BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org Should Be More Democratic

The Merriam Webster dictionary states that a democracy is "A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting".Debate.org is not a government and as stated in the terms of use (see here http://www.debate.org...) "HOLD HARMLESS Juggle, ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AGENTS, EMPLOYEES,". When you are signing up for debate.org you are doing so agreeing to this. Also many users on debate.org are making stupid and useless debates and are not penalized. Debates like http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... . These users are making terrible debates and some not even being debates yet all can still use debate.org. If us as users have more power debate.org will descend into website of chaos and disorder. For the sake of this website democracy shouldn't even be a thought.
Debate.org Should Be More Democratic

ArgumentsI originally joined debate.org in order to explore and develop my debating skills and to learn new things. However, as I continued on the site, I have come to care for the members. I welcome all new members with all my heart and it pains me to see some go. Yet, the moderators do certain things I and other members oppose. They do certain things I find illogical. For that reason, above all, I believe this community should be more democratic. The President is elected by the members; I concede that is a democratic principle. Yet, the moderators - which there is a limited amount of - have too much power and sometimes misuse it. I do not believe they should simply remove members simply because that person has been reported or blocked. The moderator should provide multiple warnings to the member and only remove them when they have gone too far. I have seen members being removed within minutes of making a mistake. If they are new members, uneducated, or simply stupid, they should be given more chances and an opportunity to grow, develop, and change. I believe members should have more input in the policies moderators and other officials establish. They should be given more voting powers. Instead of there only being a handful of moderators, there should be a few dozen. We cannot simply thrust our trust, concerns, and fears upon a handful of individuals; individuals that perhaps, only perhaps, are on the wrong side of certain issues. Is my stance opinionated? I concede that is partially is. Yet, my opponent and the viewers must acknowledge that the moderators have a tendency to make errors. Errors are what make us human. We are not perfect. However, this commuity should be more democratic than it is right now. I am writing this argument from a computer at school. Forgive me, but I must make it shorter than I originally intended.
Solitary Confinement Use Should be Reduced and Elimanted

My proposal is that there should be no reduction to the time sentenced, however I believe that the conditions could certainly be improved to reduce the amount of health risks. Beyond your whole argument, you used one major point, which I had said previously was completely true and that there was no way to argue against the fact that SC causes those health issues. Your main point was time in SC causes major health issues, and yes, all of it true. SC can take a toll on an inmate"s mental health, which again has been proven upon countless times. We must think of what causes these mental symptoms to occur. The only obvious answer is the conditions by which these inmates" live in and also what there regulations are. If we could change just a few regulations on the subject of SC, the amount of mentally ill inmates would decline dramatically. Regulations such as human contact, time spent in per day, and maybe even more personal items. They could be offered more human contact daily, possibly lessen the amount of hours from 23 to 16 a day, and have more personal items in SC. I don"t propose that we cut down their sentences in SC, but make changes to way SC is done. Concluding Statement: My opponent has made the inmates who are in solitary confinement sound like victims. We must remember that these men, women, and yes, children too, are in there for a reason. For the ones who are serving 16 to 30, or even their whole prison sentence in SC, we must keep in mind that they clearly have committed a heinous crime. So we mustn"t think of them as victims, but rather consider them as hardcore criminals. Hardcore criminal who deserve to serve their time in the harshest ways possible. By harshest ways possible, I absolutely in no way mean that they should serve their time in the current conditions and regulations that are in place for SC as of right now. To not let them be completely restricted of their freedoms, but to have a considerable amount of freedoms, which can be done my reforms. Which in fact, in some states, they are already being put in place. To conclude, we have to be clear on the idea of prison and SC. Prison is meant to restrict ones freedoms because of a crime they have committed, also so is SC as well. We all know that criminals don"t deserve the same freedoms as us, instead they need to pay the price of their crime. Solitary Confinement, after reformations, will no doubt, make inmates serve their true time. Additional Sources: http://www.pbs.org... http://www.aclumaine.org... -I would like to thank my opponent for introducing and executing a very well, organized argument. Pleasure debating with you.
Solitary Confinement Use Should be Reduced and Elimanted

I just want to address something quickly, I do agree with your proposition of making the conditions more suitable, but I don"t think that we should completely rid of the system. Now, in your opening argument, you said, "They have little to no human contact, little space, and little freedom. The cells are between 60 and 80 square feet, furnished with only a cot, toilet, sink, and a small slit for a window, allowing for little to no natural light. The door is steel with a small metal slot for food and for the guard to give orders and directions. There are often search cameras and automatic doors in the more modern prisons, furthering the lack of human contact that prisoners in solitary confinement have" Yes, this is true, this splattered throughout the internet if you were to search solitary confinement, but you are describing these methods as rather inhumane. (Correct me if I"m wrong) These methods are considered punishments, these conditions are meant to punish the inmates. Which again, is the whole point of solitary confinement; to punish the inmates. So, these conditions you describe as wrong, are there for the soul purpose of punishing the inmates for their wrong doings. How is it right for a prisoner to go by without true punishment for committing a crime within the prison? Throughout your whole argument, you mention the fact solitary confinement causes many issue. No one can argue against that, so I won"t even begin to try, but I will say, FOLLOW THE LAW AND THAT WONT HAPPEN TO YOU. You don"t get thrown into solitary confinement for having a pack of cigarettes, you might get thrown in a few days, weeks, or months for having drugs. Those issues you mentioned only develop after being in solitary confinement for a long period of time. For the people that have to serve out their sentences in SC (Solitary Confinement), they have committed heinous acts of injustice against our society. The SHU is used for punishment, and if they don"t want to suffer the horrible consequences of SC, then they shouldn"t commit the crime. It is completely fair and just that any person who commits a crime so horrible that they are sentenced to SC should in fact have to live with the conditions of SC. So, how can one argue that living in those conditions are unfair and wrong? Yet a better question we should ask ourselves, is how is it fair to let a vicious criminal get so many privileges? Additional Sources: http://solitarywatch.com...
Solitary Confinement Use Should be Reduced and Elimanted

I would like to take one second to correct my opponent. Solitary confinement, in the United States at least, was implemented as early as 1826 (Bennion, 2015. ) Also prisoners can spend many more years in segregation than just one. One prisoner in Colorado was kept in isolation for 16 years. (Knowles, 2015. )I do concur that SHU (Special/Secure Housing Unit, for those that don't know) is primarily for punishing the prisoner. However, I believe that our society would benefit more from a rehabilitative approach than a punitive one. Prison is better implemented when it used, as you say, "to turn your life around. " However, with SHU this isn't the case. It causes mental illness in those that do not already have problems and exacerbates mental illness in those that already suffer from mental health issues. I posit that SHU doesn't "build character" but rather it deteriorates character over time. According to Professor Craig Henry, there are five social pathologies that can be caused by solitary confinement. The first of which is “unprecedented totality of control,” where the prisoner feels the loss of all control and suffers from depression and frustration. The second is “chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair. ” The third is the undermining of the prisoner’s sense of self. The fourth is disorientation and fright of social contact and interaction. Finally, the fifth pathology is intolerable levels of frustration, which can lead to anger and sudden, uncontrollable outbursts of rage (Gordon, 2014). I believe, and data seems to back my assumption, that this can cause inmates to become more violent and cause them to commit further crimes in the future. (See previous round)To your last point, I agree that safety is a valid reason to maintain SHU, however I don't believe that it is helpful to the inmate needing protection, nor the prison population needing protection. By causing these inmates nearly irreparable psychological damage and making them more violent it poses a risk to both the inmate and the general population. Thus the reason I suggest improving conditions in SHU, especially for those simply seeking safety from gen. pop. (There is already a form of this in most prison systems, where they are afforded more rights and comforts than SHU inmates. ) (Gordon, 2014) Additional Sources:Banning the Bing: Why Extreme Solitary Confinement is Cruel and Far too Unusual Punishment, Elizabeth Bennion, 2015, Indiana Law Journal, Vol 90:741The Shameful Wall of Exclusion, Jessica Knowles, 2015, Washington Law Review, Vol90:893
Solitary Confinement Use Should be Reduced and Elimanted

Solitary Confinement has been around ever since the 1970"s, it is the act in which an inmate is put into a room with only a cot, toilet, and sink. It usually used for punishment, inmates" own protection, or other inmates" protection. The prisoner is usually held for an average of 23 hours, depending on the severity of the situation. Solitary Confinement, also called the SHU, is used mainly for the purpose of punishment for a prisoner. The prisoner will receive little to no human contact and can be held in there for as long as the officers see fit. So, the prisoner could spend up to a year in solitary confinement, the prisoner will usually be held for about 23 hours a day. Little or no personal items are able to be accessed when in the SHU. Solitary Confinement is not meant to be cruel, it is only meant as a form of punishment or safety. When you are in prison, you are supposed to turn your life around. Do your time and never go back. That"s just what solitary confinement does, being in there allows one to think over their wrong doings. Being in Solitary Confinement will certainly build character over time. Solitary Confinement is also a perfect way for a prisoner to truly serve their sentence. "So, solitary confinement would allow for sentences to be served more accurately in a morally appropriate fashion. " Says the Anonymous author. People say that solitary confinement is one of the hardest ways to do time, which isn"t entirely wrong. Prisoners shouldn"t get the easy pass, they should have to serve their time, the hardest and toughest way. To my last point, safety. Solitary Confinement provides safety, not just for themselves, but to all the other inmates and officers. They are of no danger to themselves or anyone else. . http://connectusfund.org... . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.afsc.org...
Solitary Confinement Use Should be Reduced and Elimanted

I believe that solitary confinement should be phased out of prisons within the United States and eventually eliminated in its current form. Terms:Solitary confinement (or segregation)- placing an inmate within an isolated cell for a period longer than 72 hours for either protection of the inmate, protection of other inmates/the prison, or as a means of punishment. Current Form- Isolated for 23 hours or more in a cell that generally is lit with artificial light 24 hours a day, has nothing more than a cot, sink, and toilet, has no personal items or stimuli, and has little to no human contact for the entirety of their time in segregation. Rules:1. First Round is for acceptance only2. Not forfeiting3. Be respectful, site your sources or post the links at the end of each round, make clear, valid points. 4. No trolling. Format: Round 1: Acceptance of debateRound 2: Intro into your argument, offer a broad outline of your main points with sources you plan to use outright.Round 3: Counter-Argument/Further main points, use this round to further your main points or in order to argue against my main points. (Post any additional sources)Round 4: Conclusion and closing statementsThis is my first debate on here so if I do anything poorly, or just wrong please let me know and I will do my best to fix the problem. Thank you for your understanding and I am excited for my first debate.
Evolution Vs. Anything else

I might say, for the record, that you merely mentioned that scripture isn't scientific proof and therefore wouldn't be "irrelevant". I think I made it clear that I expect few readers to take it as "proof", for I did have several scientific arguments that favoured the belief of creation over the belief of evolution. Actually, my opponent hyperbolizes when he states that creation has no credibility in the scientific community. Believe it or not, but some of the greatest names of science both in the past and present believe in the validity of creation. The mere fact that such contention exists between the two theories suggests that the scientific community takes both possibilities very seriously. I will say that I miscomprehended that you wished for an alternate theory and that this was thus a debate in which nobody but yourself could possibly have emerged victorious. For this, I am sorry - it didn't seem to clear cut to me, for all of the reasons I have specified. I hope that this doesn't create any animosity between us for future debates, especially since we're booked for an Impromptu in 2011. Cheers! 1st Lord of the Venerability
Evolution Vs. Anything else

My opponent is correct when he states that I would like to get a new and fresh perspective of the human origin. He is incorrect when he calls Creationism credible, at least in the scientific community and for the intents and purposes of this debate. Creationism is based PURELY on scpripture, and some notion of an intelligent designer. Because I have no interest in having the same debate I have had countless times in my life, my opponent tries to accept my debate under false pretenses. To my opponent, I would like to be very concise. You took on a debate without reading the rules, or you decided that the rules did not apply to you. Either way, no one should accept responsibility but you. Also, because of the rules(No Scripture), your argument has not a single leg to stand on. No matter what form of creationism you believe[1], it is based in scripture(my opponent does not even deny this), which is not valid in this debate. Like I said before, I ask the readers for the conduct vote, simply because I got stuck in a debate with someone who decided that his opinion was more important than the rules of this debate. Good day to all. 1.http://www.google.com...
Evolution Vs. Anything else

The only way I will, "bow out," as my opponent utilizes the colloqialism, is if voters either vote for myself or to tie. I simply can't otherwise abandon a debate arguing two credible theories. It seems to me that my opponent is looking for some sort of extraordinary New Age explanation for the origin of the universe - how he intends for anybody to conjure something and debate it with any credibility over evolution or creationism is beyond my faculties to ponder. Furthermore, my opponent is clearly concluding prematurely that I intend to riddle the debate with Biblical references and verses - I do not in any way intend to debate in that manner, since many people question the authority of the Bible. I do, however, need the readers to comprehend the background and structure of young earth creationism. Thanks for reading. If anybody is interested, I would like to pursue a valid creation/evolution debate in the New Year. Apologies to the readers and to pro for the time. Cheerio!
Evolution Vs. Anything else

Greetings, good luck and have fun. I'm going to argue on behalf of Young Earth Creation: that God (we shant contend his existence in this debate) created the earth, animals, plants, man and everything else existing in it in a mere six days. I am going to utilize reasoning and scientific proof to rebut evolution, but I am going to have to refer to Scripture in order to support Creationism. I'll outline some flaws in evolution in the first round and then allow my opponent to proceed with his own case and rebuttals. 1. Evolution textbooks first claim that they are religiously neutral, but they then explicitly verbally attack creationism and Christianity. 2. Evolution textbooks are perpetually changing, and scientists "discover" certain links between animals etc. only later to discover that they were incorrect. There is no simply formula as to how evolution could possibly work. 3. Evolution scientists can't agree, and there are dozens of theories and discarded theories - this doesn't seem to indicate a scientific truth. 4. The question remains, "How did an amoeba form from barren rock in inhospitable atmospheres?" And then how did an amoeba morph into a higher life form? They can't even create a living amoeba in perfect laboratory conditions. 5. The debate between evolution and creation is not so much a debate between the two, but rather, "... which bias in the correct bias with which to be biased!" (Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, pg. 17). 6. Mutation causes a loss of genetic data - not gains, as evolution requires. 7. Evolution requires that non living chemicals organize themselves into a self-producing organism. This is virtually impossible. Creationism merely requires interbreeding and reproduction of one's kind. Cheerio! Enjoy the debate!
Evolution Vs. Anything else

This debate is informal, and I thank anyone who accepts it. The rule is, any arguments have to have scientific proof to back them up. Scripture is not scientific proof, and is irrelevent to this debate. I am obviously pro evolution, and look forward to any possible evidence to the alternative. Keep in mind, lack of evidence for one thing does not necessarily point to evidence of another. This is all I have for introductions, and I look forward to a good challenge.
Drug Use in Sports

Since I am going to argue for the use of drugs like stimulant, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin and Blood Doping in sports events. I hereby list out my arguments: C1: Drugs like stimulant and etc. Are performance boosting drugs during sport events: Drugs like stimulant and also muscle/hormone growth are common practice in some sport areas, For example: it is common knowledge that the fighters in AFL or other television events use these drugs before the event happened. Despite many arguments that these drugs are harmful to human body, Body stimulant drugs are used in many normal competitions. C2: The current technology is expensive, And also inadequate enough. One of the most famous quote in the tour of france is the following: You have no idea what the Tour de France is", Henri said. "It's a Calvary. Worse than that, Because the road to the Cross has only 14 stations and ours has 15. We suffer from the start to the end. You want to know how we keep going? Here. . . " He pulled a phial from his bag. "That's cocaine, For our eyes. This is chloroform, For our gums. " "This", Ville said, Emptying his shoulder bag "is liniment to put warmth back into our knees. " "And pills. Do you want to see pills? Have a look, Here are the pills. " Each pulled out three boxes. "The truth is", Francis said, "that we keep going on dynamite. " Henri spoke of being as white as shrouds once the dirt of the day had been washed off, Then of their bodies being drained by diarrhoea, Before continuing: "At night, In our rooms, We can't sleep. We twitch and dance and jig about as though we were doing St Vitus's Dance. . . " "There's less flesh on our bodies than on a skeleton", Francis said. This might be a joke, But the truth is, These long range races are suffering to the people who are participating in them. Also, Lance Armstrong, A legendary doping figure in the Tour De France had also talked about 1 single thing: "It is impossible to go on without drugs. "
Drug Use in Sports

Drug use in sports poses a negative effect on the user's health. Enacting the legalization of drug use in sports seeks an unfair advantage towards other athletes and sets a bad perception on how athletes should compete in sports. Drugs I am talking about are: stimulants, Anabolic-androgenic steroids, Erythropoietin, And 'blood doping' (practice of increasing the number of red blood cells in one's circulatory system). But I'm open to HGH (human growth hormone) ONLY if it is prescribed to them and they do not use it with anabolic steroids or testosterone.
Moose are stronger than elaphant

"First of all I said nothing about how many humans are killed by moose." That's cause you never said anything as an argument. "Moose get into fights more and tend to be more vicious in fights than elephants." Uh, no, not really... When a moose fights with another moose, they use antlers and duel. When elephants get in fights, they stampede, kick, and can cause massive damage. I have previously shown that they can tip over cars and trucks when they're angry and they can endure human punishment in a fight. Moose cannot because they are weaker. "Elephants are afraid of mice." Afraid is a mental state, and strong is a physical state, so that point is completely irrelevant. The moose has predators such as bears, humans, wolves, and wolverines. Since moose mainly stay in groups, it takes quite a few wolves to take down a moose, however, it could take just the same amount of wolves to fell a single or two elephants, due to their size and tremendous strength. "Elaphants (elephants) get into less fights and dont really attack people." If elephants get into less fights than moose, then how are 500 humans killed every year by elephants? And how can you not "really attack people?" My opponent has not refuted my points and has very scarce and weak points.