BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conceding and voiding debates.

Your suggestions are good, and I've already thought of them before. However, none of them address my main concern, which is to push a debate to voting status as soon as the debate has come to a standstill. Conceding the debate automatically registers it as a WIN on the opponent's part and nulls voting. Voting wouldn't be necessary in that case. If we followed your suggestion on forgoing the extra rounds, the opponent would get to give a response, but for what purpose? The debate is over. All it would do is delay the voting period, which as I have said before, has no use in a conceded debate anyway. Any additional comments should be made in the comment section. As for your recommendations that we forgo our responses to show the strength of our arguments, that seems like a tactic aimed at winning based on votes, which I am against. If we are to debate, we should win based on the validity and strength of our arguments, not necessarily on tricks to convince voters. Besides, your opponent, no matter how terrible, deserves a response. It's just plain courtesy. All in all, your suggestion to be able to "forego" rounds is just a slower version of my conceding or voiding debates. There's no reason to choose to forego rounds as opposed to conceding or voiding. You also recommended extending debate time to busy opponents. I find this to be a bad idea because we would have a floating debate making absolutely no progress. I find this to be a problem already. Currently, it would take 3 days per round to end a debate that has come to a standstill. Your suggestion would make it even longer. With my method, all you do is void the debate and start it again when your opponent isn't so busy. That way, no one's scores get hurt, there's no unnecessary voting, and we free forum space. Your final point about lengthening the number of rounds, I'm so-so about. While it seems good in theory, there really should be a limit. Debate is about putting your points forward as succinctly as possible, not who gets the last post or who's the most long-winded. Adding in extra rounds may be more enjoyable to debaters, but not to voters or spectators. And it definitely takes away from the integrity of debate. If we implement these ideas of yours, debates would definitely be longer, but not necessarily better. I'm trying to improve quality by trimming out the crappy debates (when one person leaves, when one person concedes, when one person just doesn't want to respond or can't respond, etc.) Your suggestions prioritize quantity over quality. Bad debates don't need to be longer, and good debates don't need to be dragged on forever. That would make them bad.
Conceding and voiding debates.

You don't need to concede the debate or void the debate. You need to have the ability to change the stats on the debate while the debate is ongoing. I have had debates where they were too short, where there was still a large amount of on going debate to be had by both parties. As such, all you really need is the ability to forgo future rounds in the debate. Which would still allow the other side to make remarks about your debate. But, forgo the 3 day wait between rounds on your side. Secondly, there should be an option to change the number of debate rounds or increase the debate time. If one party isn't going to be around for a week, they can ask that they be given a week delay. If a debate is going better you can ask your opponent to expand the debate rounds. If your opponent seems to be around, you should be allowed to give your opponent more time unilaterally. I understand the need to concede a debate due to a changed position or because somebody picked out a major flaw in your argument. However, due to time constraints there should be simply better responses than concede or void debate. Further, you should be allowed to declare victory perhaps. What if I crush your argument in round one with such an overwhelming argument that to add to its force I choose to simply forgo all my future rounds? Boom, crushed that argument. I'm done. That wins. I'll forgo the rest of the argument here. I think that your view here is a bit narrow and that resigning and voiding debates due to time constraints would be excessive. You simply need to allow a person to choose a bit more about the time constraints. If my opponent wants to reply and posts such in the comments. I should be allowed to give him or her some additional time to for the argument. Or to allow additional rounds to be requested by both parties, or a truncation of rounds if the debate is settled. Further, what if I don't concede. What if I've won the argument and don't care to write that I've won. I should be able to forgo my future rounds without conceding or forfeiting. We don't need those features as there are better features to deal with the problem you are describing.
Conceding and voiding debates.

I won't get too flowery with this opening statement. There are many instances where a person may start a debate and not be able to finish it. Schoolwork, family emergencies, etc. These can interfere with a debate. In addition, a person may have made a fatal error in judgment, or realized that an opponent's point cannot be countered. I believe that there should be two extra options: 1. Concede debate. This automatically takes you out of the debate. The benefit of this is that in a multi-round debate, if you find you cannot win, or want to concede for any other reason, you don't force the rest of the site to wait 3 days per round before they can vote. 2. Void debate This sends a request to the opponent to void the debate. In this case, there are no winners and the debate is deleted. Thus, a person cannot be voted for unfairly if the opponent has encountered some emergency.
Supernaturalism is impossible.

But I would argue it does. If the supernatural is either impossible or meaningless, it cannot exist. If it is impossible then it is impossible. But what does it mean to say "the supernatural exists" if one accepts it's meaningless? It means nothing. Thus as it means nothing the supernatural lacks any possibility of being true. Yes we have limits on our knowledge, but one would need unlimited knowledge to make an appeal to magic when confronted by seemingly inexplicable events. It is an argument stemming from our lack of knowledge. A reversal of the theist claim that I would need to be omniscient to rule out the supernatural.
Supernaturalism is impossible.

Thank you for your response. If supernaturalism is only meaningful in the context of negating natural causes and it is impossible for us to know that natural causes have been negated. It follows that supernaturalism is impossible and therefore false. A theist could take the defence of stating that the supernatural is meaningless and therefore not even false, but whilst that may be open to the theist position it hardly seems to improve it. Apologies if that was not clear from the premises. Is it clear now or do you believe I have missed a step here? P1 is probably the premise to attack.
Supernaturalism is impossible.

To rule in the supernatural, we need a transcendent knowledge base precisely because our knowledge is limited to begin with. And since supernatural effects can only be deduced if one has no limits of knowledge, then naturalism is absolute. We can express both lines of evidence in this way: P1) Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes. P2) Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge. P3) Human knowledge is limited. C1) Supernaturalism is impossible. (from P1, P2 and P3) C2) Naturalism is an absolute. (from C1) P1) through P2) Human knowledge is limited. Naturalism and naturalistic causes are assumed in each and every example of human experience, through a process of induction and an appeal to the simplest possible explanation. Supernatural explanations are always more complex as they invoke mysterious, un-knowable, mystical agents. There is a 3 step approach we can consider: Step 1) if we see a potentially supernatural event we first question of the validity of the observation, equipment, method and approach. If this completely rules out a natural explanation we go to step 2) Step 2) we question as to whether a new area of science has opened up and look to establish repeatable observations, and assess them through an explanatory natural framework. If we can rule out this possibility we go to step 3) Step 3) we are left in a meaningless position because of we can only rule in a supernatural explanation, anything could be happening to our sense and reasoning and there is no way to determine truth To overturn this and rule in the supernatural, we need a transcendent knowledge base precisely because our knowledge is limited to begin with. And since supernatural effects can only be deduced if one has no limits of knowledge, then naturalism is absolute. We can express both lines of evidence in this way: P1) Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes. P2) Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge. P3) Human knowledge is limited. C1) Supernaturalism is impossible. (from 1, 2 and 3) C2) Naturalism is an absolute. (from 4)
Supernaturalism is impossible.

I thought that you meant meaningless as in it is impossible to prove, not that it is impossible. All Pro has done is prove that it is impossible to know if a cause was supernatural. How that translates into supernaturalism being impossible is a mystery. In fact, Pro's own reasoning is his own downfall. Since we don't know the cause, we can't rule out supernaturalism. Somehow, we are obliged to still say that naturalism has to be the answer. It may be the likely answer, but without proof either way, it remains a 50-50 chance.
Supernaturalism is impossible.

Hi, Thanks for the debate. I refer you to your responses in Round 1 (R1) and Round 4 (R4). You appear to contradict yourself in stating: R1) "Well, congratulations on proving it is not meaningful. However, you didn't prove it was impossible...[snip]..."; then R4) "...[snip]...All we proved is that super-naturalism isn't a definitive cause. That doesn't show it's meaningless...[snip]..." To summarise the debate, I have tried to argue that the Supertnatural is impossible - because it is not possible for humans to ever know whether it applies. Humans are obliged to argue for naturalism as an absolute. The challenge presented in R1 - R3 was that one could argue that the argument only concludes the supernaturalism is meaningless, but still possible. I have to conclude that if the supernatural is meaningless, then in a sense it is in a worse position of being 'not even possible'. Thanks again for the exchange.
Supernaturalism is impossible.

Yes of course I see your point. But I struggle to make sense out of your analysis of this. Impossibility would presuppose a zero chance of being possible. Being possible would presuppose a likelihood. A likelihood would presuppose there being something with attributes to be likely. But, meaninglessness entails that the attributes of something are without meaning, they/it mean nothing. If something means nothing it has no attributes that make it ikely in the first place, if it has no likelihood it has no possibility, and is therefore impossible. I suppose a simpler rejoinder is what does it mean to say "the supernatural is meaningless, but still possible"?
Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries.

Your argument is good, your points are well made, and I have just realized one thing. That is, that each of us agree that education and punishment should be balanced, right? Now that I have isolated the things that we agree on, we can look at more concerning matters. Harlan: "I think using their organs against their will would be immoral and dishonoring." Can I just say, that criminals decide to donate their organs, as with the case of the gang leader in Singapore. He said to his wife and mistress that he wanted to donate his organs. After he was hanged, the organs were given to needy people, saving at least 5 lives. Harlan: "You have made it clear that the crux of the problem is not that they are alive, but that they are being released from jail when they shouldn't be. The same people who you are suggesting to be jazzed with electricity could simply be kept in jail for life." Harlan, do judges really put them in for life? Face the reality, they will not be put in for life. After another 10-20 years, they'll come out and kill more. 'One-third of the nation's executions take place in Texas—and the steepest decline in homicides has occurred in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas, which together account for nearly half the nation's executions.' That is a good point made by whoever made that. Harlan: "'Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe.' Well, too bad. It's their job." I can point out that people can find new jobs. Harlan: "Fairness is a narrow-minded and naive way of punishing criminals. Punishment should never be about fairness. It should be about discouraging criminals, and (if the punishment is one compatible with this goal) possibly keep them away from society for practical reasons. I fail to see a reason to punish people for the sake of fairness." If everyone was as narrow-minded as Harlan, people would kill more openly, knowing that they won't be jailed up for long. Knowing that they will be out soon. To do it all again. Thats usually/always the case. 'Two gun' Crowley: "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one - one that would do no body any harm." And when Crowley arrived at the electric chair, did he say: "This is what I get for killing?". No. He said: "This is what I get for defending myself." Al Capone: "I have spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." So I would like to conclude, that I reckon that education and punishment should be used together with greater effectiveness and greater efficiency. The death sentence will be used in appropriate situations. But if possible, be deterred. Therefore, the death sentence should stay, and be used under certain circumstances. Also, alright has one L.
Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries.

My opponent has 3 main parts to his argument. I will answer each of these in turn. 1. That the Criminals have to "pay the price". It is a commonly accepted moral concept that two wrongs do not make a right. Basicaly, immoral acts are never warranted, even when the victim of said acts is inhumane and immoral to the extreme. The moral aspects of this ideology are obviously flawed. The only practical aspect of this is idea is that it may discourage people from performing horrible acts. I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear. 2. The organs of felons could be harvested and put into the bodies of other people. Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs. Furthermore, I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized. Or at least consent from the family. It also seems unlikely to me that the sort of people who end up getting the death sentance are people who are very healthy. 3. It would decrease the # of murders. The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one. And even if this were a genuine problem, the most serious of prisoners (that might have people on the outside who could break them out), could simply put in a higher security prison, such as alkatraz. This seems like a practical and humane solution to the same problem. Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution. There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary. And while it would be more efficient, it is inhumane. It is not absolutely necessary, and therefore it should be avoided, considering the matter at hand.
Death sentences should be introduced for extremely serious charges in all countries.

There once was a man who killed a couple of people, went into jail, came out to kill more people, went back in again, and killed more people after coming out. There wouldn't have been so many deaths if a death sentence was introduced. This may seem inhumane, but since when did killing people become humane? In some countries, there is no death sentence, and since there isn't, it should be introduced. First of all, death sentences reduce the number of cold criminals behind bars. They carried out serious offences, now they have to pay the price, it all seems pretty normal. Secondly, the organs and body parts they have could be donated to those who need them. This is a good way to repay all the lives that the criminal has killed. Thirdly, a death sentence introduced could decrease the number of murders every year. When pre-criminals hear that a death sentence is being introduced, they usually stop. This is a good way to stop serious assault and murder and a way to save lives. Thus the death sentence should be introduced to countries who don't have such a law.
Health Care

Health care is a hot topic right now. I would love to have debated whatever facet the instigator offered. He refused. 1. I asked for definitions and Con refused. 2. I asked for clarification on broad terms and Con refused. I cannot debate the Pro side of a topic the instigator refuses to define and clarify. When a new debater offers a debate with vague terms, I generally attack whatever premise can be culled and I ask for definitions and sources. This method allows for a solid round 2 and a chance to offer a conclusion. I was more than fair in this debate. I am sorry to voters that Con insisted on using broad terms so as to move the definition when challenged. The best method to deal with rhetoric is to force the user to provide definitions for the offered terms. Con simply refused to define his position, so I had no need to present mine. He formed the debate; he posts the requested information. I was not asking for much, just some support and some definitions for the terms he decided to use so I could clash with them. I challenged the few positions Con offered and none deal with "health care". I recommend Con try much harder next time. Con offered nothing but rhetoric and hot buttons words, but still finds the need to compare me to a politician. Con is experiencing psychological projection here as politicians avoid direct answers and, generally, refuse to define terms. The Pro/Con here is not relevant. Con instigated a debate and refused to clarify the resolution or provide some context and meaning to the used terms. I cannot be forced to support a burden for a position that the instigator refused to define.
Health Care

Wow, Pro is quite the technical debater. I have a lot of respect for his skills. To be honest I was expecting to have an ideological debate. I think Pro would make a fine politician. However, here is the problem as I see it. Americans hate politicians because they are masters at doing the same thing you are doing. They talk and talk about data and polls and margins of error and everyone is left with their heads spinning. It is a very calculated technique used to where down opposition until they just throw their hands up and say fine just do whatever. To use another sports analogy, I shoot and you block over and over again. This is a very safe way for you to win a debate and you most likely will but we still have little idea of why universal health is good for America. Instead of only blocking how about a shot. Pro chose to be pro on health care. So lets hear some pro commentary. Pro does not need to sit there on his high horse waiting for me to deliver the perfectly executed and statistical debate. Pro should just state where he stands. If Pro was a politician, what would his platform be. I want to hear why moving toward more government control of our health care is better. I believe the reason the health care bill is having so much trouble is because no one can really explain why and how it is better. Admittedly I spend most my time working so I do have time to hear or read everything but this is true with most Americans. So why doesn't Pro educate me and tell me and anyone who might read this what part of the health care monstrosity bill is good and what part is not. I will be honest about my ideology. Brace yourself because it is very radical. I want to return to the constitution. What is Pro's ideology.
Health Care

I wish him good luck. I stand in refutation to my opponent's contentions and will address them. Con wrote, "I have absolutely no confidence that our dysfunctional federal government can run anything. " I disagree. Our government has run one of the most powerful armed forces in the world. As for dysfunctional government, I recommend Somalia. Next my opponent offers that health care, an ambiguous term, encompasses 1/6 of the US economy. I ask my opponent, as he is the instigator, to support this statement and I ask for a definition of economy in relation to this figure. I cannot attack a figure my opponent does not source. Define health care also please. Con offers polls, but offers…no polls! Show me and I will deal with them. He then offers some rhetoric in the form of "cramming down our throats". Cramming what? Be more specific. Tell me what the US government crammed down my throat. Con wants to hear from those who have blind faith in big government. I am not sure who these people are, but I support my government and as a former member of the greatest Air Force in the world, I swore my life to our defense. I no not support blind faith in any matters, religious or otherwise, and Con did not define big government or blind faith. At this point, the instigator has only offered one solid contention and that contention is that the US government cannot run anything, but I submit that the US military run by our government is the greatest in the world. I can do little more until the instigator presents a case with something more than rhetoric.