortion limit should be lowered to 20 weeks

Firstly I"d like to say that its good people your age are entering discussions and thinking about these difficult topics. If we don"t think about them we only can have the views fed to us by the media and our parents. Now, to my response. You stated that "killing a human is wrong because they have feelings and interests but a fetus does not". Also you stated "If you are still in the womb, then I think abortion is ok!" These claims I believe are contradictory because just because you pop out of the womb does not suddenly mean you now have interests. Either your second point is correct, in which case the consequence is that some newborns do not have feelings and interests. Or your first point is wrong and fetuses do have feelings and interests. What about premature babies (I am one)? Do they not have feelings and interests because they are born too early? Or do they suddenly get interests when they first see daylight? "What is really the difference between 8 weeks? A fetus is still growing, and it is not yet fully developed. Same with twenty weeks. So, why should they cut eight weeks?" I think we need to cut 8 weeks because the 28 is not the morally relevant dividing line. If done on interests then I believe that 20 and certainly 24 should be the dividing line as then they have interests as they can feel pleasure and pain. You are not suggesting when fetuses feel pain they do not have an interest for the pain to stop? Thats my response. What are your thoughts?
The abortion limit should be lowered to 20 weeks

Yes, I agree with all the things you said. But you said that killing a human is immoral because they have feelings and interests. A fetus doesn't, no matter how old you are. If you are still in the womb, then I think abortion is ok! Exception of 30 weeks plus. Now. What is really the difference between 8 weeks? A fetus is still growing, and it is not yet fully developed. Same with twenty weeks. So, why should they cut eight weeks? I am only 14. This is my first debate. Sorry I'm pretty inexperienced.
The abortion limit should be lowered to 20 weeks

Hey mate! Thanks for accepting this debate, think it will be a good one. On with the debate" Right, so a fetus at the moment of conception, we agree, is probably not worthy of having the same value as an adult human. I expect we also agree that a newborn baby has the same value as an adult human. So the question is, where is the line? You mention it is a difficult decision and we need time to make that decision. However, the line should not be drawn when it is deemed that you have had enough time to make your decision. Rather it should be based on when the fetus goes from not having the same value as an adult human to having the same value. It is irrelevant the time needed to make the choice, however hard the decision may be. If pregnancy lasted only 20 weeks (not enough time to make the decision you claim) then would it be right to kill the newborn? I expect you would agree that this would be immoral. Therefore, the line cannot be drawn on how long it takes to make this extremely hard decision. I could argue that 20 weeks is enough time to make a decision but I believe this is unnecessary unless you can prove otherwise. It seems that the best place to draw the line is when the fetus goes from not having the same value as an adult human to having it. Why is it immoral to kill the adult human and not the newly conceived fetus? I believe it is wrong to kill an adult human because they are a being with interests. They can feel pleasure and pain. They have it in their interests to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. We don"t kill another adult human because we know killing him will effect his interests. We appreciate that killing him will mean he will be deprived of all future pleasure, whilst also causing them pain. Fetuses (at a certain level of development) can feel pain however. I believe this capability means that they have equal value to an adult human. One pro-abortion report from a strongly left wing newspaper reported on a scientific experiment into fetal pain and held that fetuses feel no pain before 24 weeks.[1] This automatically suggests that 28 weeks is the wrong place to draw the limit. Now this is one of several experiments and some conclude that fetal pain can start as early as 20 weeks. Obviously this depends on the development of the baby, so its right to go with the lowest common denominator so as not to risk killing any human life of value. With this significant scientific disagreement I believe that until more substantial proof supports the 24 week limit we should (to be safe) make the limit at 20 weeks. Imagine if, in the future, the proof supports the view that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks. Would it not be equivalent to a genocide to have killed all those lives which are as valuable as any adult human? Surely, to be safe we should go with the marginally smaller limit of 20 weeks. At least until we have proof beyond reasonable doubt that fetuses feel pain, we should set the abortion limit at 20 weeks. Furthermore, even if we never had this proof then I believe it would not be catastrophic to keep the 20 week limit.
The abortion limit should be lowered to 20 weeks

abortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks. that is from the oxford dictionary. i srongly disagree with the topic, as it is a hard decision to make, and many people require more than 20 weeks. just think, you (or your gilfriend) just found out you where pregnant. she is only 16, and refuses to be a teen mom. But you really want this. even though she's carrying it, its still yours. you argue for WEEKS, then finally decide you will do it. but, the thing is, it took you 15 weeks to decide, and you only found out she was pregnant on the 4th week. But, the clinics have no available spaces for that week. Now, she is forced to drop out of school, ruin all chances she has at getting a job and is a mess.
A mosque near ground zero

Although I have forfeited the last round I believe that the voters should still vote on my sides for many reasons starting with the fact that it is against the 27 amendments for this to be prohibited. Honestly, I would understand if a mosque was building built on the resting place of ground zero, but the fact is; it's not. I understand most people are against it, but that is truly because they want the people who organized the attack to be brought to justice. This mosque will only not benefit Muslims but all cultures. This plan of a 9 story building, more than 3 BLOCKS away from ground zero will have classrooms, a cafï¿½, and a place to be at peace and worship. This is part of the reason I think a mosque should be allowed to built near ground zero Thank you.
A mosque near ground zero

Resolved: A mosque should be allowed to be built near ground zero I must negate this resolutions that a mosque should not be allowed to be built near ground zero... First we have to look at why such a place has to be built near ground zero at all? Why is this such a issue for the people who want the mosque near ground zero? The people who oppose the mosque are not being evil by saying they don't want the mosque built near ground zero, they are merely saying that for the respect of those who lost their lives to the extremists of that particular religion. Its a sign of disrespect , to the families and the dead. We as people should look at how others feel,or believe and understand that. So why are the people in favor of this mosque not understand that even if they did not want or take part in 9/11, they have to understand that there religion was. People who believe it was just was part of their religion, thus giving the families and citizens a bad memory of their particular religion. By building this mosque here your are starting conflict, you are starting an issue with those citizens effected or offended , were there was none. As they try to get over their bad feelings toward Muslims, but by doing this you are starting conflict, pushing them right into acceptance. This won't do anything but cause more emotional pain , for those families; and more anger for those offended people. By letting them build this mosque you are causes more prejudice disputes, Allowing for anti-Muslim groups to form similar to the KKK. Killing,bulling, just doing anything possible to make there lives horrible; this is not what we should want. Back to my first question is to why a mosque has to be built in a particular spot were people know will take offense, its makes them sound like they are trying to be offensive to these families. So if they are not trying to be offensive to the people of those families in 9/11 why not try to build it else where? Think about that thought, why does it have to be here, of all the places you could choose; why the one place you know it will be controversial?
The single most defining quality of a legendary monster is corrupt humanity.

Bright red eyes, pale green skin, or other horrifying attributes seem to be at the front of a long line of fears. What is it about these things that make them so horrifying? What is it about a vampire, a giant, or a disfigured silhouette that makes the skin crawl? All of the previous examples show some sort of human characteristic, red eyes are still eyes, and green skin is still skin. It is the human yet still inhuman combination that strikes fear into man's heart. The single most defining quality of a legendary monster is corrupted humanity. The more the human characteristics stand out, the more legendary a monster is. Vampires, for example, can have the appearance of a normal person, but they are not even alive. Dracula, from the book Dracula, by Bram Stoker, can walk "through the crowded streets of [the] mighty London(stoker)," and not be noticed as a monster. He can "be in the midst of the whirl and rush of humanity... share its life, its change, its death, and all that makes it what it is" (Stoker). Dracula has the ability to blend in and have human experiences in the day, but by night he is a monster who drinks the blood of the humans he pretends to be. Dracula can appear almost completely human, but is in truth is a monster, and that is what makes him a legendary monster. The monster from Frankenstein, by Mary Shelly, also had a piece of humanity. Like humans "his soul glowed with love and humanity" (Shelly). If it were not for his horrifying characteristics he could live among humans, but his corrupt figure ruined any chance the monster had to live his life like a normal person. These characteristics push out the human qualities, like love and understanding, that he could have had, had he not have had corrupt characteristics. When the monster comes to the old blind man he is accepted because his figure is not seen, however, once his inhuman characteristics are revealed he is chased away. He was "a miserable spectacle of wrecked humanity" (Shelly), and this is what frightened people and made him a legendary monster. These are just some examples of monsters that are legendary because of their human characteristics. Something about the fact that monsters can be somewhat like themselves scares humans out of their minds. Resources Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Charlottesville, Va.: University of Virginia Library, 1996. Print. Shelly, Mary W.. Frankenstien. Milwaukee: Raintree Publishers, 1981. Print.
Global warming (full resolution in debate)

Resolution: The MAIN CAUSE of global warming is CO2 emissions made by humans My opponent argues CO2 is the MAIN cause of global warming, I argue it is NOT the main cause. Definitions: CO2 emissions - [emission] A substance discharged into the air, especially by an internal combustion engine.[1] he chemical formula for carbon dioxide, a heavy odorless gas (CO2) formed during respiration and by the combustion or decomposition of organic substances; it is absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis. [2] These definitions are flexible, BUT as they are common Knowles I have no need to explain HOW they can stretch, but as long as: 1) Its relevant 2) its not using semantics 3) its not trolling RULES: No trolling No semantics Also, this is to be a real debate, not a troll or semancized debate. Semantics or trolling is an auto FF on the whole debate. =Structure= R1: Acceptance/definitions (questions in comments) R2: Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

I know the sun spins around us for a fact also the moon. See it depends on perspective. Sometimes the sun gets bigger as it goes away and sometimes it gets really small. Yes, A circular movement of the sun and the moon around the earth makes sense. Those countries don't exist. They don't want to get nuked. Also, Everyone accepts the reality of the world with which we are presented. It was nice debating with you.
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

The sun does move in an arc relative to your eyesight. It doesn't get look smaller and get further away as it nears the horizon. In fact, As the sun sets, It looks bigger, As the angle means that the light moves through a larger amount of atmosphere, Acting as a lens. Whether you believ in the heliocentric or geocentric solar sstem is irrelevant to our debate and my argument's claims. Only a circular movement of the sun and the moon makes sense. By rival countries, I don't mean those that compete academically. I mean the ones that aren't on good terms with our government, And aren't receiving any aid from us or our allies.
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

I do not believe we move around the sun. This is an on going debate. Some people say it goes around us and some people say we go around it. I believe we are the center of the universe and everything is aligned to us and everything spins around us. When the sun is going further away from meaning the sun is no longer in our area to be day. NASA does make a lot of money. This is a fact. The non profit organisations like the idea of space so much that its a hobby for them. They can never adventure into space. Only NASA and NASA helps all the other space organisations across the whole world. All of the rivalry countries are in on it. They are all to blame. Many are fooled. (not 100% again. Just claims). FOR THE COMMENTS: We see the top of the mountain and then the middle and then the bottom due to perspective. I am not experienced or informed enough to answer those questions. Good questions for someone more knowledgeable on this topic.