BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponet should win this debate

I will now make my final argument as to why I believe my opponent should win this debate despite their very strong argument in round 2. 1) Sources: Although my opponent has provided none, mine are clearly heavily cherry picked to support my argument and therefore not necessarily reliable. This should be a tie. 2) G and S: My opponents use of all capital letters in round one fit very well with the context of what he was saying. As he was merely giving an example of all caps this technicaly incorrect usage should not be held against him. G and S could even go in cons favor if the voters are picky enough about pros punctuation in round 2, but will most likely be a tie. 3) Convincing argument: I believe I made a very good case from mathmatics in round two, unfortunately my opponent refutes my entire mathematical argument quite well when pointing out that many of his stats are from troll debates. My BoP was therefore not upheld. Arguments to con. 4) Conduct: My opponent is so ugly and stupid that I consider their 'insults' a compliment. This is a very mean and uncalled for insult from me while also rendering cons attempted insult into very excellent conduct on their part, due to the fact that I took it as a compliment. Therefore, conduct should go to con. Good luck to my well-arguing and therefore clever opponent, who is also ugly and stupid as I have pointed out, in making their concluding argument. I look forward to the voting results.
My opponet should win this debate

I shouldn't win this debate because I have not given any sources which means my opponent gets the sources point. At round 1 I said ALL CAPITAL LETTERS which grammatically incorrect so he should get the spelling and grammar point. Also my opponent has a more organized and well formatted argument thus he should also get the arguments point. Finally my opponent is ugly and idiotic. And because I said that he should also get the conduct point. I'd like to point out that more than half of my victories here are troll debates and when it isn't I usually lose.
My opponet should win this debate

Already my opponent shows his natural good sense."Please keep your argument clean and easy to read" Of course! such a proposal will only increase the chances of this being a productive and useful exchange. Why did I not think of implementing a rule such as this? This oversight on my part could have resulted in this debate degenerating into the nonsensical, irrational, random, and downright silly conversation such as those that are all to common on this site (sources 1-4).Mathmatics As I pointed out in round one, I am rather new to this site. This means that as of the time of writing this, I have no win/tie/loss debate record. My oponent, however, has a record of over thirty debates completed, of which over three fourths resulted either in a win or a tie. Of those that did not end in a tie my opponent has won two thirds of his debates (source 5) The mathematical odds, therefore, are 3:1 in favor of this debate not resulting in a loss for my opponent and 2:1 in favor of my opponents victory. Furthermore, my opponent has never lost a debate to forfeit (source 5 again), demonstrating that he is very unlikely to lose this debate to forfeit. While I also have never lost a debate to forfeit, this is irrelavant due to the fact that as of writing this I have never completed a debate. None of this proves conclusively that my opponent WILL win, but it does show that he SHOULD, or at least is very likely to, as is stated in the proposition. I now pass the debate to my opponent. As BoP is split 50/50 my opponent must either refute my arguments completely, create a signifigantly stronger argument than mine, or a bit of both. I look forward to my opponents response.Sources:(1) Nonsensical http://www.debate.org...(2) Irrational http://www.debate.org... (3) Random http://www.debate.org... (4) Downright silly http://www.debate.org... (5) http://www.debate.org...
My opponet should win this debate

Rather new and bored so let's see how this goes. The proposition in this 'debate' is that the person taking the position of con (my opponent) should win this debate. I (pro) will be arguing in favor of this proposition while my opponent (con) will be arguing against it. Burden of proof is split 50/50. First round acceptance. Both debaters must only argue in favor of their position (agreeing or disagreeing with proposed statement) This of course goes without saying in most debates but for obvious reasons it may get a bit tricky here. Breaking this rule (even accidently) results in automatic victory for the other person (the person who did not break it). Also, 2000 character maximum. Should be more than enough for something like this.
The United States should withdraw from NATO

Why should the US even consider leaving NATO? It is a powerful alliance including most of the European Union countries and the US. It was originally founded to create a balance of World Power after the Warsaw Pact was signed, which was a alliance of the USSR and Satellite Nations, at the beginning of the Cold War. The USSR fell in 1991, and most of the satellite nations such as Poland and the Czech Republic got of rid of a Communistic government. Russia thereafter was very weak, and wouldn't’t become a superpower until years later So in the 1990's and the 2000's, NATO included the two most powerful nations at the time, the US and UK. At that time, it would have made sense to dissolve the alliance, since Russia and China where not as powerful as they are now, in an effort to make world power balanced again. But now, in the 2010's, it would be completely and absolutely nonsensical to leave NATO, due to these reasons. Russia recent “military actions” in the Crimean peninsular leaves little room for guessing what further actions might be of this not exactly democratic nation,(http://en.wikipedia.org... China's repeat human Rights offenses, particularly in the past few months continue to show how China reacts to western democracy and ideals,(http://www.hrw.org...) And now, just a few days ago, Russia and China have signed a 30-year, +$400 billion deal, which indicates these two nations are approaching each other and strengthening economic ties. So therefore, two of the four modern day super powers (US, UK, Russia, China) are strengthening diplomatic and economic ties, and both countries (Russia and China) have very recently started conflicts and committed human rights abuses, which where condemned by the international community. Clearly it would be extremely detrimental to the US, to the European Union, to NATO and the international community on a whole if the US would leave the alliance that has the potential of countering the emerging alliance of Russia and China. Also, on a different note, the US policy of not isolating clearly would oppose leaving a major alliance. President Obama just a few days ago (9http://www.whitehouse.gov...) said "America must always lead on the world stage". Furthermore he emphasized that he would be continuing to strengthen and enforce international order through evolving our institutions, such as NATO and the United Nations. So clearly, the vision of the President is in no way going to support leaving NATO. I will rebut Pro's points in the next round, provided he even responds.
The United States should withdraw from NATO

I have accepted this challenge, and am looking forward on debating it. I will represent the Con side, and will argue that the US should remain in NATO. I will elaborate in the further rounds. I am assuming you are going by the 1st round: acceptance, 2nd round:arguments, 3rd round: rebuttal format? To shortly give some background that may or may not be benefitial to you, I am a European Union citizen, Germany to be precise, but am currently residing in the US. Let's get debating.
The United States should withdraw from NATO

I am American and of the position that the United States should no longer be part of NATO. It is not in our interests to continue to be part of an alliance that casts the burden of defending Europe on our shoulders while providing no meaningful benefit to Americans. We are protected by vast oceans, overwhelming nuclear deterrence, and have no existential threats. We have the option to withdraw from the treaty under Article 13, and it would be in our interests to exercise that option. That should provide the gist of my opinion for prospective challengers. I do not debate here often. I will review and respond to comments on the comments page.
Idiot Debate: Alex Jones v. Rush Limbaugh

White people are the only good people. These black loving jews have ruled our diamond companies for way to long. I now pronounce my ideas to send the jew back to where they came from. Mars or some planet besides earth. These people are the devil and are plotting with the gays. the only reason the jews look good is because the gays make them FABULOUS. Real men only are able to wear suits do you think i got to were I am today with other help. The shows share holders are poor compared to me. I don't get any donations from any companies such as crest. "crest shine brightly". yeah no funding at all was given to me ever by these asses. What do you think alex.
Idiot Debate: Alex Jones v. Rush Limbaugh

Speaking of the devil, those Jesus-killing Jews are really bad. You know in the middle ages, it was the Jews that poisoned wells that caused the black death and consume the blood of Christian boys in their rituals.Today the Jews are taking over the world and are controlling the financial system. They caused the great recession of 2008 and are continuing to do so today. Today, they are plotting for a "counter-holocaust" to murder all aryans, never mind the fact that the holocaust NEVER happened.Moreover, they are infilitrating science with their "round-earth theory" (note the word THEORY) and are secretly guarding the antarctic ice wall to keep people from discovering the truth that the earth is flat. How do I know all of this? Simple, just ask anti-atheist and storm front! And now for my friend, Rush Limbaugh!
Idiot Debate: Alex Jones v. Rush Limbaugh

Look Everyone hates the jews almost as much as they hate women. But what you forgot to say is that the muslims are also involved. They even got obama on their side How do i know this you may ask? Well i reply wikipedia. Or like the negros say da wiki. I can talk negro because i can i am an educated adult unlike those people. But I'm losing the point. The point is that Obama is a kenyan born muslim who has planted bombs in our lighting. He is working with debate.org and the jews but he is the idiot mastermind behind all of the spying. Who do you think was behind all of the recent bombings it was obama. Hff Obama more like Osamba. Am i right guys. Onto alex
Idiot Debate: Alex Jones v. Rush Limbaugh

Hello fello patriots, thank you for joining me today on the Alex Jones radio show. We have got lots to cover today so lets get started.Now bare in mind that we have a 110% track record when it comes to predictions and expositions like what I am about to do. You just can't make this stuff up!President of Debate.org, Airmax, is under cover for Orthodox Judaism to put in a database every single name of atheists, Christians, and Muslims for a future inquisition that will start around the year 2015. Now, what this all means is that the sole purpose of debate.org is to divide us socially, politically, economically, and religiously so that we would all despise each other and have a "helter skelter" type scenario.Now, debate.org is also using your own lightbulbs to spy on you and to see whether or not you really beelileve what you are posting on debate.org. They also have keylogging malware that logs every move you make on the keyboard, every stroke, ever password, ever username, and they read every email you receive or send.All of this is going to lead up to the DDO moderator state - where everything we say and do is stricktly moderated and has to be 'approved' before being shown. Memo to Juggle: You are not our parents, kings, queens, dictators, czard, or any of the above.You just can't make this sh!t up.Onto Rush!
Idiot Debate: Alex Jones v. Rush Limbaugh

This works similar to the idiot Republican vs. Democrat debates. This debate is a parody of Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh if they were actually debating each other or if you weere Alex Jonse or Rush Limbaugh and this was your radio show.Both Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh are incredibly stupid, but the purpose of this debate is to make fun of each of the idiots.I will take ths side of Alex Jones http://www.infowars.com... my opponent will take the side of Rush Limbaugh.It would be helpful to read through their website and listen to their radio show to get a general feel for how idiotic they actually are.For example:Alex Jones: "May day may day! Houston we have a problem! DDO is secretly spying on its users and giving information to the government to persecute all libertarians on the website! Mayday mayday!"Rush Limbaugh: "As far as I'm concerned, the city of Boston deserved what they got for their liberal ways!"Good luck to whoever accepts.
It is short sighted to promote sportsmen as the role models for the youth of a country.

I firmly believe that it is useful to promote successful sportsmen as the youths' role models of a country. Sportsmen should be admired for their attributes, and use their power of influence over the youth, to sway them onto right paths in life. They show the younger generations to work hard, be healthy, all rounded, and that even slower people in life (when it comes to education) have a chance at being great. R1- introduction R2,3,4- 3 main points R5- conclusion Comments- any rebuttals
It is short sighted to promote sportsmen as the role models for the youth of a country.

Moreover, sports is a beneficial hobby. Not only is it relaxing, but has been proven that when exercising, people activate a hormone which makes them happier.Also sportsmen and women encourage citizens to healthier and fit. Contrary to the belief that sports promote sports over academics many actually do go to school and excel. For example, Jehue Gordon graduated from Queen's Royal College, a prestigious school in Trinidad. Some people also believe that sportsmen promote unethical practices, such as steroids. However, before and even during the competitions, representatives are tested by the World Association Against Drug Abuse Organization.
It is short sighted to promote sportsmen as the role models for the youth of a country.

Firstly, sportsmen highlight to the youth what you can achieve if you work hard. Why should we not want out children, the younger generation to look up at them? Though some sportsmen may not be academically superior, they still have a chance of being successful. They get to travel the world and represent their country. In an era, where patriotism lacks, with people often degrading not only fellow citizens but their own countries, it is these very sportsmen that provide a beacon of hope. When a country wins a competition, all those insults and arguments melt away as the majority of the population rise in celebration and victory, the 'bad talking' of their country blurred away. In fact, sports are recommended as an extra-curricular. It not only helps the person with putting together a portfolio, but also with time management. In Korea, students at a young age attempt many sports until they find one that they do well in and or like. If not, their teachers find other means for them as an extra-curricular. For example, Deepika Kumari, a young female archer, who was formerly ranked 1st in the world and currently, second, was able to find the balance between school, training and competitions. Why would we not want to encourage the youth to be like her? Sources: http://deepikakumari.com... http://www.in.com...
It is short sighted to promote sportsmen as the role models for the youth of a country.

As this round is to be used for introduction, I will focus on laying out my key points, and setting the stage for them to be expanded upon in the following rounds: 1a. The conundrum of the sports role model. The "models" who get the most screen time, and therefore the ones most often seen, are the ones engaging in bursts of anger, violence, and drug usage. It encourages dangerous acts. 1b. Sports stars embody their team scandals as well. Whether it's match-fixing, violating the rules, bribery or simply complete disrespect, these people should not be seen as reasonable role models. The most continuous successes are often among this group, and therefore the most likely to be a strong role model. 2. Sports stars often give youth a wrong impression. Even if we assume that they're entirely legitimate, they often become as good as they are following intensive training that requires high costs and putting their bodies through intensive physical harm that will likely end their lives earlier and reduce their overall quality of life. The image an athlete puts on for the cameras is not accurate. 3. These role models often provide a "way out" of academics for groups of people, providing what is perceived as the only route out of poverty for many. This is especially true for black youth, whose role models are chiefly sports stars. This pushes many that would otherwise be capable of pursuing more academic routes into the athletic one where they are far less likely to succeed. This leads to drop outs and reduced willingness to engage in something else that is difficult. That's the outline. With that, I await Con's first main point.
If the Bible is true and accurate then Jesus Is Lord (God)

Pro has not even attempted to explain the verses I brought, which show that Jesus is not god. Thus one cannot conclude that Jesus is the son of god (Nor can they conclude that he isn't), since there are verses that clearly says that he is not. Thus the resolution does not stand, since these verses remain contradicting it. With regard to the lord issue, it's really irrelevant, since the resolution was not defended. But I will point out that in the original language the word for lord is used both ways, to refer to god as well as those cases which clearly referred to man, both used the same word. Thus it is up to interpretation which lord is meant. The translators chose one way, but it can be translated differently. To sum it up, on the basis of this debate, one cannot conclude that Jesus is god, since there are verses that contradict that, & thus the resolution has not been proved, since there are still outstanding verses which contradict the resolution. Pro the instigator has thus not fulfilled his burden of proof.
If the Bible is true and accurate then Jesus Is Lord (God)

Pro has not been able to refute my arguments. Now, you might say, I didn't refute his. The thing is that pro as instigator has BOP. So long as there are outstanding arguments showing that Jesus cannot be god, it cannot be said that Jesus is god, even if there are verses that seem to say he is. I do want to make a general point that answers up a lot of pros' verses. The word "lord" does not always mean god. It refers to master, Teacher, & even functions as mister / sir. Take for example the story of Abraham when he sees nomads passing by he refers to them as lord: 2 "Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,[a] do not pass your servant by." (Genesis 18) & Then in the next chapter when they come to lot, he too calls them lord: "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant"s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." (Genesis 19 : 2) & again: "But Lot said to them, "No, my lords, please!" "(Genesis 19 : 18) ---------------------------------------------------- Jacob to Esau: "Please, my lord, go ahead of your servant. We will follow slowly, at a pace that is comfortable for the livestock and the children. I will meet you at Seir."" (Genesis 33:14) --------------------------------------- King David was refereed to as lord: "Then let me return again to die in my own town, where my father and mother are buried. But here is your servant, my son Kimham. Let him go with my lord the king and receive whatever you want to give him." (2 Samuel 19:37) "Let your servant return, that I may die in my own town near the tomb of my father and mother. But here is your servant Kimham. Let him cross over with my lord the king. Do for him whatever pleases you." (2 Samuel 19:37) ------------------------- The prophet Elijah was refereed to as lord: "As Obadiah was walking along, Elijah met him. Obadiah recognized him, bowed down to the ground, and said, "Is it really you, my lord Elijah?" (1 Kings 18:7) "And sons of the prophets who are in Beth-El come out unto Elisha, and say unto him, 'Hast thou known that to-day Jehovah is taking thy lord from thy head?' and he saith, 'I also have known -- keep silent.'"(2 kings 2:3) -------------------------- Thus the verses calling Jesus lord, need not mean that he is god.
If the Bible is true and accurate then Jesus Is Lord (God)

"For if you confess with your lips that JESUS IS LORD, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:18-20 "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus"every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11. "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I AM HE. "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me," Isaiah 43:10. "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." John 8:24, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" John 8:58, See Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, "I AM has sent me to you." " "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He." John 13:19, "So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied." Luke 23:3, "When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12, "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus," Titus 2:13 "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ:" 2 Peter 1:1 "Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!"