BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be legalized.

"However it's not, thus it is representative"I am not implying that the data is not representative; I am simply saying that the data could be flawed considering certain variables:1) People lie.2) The questionnaire may contain information that the sampled group does not know, as well as biased questions.3) We know nothing about the sampled group. This is very important because certain areas and certain races vary (http://www.frc.org......)"[...]homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work."Furthermore, gay couples already know the risks involved with adoption. We are not debating if it is moral or not; we are debating if it should be legal:Let's pretend that all the states ban same sex marriage in a week:Those who are already married face problems:1) What happens to them in a week?2) What about their adopted child?Those who want to marry also face problems:1) What do we do?2) Do we cancel any plans that take effect after a week? (eg marriage, honeymoon, adoption, etc)The government faces problems:1) How do we tell who is already married and who isn't?2) How do we enforce the one week limit?Seeing how already 33 states legalized same sex marriage(http://www.freedomtomarry.org......), for the other states to not, would create interstate complications and discrimination. "[...] it is only discrimination in the same way that an insurance company discriminates if they decide not to issue life insurance to an individual with a terminal illness."No it isn't. In the situation I just gave (above), it would be like an insurance company not allowing service to one person while another insurance company allows service. That is the definition of discrimination... (http://dictionary.reference.com...)"Thus, gay marriage is not ok with the bible. Thus forcing Christian institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is ethically wrong as it is against their beliefs. My argument thus holds."http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...https://answers.yahoo.com...You don't need a Church/religious institute to marry you. A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God (if you believe in a God). Why should gay marriage not be legalized? It only affects Christians. Not everyone is religious...
There are no good debates on debate.org

False, as evidenced by debates focused on the very real future of mankind [1], detailed science fiction to go with that [2], and health issues [3]. That is just a tiny sample from even one debater on here (myself), going into other debaters there are truly countless good debates.As you are the instigator, I await your case for why there are no good debates on DDO. Sadly the better you make your arguments, the more likely you are to nullify the resolution for me.Sources: [1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://www.debate.org...
Dogs can have a sense of self-identity

The joke went over Pro's head. "I am a dog, and I lack a sense of self-identity" is a paradoxical statement, since I am identifying myself as a dog while claiming that I lack a sense of self-identity. Get it now? Anyway, I've got a frozen Hot Pocket™ that's begging for a trip to the microwave, and I don't think I have the heart to say no. Hence, I'm off. Thanks for the debate, Pro. At least we got further than we did in our last debate, during which you were stoned. ;)
Dogs can have a sense of self-identity

Con’s has presented two arguments thus far: 1. That command responses do not indicate a concept of self-identity in dogs.I do not intend to disagree. However, this is of no consequence, since the argument does not show that dogs cannot have a sense of self-identity. 2. That there is no evidence whatsoever that canines have a sense of self-identity.This hardly constitutes an argument. Suffice it to say that I shall show this claim to be false. I will also point out that the resolution specified that dogs "can have" a sense of self-identity, although I do not intend to rely on this fact. Con provided a reference for the definition of “Self-identity”. The reference states that: “Self-identity is a multi-dimensional construct that refers to an individual's perception of "self" in relation to any number of characteristics, such as academics (and nonacademics), gender roles and sexuality, racial identity, and many others...The self-concept is an internal model which comprises self-assessments. Features assessed include but are not limited to: personality, skills and abilities, occupation(s) and hobbies, physical characteristics, etc.” My argument is as follows:1. Dogs are capable of self-assessment e.g. of their skills and abilities.2. Therefore, dogs can have a perception of self in relation to a personal characteristic.3. Therefore, dogs can have some sense of self-identity. I invite Con and the voters to view the two YouTube videos in which dogs feature. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Con and the voters will note that both videos feature dogs that are faced with the choice of “should I or should I not jump?” Importantly, in both videos, the dogs exhibit hesitation. Why? The answer is that the dogs are making self-assessments of their skills/abilities (e.g. Am I capable of jumping off this cliff/jetty and not harming myself?). Thus, dogs can have a sense of self-identity.So far, Con has not provided any meaningful or credible argument to show that dogs cannot possibly have a sense of self-identity, as defined in the reference given in Round 1. Unless Con can do so, voters should vote Pro. Thank you, Blob
Dogs can have a sense of self-identity

Based on observations of canine behavior, their reaction to human commands are based on classical conditioning, centered around stimulus and response. Classical conditioning is a well-established psychological concept [1], and the experiment involving Pavlov's dog is a strong (and relevant) example of this. [2] "Sparky! Sparky!" you yell, and the dog looks at you and comes to you. If it understands that you are calling it, it must have a self-identity... Right? No. A dog does not have a conceptual understanding of a name or identity, in general. How do we test this? Switch the "Sparky" with "Sit" commands through a reverse reward system. When you yell "Sparky," only reward it (i.e. petting and feeding) when it sits. When you yell "Sit," reward it when it runs over and approaches you (and is standing, as opposed to what it did before in response to the "Sit" command.) The result will be a complete reversal of command functions, indicating command responses do not indicate a concept of self-identity. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever that canines have an ability to conceptualize, let alone implement the abstract concept of self-identity. Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's arguments. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
outsourcing good

Sure, I can try to respond to your poorly organized points of the first argument, but I felt like I was supposed to argue against the title "Outsourcing is good". To respond to your first post, I think that you covered my points for me, we give wealth to foreign nations,and the fact that you think we should use inflationary measures to make up for it is not a very good fiscal move at all, especially considering our current economic situation. We would lose wealth, print more money to make up for it, and in turn push prices of everything else up, just for certain companies to outsource and make a profit? Not logical whatsoever. In regard to your second posting, I don't think that anything you say has much substance. The same amount of wealth? not true, there will be more wealth, but as more outsourcing occurs it gets more and more concentrated to the top, instead of spread throughout to the workers (they lose their jobs). The wealth of the workers that benefit from the production, as you said, gets lost to foreign nations. As far "made in China" products, absolutely we import a lot of products, that isn't the equivalent of outsourcing. The toy companies that we outsourced lowered the regulations for production and we imported unsafe products just for a profit. Is that good for America? I think not. I agree with you that I was using a slippery slope argument with the horrors of outsourcing, but the possibility is definitely there. I personally don't think it is wise for a free market democracy to outsource our companies to non-free market communist nations that we are potential enemies with. So overall, I don't see how the benefits outweigh the downfalls. Since it is overseas business, it must be better for America as a whole, and how can it be better for us when Americans are losing jobs, getting low quality products in return (that are harmful for our health), and tie ourselves into agreements with our polar opposites?
outsourcing good

First of all I would like to start by stating that I am absolutely against outsourcing. The primary reason to outsource is, as you said, for more investment power. But it is not investment power for the many, or the country, it is for the FEW,who own the businesses. So there are primarily 3 reasons why outsourcing is not a good idea: 1) quality of products that we consume could potentially get low, even low enough to become harmful. 2) Americans lose jobs just so businesses can make more money 3) Outsourcing markets to nations that we aren't naturally allied with, or with countries that aren't in free markets poses viable threats to our nation, and could potentially leave us stranded in certain industries if they were to cut us off. so you're just arging points for why you are against it, and not responding to my points specifically? we can regulate products if we thyink they'd be harmful. we've always did the equvalent of outscouring,,,, "made in china" has always been around, and we've never had many problems. (the only reason it's more of an issue now is bc of internet and increasing use of it) americans lose jobs, but, if my arguments are true, they'll get more and different jobs elsewhere. there's more products, so there's need for the jobs. there's the same amount of wealth, so they're as likely to get paid just the same. as for the free markets argument... we don't have to allow outsource freely to all... plus you're just speculating doomsday scenarios that are not likely. and as long as we can feed fuel ourselves, the benefits of outscouring would outweight the remote harms even if they occured.
outsourcing good

First of all I would like to start by stating that I am absolutely against outsourcing. The primary reason to outsource is, as you said, for more investment power. But it is not investment power for the many, or the country, it is for the FEW,who own the businesses. So there are primarily 3 reasons why outsourcing is not a good idea: 1) quality of products that we consume could potentially get low, even low enough to become harmful. 2) Americans lose jobs just so businesses can make more money 3) Outsourcing markets to nations that we aren't naturally allied with, or with countries that aren't in free markets poses viable threats to our nation, and could potentially leave us stranded in certain industries if they were to cut us off.
outsourcing good

outsourcing. i used to be against it, but i want to argue some reasons for it that i have been thinking of. if companies can save money, even though we lose some wealth ot foreign nations, the money saved ultimately is reinvested. that leads to innovation. that means that more things are made, different things. if more things are made, that means the cost of everything else is less. true, we have less money, but, if the government prints some money, while inflationary, it's only mitigating the decrease in the price of goods by the increased product. (if not too much is printed) there is no one pie, and no gold standard, so we're all good.
outsourcing good

1)"innovation is causing the price of goods to go down." 2) "your assertions of the money simply going to the top is just rhetoric and not substanted" 3) "if you're not against made in china stuff then how are you against outsourcing if they're the same deal?" 4) "but did not respond to the fact that i acnowledged we don't have to trade with all countries, and if they have really poor standards then we don't trade with them." Essentially out of everything you typed the quotes above that I have included are the only new things that you said. As far as me not responding to your arguments I have no clue what you are talking about, I have responded to each point. I can't say the same for you, looking at the 4 sentences above, that didn't counter anything that I said in the last round, thus your argument is not even structured how a debate should go, however, to the 4 new things you said, I will have 4 responses for you, and I'm going to make it very clear so you don't feel as though I didn't respond to you. 1) What innovation are you talking about? How does outsourcing a toy company to China make us innovative? I would really like an answer to this. Or how does outsourcing a Human Resources department make us more innovative? (for example, the 24 hour numbers for businesses that are stationed outside of the country). I don't see how it does, so my response to point number 1 is very simply that it isn't true, and you don't have any facts for it. 2) Just rhetoric? that really isn't the proper use of that word, but I will edit the last word and respond to that. Substanted …. Translated to substantiated: Where else is the money going? If owners outsource American jobs to a foreign country, Americans lose that money, the foreign workers receive it. The profits raised off of low regulation standards and cheaper labor costs comes back to the owners, AKA the TOP. 3) Importing and outsourcing are absolutely two different topics and debates, you posing that question is irrelevant to this debate. 4) Once again instead of making a point about outsourcing you talk about trading. You say we don't have to trade with all countries, that's fine and dandy. But we outsource to China, a communist nation lacking an entirely free market, while we are a free market democracy. That is not a good precedent to set at all, and could have some issues. Plus where are our standards? We are giving wealth to a nation that oppresses its people, and none of it is going to the workers. It is essentially sweatshop work, including disgustingly low wages, and child labor with long working hours and bad conditions. All so Walmart can have the lowest prices guaranteed! Its disgusting. As my last point, speaking of no responses to points made, I said a lot that you did not respond to, the lack of response will just be taken as you agreeing with those points.
outsourcing good

your response goes to show me you're one who thinks calling the other persons post disorganized and illogical actually passes for an argument, when the actual arguments were not addressed. yes... we lose wealth by outsourcing and inflation pushes the prices up. but, we only print money and cause inflation if it's needed. the only reason it'd be needed is because innovation is causing the price of goods to go down. the innovation, again staying have i've already said, would push prices down becaus there's more products out there in terms of quantity and so prices would go down. (i wasn't arguing what's out there before the innovation would simply be improved by innovation... but this is also an argument in my favor) your assertions of the money simply going to the top is just rhetoric and not substanted given that you haven't responde to my last paragraph which was essentailly posted above also. the made in china stuff is not outsourcing techincally i aree. but, you have not repsonded to how they're effectively the same. if we import goods here, that is preventing or at least strongly causing us to compelte or not be able to produce the stuff here. it's the same result. eg we could have a tire factory here and then outsource it... or we could have been the whole time or start anew importing tires. the uestion is if we should be doing any of that at all as it's all the same. if you're not against made in china stuff then how are you against outsourcing if they're the same deal? do you have a bias for things that have started out here, and simply disregard things we import only because that's always how we've done it? the best argument you could have is that the outsourcing is occuring much faster than innovation. but that's not your argument, and that argument would depend on facts anyway, not the stuff you've been spouting. you again bring up stuff about our polar opposites... but did not respond to the fact that i acnowledged we don't have to trade with all countries, and if they have really poor standards then we don't trade with them.
Smoking tobacco should be illegalised completely.

1) Smoking tobacco is extremely harmful for not only those who smoke it, but those around them who do not have a choice whether they are infected with the dangerous fumes or not. 2) It costs the National Health Service a LOT of money to treat people who inflicted damage to themselves and so tax payers are paying for preventable problems. (I can say this as my own nanna is in hospital currently with COPD.) 3) Smoking should be banned already so that it does not influence the huge amount of the new generation to continue the habit and stop this before it gives them a chance to harm themselves as well.
Animal Experimentation is Morally Justifiable

Hello! This is my first debate and I look forward to debating you! I would like to clear up some things. First animal experimentation encompasses a wide variety of phenomena, and I would be happy to debate any. Are we talking about strictly medical purposes, testing in general (ie cosmetics, etc.), or literally any instance in which a human experiments on an animal (ie a child burning ants with magnifying glass). Second the wording of the topic is unclear is to whether we are arguing animal experimentation as a whole is justifiable, or whether certain instances can be justified ( I assume we are talking about the present, not the past.)
Animal Experimentation is Morally Justifiable

The practice of Animal Experimentation has always been generating concern from the Animal Rights communities worldwide. I wanted to instigate this debate to discuss this topic in a more civilized manner.DefinitionsAnimal Experimentation - the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs.Moral - of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.Justifiable - capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible.All definitions were taken from Dictionary.comBOPBurden of Proof is shared between both sides. I, as a Pro, will be arguing that Animal Experimentation is morally justifiable. Con will be arguing that Animal Experimentation is not justifiable.RulesBasically, common sense applies here. Do not engage in personal attacks or trolling. Also if you find something wrong with the debate or have any issues with the definitions, please post your concerns in the comments section before accepting the debate. Do not accept the debate if you disagree with the wording of the topic or the definitions. No kritiks and semantics.StructureRound 1: Acceptance only.Round 2: Pro's Case; Con's Case.Round 3: Pro's Rebuttals; Con's Rebuttals.Round 4: Pro's Rebuttals and Conclusion; Con's Rebuttals and Conclusion.
Potential Abuse / Voter Issue

I will be arguing in favor of the following resolution:Resolved: Potential Abuse is not a voter.For the fairness of this debate, I would like to restrict the topic of the discussion to LD debate, also known as Lincoln-Douglas debate. This allows us both to have fair access to ground, instead of skewing ground massively to pro.As the instigator, the burden of proof will rest on the Con to prove why potential abuse ought to be a voter in LD rounds.Since the con did not define any terms in his part of round one, I shall do it instead.Potential: expressing possibility[1]Abuse: a corrupt practice or custom[2]Voter: A reason for a judge to vote for one side or the other. For the fairness of round spread, I will allow my opponent to make the first argument.Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Potential Abuse / Voter Issue

So the round ends up coming down to what we consider to be POTENTIAL abuse. I'd like to point out a few things. He conceded to my definition of potential as expressing possibility. This train-wrecks his entire arguments because they're based on the fact that the argument has actually happened, when potential means that it is POSSIBLE someone could use an abusive argument. My opponent's false assumption to the resolution will ultimately cost him the round. Because of this, it causes an infinite regression in the voting abilities of the judges because each side has an equal ability to potentially run an abusive argument. He then listed a bunch of reasons why this was false (in the last round, no less. Please count off for this massive conduct violation), so I will go through and answer them. R1:This is true, but you miss the point of the resolution. Each debater has an equal potential to run an abusive argument, thus the round becomes regressive. R2:1. This implies that the debater ran some kind of theory or topicality argument to check back the abuse, which does not always happen. In situations where it doesn't happen, it would force unnecessary judge intervention, which is bad for debate.2. Again, this presumes an abusive argument is made in the first place, which is not what the resolution calls into question. R3:I don't see what this point is trying to say. Is it because debaters have ways to check back abuse that it should be a voter? That doesn't make any logical sense. But also, again, it presumes the argument has been made in the first place, which isn't what the resolution calls into question. R4:1. My opponent brings up an argument from a previous round that he had not extended until now, which is highly abusive. Since this is ACTUAL abuse, you ought to count off for it.2. Again, this makes the false presumption that an argument has been made in the first place, which is not what the resolution calls into question. R5:1. The definition of what a voter is doesn't change the potential for other people to possibly run an abusive argument, which still causes the infinite regression. 2. This argument functions as offense against him because by making potential abuse a voter, we only encourage judges to make decisions off of arguments that "could've been made" and that would've been "possibly abusive", which is unnecessary judge intervention. R6:1. He doesn't give a reason why plan texts ought not be a voter. If a plan text is fair and well made, there isn't a reason why it ought not be a voter in the round.2. Again, this focuses on the false presumption that an argument has already been made, which is not what the resolution calls into question. So the round breaks down fairly simply. 1. You define potential as the possibility of an action, which makes the resolution say "The possibility of someone using an abusive argument should not be a voter".2. I'm showing you exactly how if potential abuse is a voter, it causes an infinite cycle of regress in the judges ability to vote, because both debaters have an equal potential to run an abusive argument, which is the main reason why it ought not be a voter.