BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'

This website is technology. Any piece of software is digital. Anything used to make some action easier is a tool. Debate.org is therefore a digital tool, as my opponent even noted as one of the possible things that could be used to classify it as technology. And it's definitely a product or system, the words used in the original definition. The fact is, debate.org is a piece of technology. My opponent then states that even if debate.org fits this definition of technology, every other definition still proves that it is not technology. This is the most backwards thing I've ever heard. An automatic garlic chopper is not technology by every definition. It only needs to be under one definition to make it technology. Not ONE piece of technology fits all definitions thereof. It should now be obvious that only one definition must hold true for debate.org to fit under "technology." Next, my opponent suggests that looking at debates can help the webmaster weigh the pros and cons of new features, citing DarthGrievous's debate. I can tell you that the webmaster has in fact seen this debate, yet 3.0 is still in the works, with all the said features. Why? Because debate does not always show whether the idea is good or not. Sometimes, people can argue for a side that should not win, yet they will dominate the debate. The voting results do not affect how the people at large feel. As Darth said himself in his opening argument, "I'll remind you that your personal opinions are not the standard of your voting, but which debater proved their point better." The webmaster has already looked at the features and weighed the advantages and disadvantages for the site, and I'm sure he's found the changes to be quite positive. People don't just implement new features without considering why they should or why they should not. As I said, people's votes do not reflect their personal opinions, so it cannot be used as a poll. (Oooh, a poll, that sounds like something we'll have in 3.0) Alright, I admit that it would be very simple to simply add the new category to 3.0. However, it would be nonsensical and inconsistent to do so. All the other categories are big umbrellas. As I said in round 1, "Debate.org" just doesn't fit among big umbrella categories like "Arts" or "Business." Overall, I believe I have provided sufficient reasons why a Debate.org category should not be made. The developers already have superior, more sensible ways to get people's opinions. It is therefore not worth it for them to add a category whose debates already have a place and whose existence among the categories would be inconsistent. A Debate.org debate category should not be added to Debate.org.
Resolved: Debate.org should feature a catagory of debate called 'debate.org'

I will go over every arguement, and prove to you voters why I win this debate. First, my opponent claims that Debate.org fits under my definition of a digital tool. Inevitably, this is incorrect. A 'tool' is a material object. A website is definitly not a material object. Althought this computer may be digital, the keyboard is digital, my speakers are digital, etc., THIS WEBSITE IS NOT. This argument can NOT even APPLY; a website is not something you can touch, therefore it is not a material, digital, or electronic object. All in all, this argument PROVES that debate.org is not technology. The CON side only argues one definition, hence all of the other definitions still disprove that debate.org is technology. Plus, just now, I have proven that this definition does too. THEREFORE, A DEBATE.ORG CATAGORY IS ESSENTIAL. There is no place to put these debates, and another catagory would clear up the confusion. Secondly, my opponent drops the search function arguement, and only has left the comment box. But, there is one clear way to prove why CON is wrong: the point of having a debate is not only to suggest, but decide whether or not new features will be a good thing. Take DarthGrevious's debate for example (http://www.debate.org...). This debate protests 3.0, and shows the flaws in them. This sends an effective message that some people like debate.org the way it is. However, debates like these could make a person change their mind: even in the case of the webmaster. It could weigh the pros and cons of a feature and it could show them what the people want, even more so than a little suggestion. Moreover, if one person opposed something, they could send a comment that they oppose. But if a thousand people opposed, and only one person sent a suggestion, the two would be weighed the same. Having people vote would give an effective barometer of what people think of the site. Lastly, my opponent attemps to create some offense after I pointed out that he has none. Furthermore, he claims that the staff should focus on 3.0. This arguement is almost laughable. First, why can't this be part of 3.0? It seems that, according to the sneak peak photos, this catagory will not be in place in 3.0. So, this suggestion could fit very well with the coming of a NEWER VERSION. In fact, it would be even MORE CONVIENT for the webmaster to make this in the upcoming version. Secondly, although I am no webmaster, I seriously doubt that putting this in place would be hard to do. After all, the webmaster has created 11 of these already, so it is apparently not that hard. Plus in 3.0, it seems the catagories are only designed like hyperlinks, which seem even less hard to do. All in all, you can vote PRO for this debate. I have disproven all of my opponent's arguments, and extended all of my points which are valid for you to vote on. I thank you for voting, and I thank Beem0r for this debate.
Religion Is Bad and God (Probably) Does Not Exist

RULES: *the usual* The only evidence of god is the bible and testimonial hearsay. Little to no evidence of Jesus exists currently, though I admit that his existence was possible. Supposed encounters and interactions with an ethereal being as such are all void of evidence. Religious beliefs should be kept within personal boundaries, yet people allow them to influence society's advancement in science and politics. This in turn leads to negative consequences within the countries that religious people inhabit: specifically democracies. As a result, elected officials and authorities can (and have) impose[d] unwanted laws such as making abortion illegal and disallowing gay marriage. More so, religion impacts scientific progression in society by insisting that evolution and dinosaurs are falsities, and that the universe was created by a mystical being. Additionally, most religions in the world seem to be plagiarized versions of increasingly older religions [http://www.youtube.com... *THE VIDEO TO THE RIGHT*]. The facts in the movie this clip was taken from (Zeitgeist) are indeed truthful. Religion has indeed caused many wars and atrocities in the past. To justify this statement all one must do is a bit of research. Religious leaders, like the pope, use donations from churches to buy golden chairs and scepters instead of feeding the poor and assisting humanity in need. Christianity for an example leads people to do good for the wrong reason; people of Christianity do good in God's will. They do not do good for the sake of goodness. One might ask "If they do good, why does it matter what they do it for?". Well, the good that is done may remain, but they would not have made themselves better people. Religion impels people to have a phony sense of security after death. This means people may feel okay to do things such as this [http://www.dailymail.co.uk...]. This concludes my first argument.
Nowadays, an Islamic African-American Woman has more "Rights" than a Christian White Man

Nowadays, an Islamic African-American woman has more "rights" than a Christian White man in America. By "rights", I mean more ability to do things that they want and succeed. Yes, America was so eager to avoid a world run only by white Christian males that we're now going in the opposite direction. Here is my reasoning: 1. Religion From "America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It", page 66: "He's also the fellow who helped devise the three-week Islamic awareness course in California public schools, in the course of which students adopt Muslim names, wear Islamic garb, give up candy and TV for Ramadan, memorize suras from the Koran, learn that 'jihad' means 'internal personal struggle,' profess the Muslim faith, and recite prayers that begin 'In the name of Allah,' etc. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the same court that ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words 'under God'-decided in this case that making seventh graders play Muslim for two weeks was perfectly fine, just an interesting exposure to a fascinating 'culture' from which every pupil can benefit. Separation of church and state? That maybe, but nobody said nuthin' about separation of mosque and state." Yes, we feel as if we should not impose our religion to others, but we also feel that we must not stop other religions from imposing themselves upon us. Also, calling the Middle East "the Muslim world" is perfectly acceptable, but calling the West "the Christian world" is against the Constitution. 2. Race Supporters of affirmative action firmly believe that whites have some unwritten advantage when it comes to college and job applications. Their solution is to give other races a written advantage that forces colleges and businesses to accept other races at a ratio that does not properly reflect the ratio of applicants, and results in less whites getting in to colleges and jobs than if race was completely ignored. Furthermore, Barack Obama got a large number of votes from African Americans just because he was black. http://thesop.org... Apparently, it is good to vote FOR someone because he is another race, but bad to vote AGAINST him for it. Also, some people think that "black" is a racist term, even though "white" is a perfectly acceptable term, and "black" should thus be a perfectly acceptable comparison. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Gender Currently, women are not part of the draft in American government. http://en.wikipedia.org... Additionally, at the Houston Regional Science Fair, there was award from some Women's Rights advocate group that gave a Special Award to some random girls with good projects. If a group came out that only gave awards to guys, they would get yelled at for being sexist, but the other way around is perfectly okay. This is how racism (http://en.wikipedia.org...), religious segregation (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and sexism (http://en.wikipedia.org...) are going from against the oppressed to against a new oppressed. Thank you to whoever accepts my challenge.
THBT Now Is A Good Time To Be Young

You, sir, have just described the whole of history. Every generation considers itself morally superior to the last and infinitely greater than the next. Poverty, unfortunate as it is, is a constant that has pervaded every society since man first learned how to use bones as clubs. If I recall, it's adults who are so against vaccines because of false medical reports and church doctrines. But we live in an age where youth have access to endless amounts of information, and aiding those in these countries, even in the most minute ways, is easier. Take Haiti, for example. Within an hour of the earthquake, people all over the world were using this technology to send money, food, and supplies to them despite knowing nobody there. Same with pampering parents. Every generation has people like that. Just because you remember growing up in a time when you thought nobody did wrong doesn't mean bad things didn't still happen around you. It's far from utopia, but we aren't exactly lynching people.
THBT Now Is A Good Time To Be Young

I believe that now is not a good time to be young just because if you take a look at the current state of today's youth, the generation has take a turn for the worse. I say this because the children before used to go out and enjoy their lives and not worry of being abducted or assaulted. However, nowadays, parents don't let their child even leave the house because they are afraid of something bad happening to their children. Is this what you want Generation Y to be like? A bunch of cowards not even knowing how to defend themselves because they were so pampered by their parents? I presume your answer is no. Secondly, the state of the children in Africa in this decade is not that different from the state of the poverty-stricken people back in the 60's. You see, nothing has really improved compared to the olden days especially, in Africa. Now, of course the people of wealthy countries think that now is a good time to be young but, they don't consider the luck of the Africans. Most of them have been diagnosed with HIV or polio because they didn't have proper access to modern day vaccinations. How can you say that now is a great time to be young when these things are happening to today's youth? With that I rest my case.
I would make a better emperor of earth than you

My opponent's political platform is one which is not suitable for a world emperor. For instance, he clearly cannot distinguish between different people with the same first name. The executioner, Edward, who is not an actor who is portrayed by actor Robert Pattinson, is not who Harrison thinks he is. In actuality, Edward's disco stick is of a length and girth unmeasureable by regular human means. His tallywhacker of justice is one which would make the "torture" process one which is very... interesting. As for his domestic policy, I also have the upper hand, as I would be more in favor of taking out all the whites. Out of all the ethnic groups, they pose the largest threat to my empire, in terms of both economic and cultural stability. All of the world's greatest wars, famines, and revolutions have occured at the hand of white people. Taking them off the planet would assure a peaceful and easy-to-rule Earth, without the ugly whites infesting its most beautifl landscapes. My opponent, a cracker himself, would be first on the list of caucasians sent via poorly-built rocket ship to the edge of the atmosphere, where they would then be pushed out by mutant dog-henchemen into a great fall to the ground. Their burning corpses falling from the stratosphere would make for a lovely light show for all my colored subjects, and we would watch on, laughing, drinking, and having wild, unprotected intercourse. In this instance, Edward would be made "Chief Minister to the Sex", and would oversee said orgies.
I would make a better emperor of earth than you

Lies! You have no proof that I have a widow's peak, you slandering piece of dry white meat. You also claim that Edward is well endowed, when Edward is ACTUALLY played by Robert Pattinson. In fact, the average genitalia size of a male from the UK, such as R-Pattz, is approximately 5.1 inches. This is not very well-endowed, as my opponent would lead you to believe. My final rebuttal to my unattractive opponent, would be why just Joan River's old muff? Why not also Bette White's and Madonna's? The public has an unadulterated right to post-menopausal pink tacos. As for political ideology, I am far superior. I describe myself as a laissez-faire authoritarian. I believe in the right of a global emperor to deflower EVERY bride before she is wed, that way she may be pure the rest of her life. Also, it is of utmost importance for myself to get a flying mansion, so my subjects know through this figurative language that I am above them, and am always watching. I do believe in economic laissez-faire, but businesses will have to pay me so I do not have their CEO's assassinated. Boom-Shakalaka
I would make a better emperor of earth than you

Before I begin, I would like to make it very clear that MattHarrison also has a widows peak. He is insecure with himself, so much so that he chooses to attack others to make himself feel above them, and so he thinks he's not like the majority of human beings. On the topic of my heritage, it matters little in terms of ability to rule the Earth. In fact, if it does at all, I would be in a position of advantage, as I have more varied genes, allowing me to connect with a wider group of people because we share the same blood. Also, I hold more desirable political views that most Americans agree with. "Why Americans? We're talking about the world.", you say? Well, America is the only part that matters, and will be one of the only parts left once my reign is over. Anyway, I support gay marijuana marriage, gun control, no gun control, free Nutella for all, and free access to Joan Rivers' hot steamy late-menopausal vaginal cavity! Also, as Emperor of Everything, widows peaks would be required by law by punishment of violent penetration followed by death. This would force my opponent to either admit the existence of his widow's peak, or perish at the hands of Edward, our well-endowed executioner. This would be funny for everyone, making me the better king.
I would make a better emperor of earth than you

Well first of all you don't own a horse you stole mine, you ruined his hooves. Regardless, I will begin with the personality traits I possess that you don't. I come from a more pure breed than you , making you a mut compared to me. Also on the topics of me being genetically superior to Con, I do not possess a certain disgusting genetic trait that the opposition has, a widows peak. This makes him barely a human being, and in fact my friends, not genetically fit for emperor of earth. Do we really want a person with a pointy hair-line, and impure heritage ruling our lands. Your ancestors should be ashamed of you... On a final note for this argument, my friend on the opposition also finds issues when it comes to moral integrity. He is, IN FACT, a loose woman. I can even quote him as saying, "I am a loose woman." We need a man of a higher moral standard to rule earth. Vote Matt, or else...
RE: God's Existance

Con, you have challenged me to this debate. And then you have told me to start it? The burden of proof is on you respectively. However, we have wasted too much time. So I will present my first argument. Allow me to stun you all. There is NO and I mean NO alternative to our beginning without the presence of some "God". Evolution ( The alternative to God) suggests ALL life came from a single simple cell, this single cell was composed of Hydrogen and Helium (the primary matter found in stars), this Hydrogen and Helium was NOT present or resulting directly from the big bang theory. Instead, theory suggests that the light beams that erupted from the big bang SOMEHOW (notice the unexplained) began to DEVELOP (develop is as specific as it gets as there is NO explanation) into Hydrogen and Helium bundles, which then began to develop into stars, and then into planets, and water, sand and rocks came from those bundles. Next we have these light beams evolving SOMEHOW (again no explanation) developed into living beings. These living beings existed in a simple state for approximately 3.5 billion years before developing into emotional, rational humans. Of course NONE of this can explain the complexity of our eyes. That's right, evolution cannot explain the origin of our eyes, and how material that was separate from us became apart of us. This entire false PROCESS, if you will give it that, is absurd! How did light beams transform into emotional beings that experience joy and sorrow? How did light beams differentiate between plants, animals, bacteria, and humans? Answer me that. Don't be too burdened, NO PERSON has ever been able to explain this. However, I present to you the ONLY alternative to this. God. God created the world, universe, animals, plants, and humans. If you cannot show me otherwise, I win. This is only one of 20 arguments for Gods existence I have studied in the topic of Christian Apologetics. Con, I urge you to answer the question of the origin of life IN DETAIL, vividly explaining the process. If you fail to do this, I win this debate.
RE: God's Existance

Ahh, no. In any positive claim, it is the responsibility of the claimant to provide evidence of the claim. By way of analogy, in a courtroom setting the claim of a gods existence is the prosecutions job. If you cannot provide evidence -or since we are in Round 3 now even an argument- for Yaweh to actually be real, I win. For me to try to prove that the Christian God does not exist, is the same problem as trying to prove that leprechauns, unicorns, or anything else does not exist- I would have to look behind every tree in every field, under every rock on every beach in every continent. On every planet, around every star in every galaxy, and- hey look I've got other stuff to do. My argument, simply put, is that you have not met you burden of proof. You established in your first debate the position that "God Exists". I looked through the nearest old mythology I could reach, full of a magical creation, the jealousy and war among the host, a actual GOD being killed and then the miraculous resurrection after three days, and my response is "Meh, not buying this story of Ra, Isis, and Set." [http://www.sacred-texts.com...] Then you hastily point out that those stories are just silly, every one knows that! It is this other god that is real, this other book full of absurdities and supernatural claims that is a true story. I'm asking you what is the difference? Balls in your court, Liquidus, as it must be for any positive claim. Show some indication of the Christian god, or you necessarily lose.
RE: God's Existance

In the previous debate, you stated as the Pro that God Exists. As the Con, I my first counter is, "which god?" Are you trying to demonstrate: 1.) A limited deity, such as Thor or Apollo? These are both beings that are immortal, capable of more than human feats, and are shown as dwelling in a place other than the mortal realm. Typically these are also shown as having direct contact with humans, which would make itself an excellent proof. Autographs would be nice, video preferred. Id give bonus points for chutzpah if you are willing to show an entire pantheon exists. 2.) An unlimited or nearly unlimited deity, such as YHWH? I wont bore everyone with a truly OMNI- whatever deity. Those can be shown to be logically paradoxical, so I'll just specify that this God is not an anthropomorphic god, but one that created and controls all of nature, and can suspend natural law to perform magic feats. Here, showing a genuine, not of this earth miracle would clearly constitute evidence. Getting this God to actually show up in an unambiguous way would be better. 3.) A prime mover or "perfect" deity, as the Deists believe in? Frankly, I don't how you can provide evidence of a god that simply has no interest in showing up at all, or whose motives are necessarily unfathomable, making the agnostics correct. In sum, I would like some direct, practical, evidence that any of the beings I describe actually exist. Until then, I simply won't be able to say that these entities are real, let alone tell which of the thousands of descriptions of the divine I have studied, glanced at, or tried to ignore on street corners I would need to look more closely at.