BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need judges!!!!!

Voting privileges are something that many on this site have to enjoy. Taking them away in place of this would make many upset, and forcing certain users each week to vote on every debate for a week blocks up time users could using playing Mafia, or debating other users. The point is to make voting a freedom thing. Taking voting away just like that may cause many to leave the site, and if it doesn't, they still will have lost their freedom to vote! Also, this could be a gateway, where judges abuse their voting. Like I said, we already have a judge option for this. If you don't know enough people on this site, then go meet some! If you really can't get anyone to be a judge on your debates, let the public be the judge! Letting the public be the judge is what made this website so free! And your quote, "It is far more satisfying to have someone vote on your debate and give critical insite into why your argument did, or didn't sway thier oppinion.", well, I have something for that as well. The public does that when voting! And finally, let the individual decide on how his/her debate is to be voted on! It's his/her debate, after all! Here's a hole in this idea: What if the judges aren't online/account_deactivated? What if they refuse? Yes, this is a problem with judge voting debates on this site as well, but in this forced-judge system, that problem will be more widespread across the website. And finally you still haven't addressed this point. Do you know how many people complain about jury duty?
We need judges!!!!!

I love DDO. I think it has the best format for online debate. But, one thing that might enhance this site, is more efficient judging. I'm not sure about the feasibility of doing this, but I think designated judges should be appointed. Not a permanent post, but every so often, eligible members should be picked for a week long term of judging, kind of like jury duty. All other members who are eligible to vote will still retain their normal voting priveleges, but the designated judges would only vote on arguments. It is far more satisfying to have someone vote on your debate and give critical insite into why your argument did, or didn't sway thier oppinion.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its military spending.

Thus is the resolution. In your response to round one pick your side (I know it says I am pro but Don't Listen to that) and construct your case. Any argument not addressed in the next and consecutive speech/round is considered dropped and a truth in the debate. New evidence may be brought in only until round 4. So not in round 5 if you are familiar with policy debate, by all means have a plan and use the jargon - I am familiar with it. be respectful and good luck. Judging Criteria: 1. I know it says Grammar and Spelling... but please listen to the arguments MUCH MORE than Grammar and Spelling. 2. please be "Tabula Rasa" - meaning blank slate. So set aside all previous views on the subject. 3. in your judging comments please outline what arguments you voted on... etc.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its military spending.

My rebuttalsArmed conflict with Russia is unfeasable. In this day and age, Great Powers cannot afford to fight against each other directly, invasion of Ukraine or not. It will be economic issues that will limit Putin, not American soldiers.Korea and China have contingency plans in case of North Korean collapse. American "peacekeeping" would only make things worse. The Koreans would be much more grateful if they could solve their domestic disputes without foreign intervention.Turkey is the strongest native military power in the region. I'm sure they can handle their own borders just fine, and they have NATO support if they need it. The security of Turkey has never necessitated American troop deployments.Venezuala has already had more than its fair share of American intervention. Its hard to help democracy when its done at gunpoint, American Marine guns or others, it makes little difference.Iran has often talked about destroying America and Israel over the past four decades. The fact that they have never executed open aggression towards the U.S. and Israel beyond their own borders indicates that these are empty words.We have plenty of room. We have massive fleets that dominate the seven seas. Just because there hasn't been much need to demonstrate the superiority of the U.S. navy and supercarriers does not mean that they are not superior, just that none have dared to try to prove otherwise.My plan is mutually exclusive with the Satus Quo. The Status Quo would keep military spending near its present rate, at about $1 Trillion, for the sake of this debate, the conservative $800 Billion. My plan would reduce this from over three quarters of trillion to less than half of a trillion, at $400 Billion. This is a huge difference that is unlikely to be proposed soon by the current government.My plan is not useless, and even if it was, it has nothing to do with the debate on hand.My opponent's case changes nothing and keeps many harms without providing solutions. My plan provides many benefits for Americans and other world citizens. There are no harms, as these cuts are designed to not reduce the capacity of the American military to defend Americans, and my plan is also supported by evidence that armed conflict with countries such as Russia, Syria, Iran and North Korea are extremely unlikely to ever happen. The Con should know that the Cold War is over, there is no global threat to peace, and most localized threats could easily be neutralzed by current naval and aerospace power. There is no need to keep military bases all over the world to bully third world countries and counter the hordes of communism from the Soviet Union and China.
Islam is Not a Violent Religion

PRO has once again forfieited. Here's why you're voting CON: (1) He forfeited the last two rounds, so not only does he lose conduct, but my rebuttals and defenses remain unchallenged.(2) He dropped my entire case, including the quotes I provided from the Quran. (3) His definitions as well as mine support the fact that Islam is a doctrine, separable from people who may follow it, loosely or not (4) He never properly engaged a single argument of mine, only strawmanning them and issuing ad-hominem attacks
Islam is Not a Violent Religion

This is unfortunate--but I extend all my arguments. Overall, PRO has strawmanned every single one of my arguments. He hadn't properly engaged a single thing that I have said, and of the four definitions the two of us have collectively provided of "religion" and "Islam," absolutley none of them say what PRO disingenuously asserts they do. We are debating whether the doctrine of Islam is violent--not whether people who loosely follow Islam are. He has falsely accused me of tarnishing 1.6 billion Muslims, which is not the case, nor is it even part of my case, nor does it need to be. He has spent this entire debate thus far evading points and attacking me personally in lieu of actually immersing himself in substante.For those reasons, and for the forfeit, I urge you to vote CON both on arguments and conduct. I will now pass this back to him.
Islam is Not a Violent Religion

We often categorize Islam as being a violent religion, but it seems that it only because of the media's portrayal. As a society, we fail to see the truth - that millions of muslim people preach and practice peace and do not pursue violence. The media's reports have shaped the religion into being violent and aloof because of its focus on radicals, yet it is not the case - we need to look past media and see that the religion is one that practices peace, even though a very select few are radicals.
I am better than you at everything :D

The Bane Voice: My opponent stated that he has better business than me. This is true, but this does not negate the fact that my bane voice is better than his. In his previous argument, he stated that his Bane voice was better - a direct contradiction to his earlier admission that my Bane voice was better. Also, the issue of my Batman voice has never been addressed, and therefore my opponent concedes this point to me. The Business: I concede this point to richarddong. The Debating: As I said, you'll have to take my word for it. The Grammar: Again - I do not have to prove that richarddong's grammar is bad, only that mine is better. His grammar is good, but mine is better. I would like to reiterate that if I can prove that I am better than richarddong at just one thing, I deserve to win this debate. I have proven my point on the issues of grammar, logic, and voice-impressions. Please vote for BastiatForever!
I am better than you at everything :D

Fist of all of your Bane voice, i said but i have better business.Now to extend on why is said but. I have a better Bane voice than you. I have the mask he has and i speak very much like him in my Darth Vader mask. This means that his Contention 4 is not valid. Your contention 2 is invalid because you are saying that i have poor grammar. But, you have the worst grammar. I have proof that you made a flaw ha:and as such needs no more explanation. It is suppose to be and as such need no more explanation. LOL sot hat means that your Contention 2 is invalid. Your rebuttal is invalid because of my statement on top of this rebuttal. My brothers accomplishments are because of me. And you also say that i am better than you at business. So your rebuttal is invalid now. You will have to take my word for it that i am better than you. Now your Contentions one is invalid. I don't take your word that you are better than me in Debate. I have evidence intact. Fist of all my statement above show that i have evidence. Richard Dong is better than Bastiaforever. I prove my statements.
I am better than you at everything :D

Contention 1: Debate As this is my first debate on debate.org, I have no records to show you of my debating success. As such, you will have to take my word for it. Nothing in your rebuttal proves this contention wrong, as you have provided no evidence of objectively successful debates. Contention 2: Grammar I do not have to prove that your grammar is bad. My grammar is flawless, so I only need to prove that you make occasional errors to prove that my grammar is better. Contention 3: Logic This contention is uncontested at this time, and as such needs no more explanation. Contention 4: Voice Impressions In the previous argument, my opponent conceded that my Bane voice is better than his. In doing so, he has admitted that he is not better than me at everything. For this reason, I argue that Pro has affirmed Con's position, and as such, Con should win this debate. Rebuttals: Firstly, I would like to admit that richarddong is a better businessman than I am. However, I do not need to prove that I am better at everything - only you have to do that. Yes, he may be one of the top ten businessmen in China, and he may have 700 employees, but I still have a better Bane voice. Also, your brother's accomplishments are his, not yours, and as such are irrelevant to this debate.
I am better than you at everything :D

My grammar a not bad. You have a better Bane voice but I won a award that says that am the top 10 person in china buisness. This means that I am better than you. This also means hat your contention 1 is invalid. Because of no evidence and you performance is bad.My average grade was an A . This debate has nothing to do with the previous debates. Your contention is a complete waste because t us nothing to do with anything. Now I shall improve how I am better than you. First of all I have 700 employees. Go to my company called NDC. Also, I am famous in China. My brother owns a company called Revenco in China. I have earned many awards. Now to show you my reward on he top ten buisness in china..https://mail.google.com...
I am better than you at everything :D

Greetings, richarddong, and thank you for the invitation. Shall we begin? Definition 1: Better: Merriam Webster's Dictionary - Improved in Accuracy and Performance Definition 2: Everything: Merriam Webster's Dictionary - All that exists In my first argument, I will limit myself to four topics - debating, grammar, logical reasoning, and voice impressions. Contention 1: BastiatForever is a Better Debater than richarddong This point will become self-evident by the conclusion of the debate, but for the time being, suffice it to say that I am not usually outsmarted. Unfortunately, there is no documented evidence to prove this point, so my performance in this debate will have to do. Contention 2: BastiatForever uses Better Grammar than richarddong You may notice the flawless grammar used in this debate; it is representative of all my writing. In addition, my average high school grammar grade was an "A". Finally, I would like to present a clip from one of richarddong's previous debates (http://debate.org...): "And i you increase taxes the rich can not pay for new companies in which that can create new jobs. " First, notice that the word "if" in the first sentence is misspelled. Next, see the following phrasing "companies in which that create new jobs". Painful, I know. ;P Contention 3: BastiatForever uses Better Logical Reasoning that richarddong Allow me to demonstrate my skill with a bit of reasoning. All men act. Wants Are infinite. Resources are finite. Man cannot achieve all wants. Man must choose some wants over others. Man must have an ordinal ranking of wants. Man will use the first unit for his most valued end. He will use his second unit for the next most valued end. Hence, the law of diminishing marginal utility. Contention 4: BastiatForever does Better Voice Impressions that richarddong I have awesome Batman and Bane voices. That proves my point. Summary: As a debate of all actions that could be undertaken by richarddong or myself would be impractical, I have limited myself to these topics, which I hope I can prove are my specialty. Thank you voters, and thank you richarddong for inviting me to this debate!
Rapture Theology (Premilenialism)

I am a post tribulational rapturist, And want to provide some evidence, Which you can find in your Bible. I will use the King James Version of the Bible, Cool? Mark 13: https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=mark+13&version=KJV Matthew 24, And pay close attention to verses 29-31: https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=matthew+24&version=KJV Verse 29 talks about after the tribulation of those days, And you can read the whole thing to see the gathering together of the elect, Which is the rapture. Wait, There's more: https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=+1+thessalonians+4&version=KJV So you see, There is a rapture, It is just post trib. More evidence: https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=2+thessalonians+2&version=KJV Verses 1-12 talk about the post tribe rapture. This: https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=1+corinthians+15&version=KJV chapter contains a verse which talks about in the twinkling of an eye, We who believe shall all be saved. Finally: https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=3IHBrLUYj5g&t=2314s The preceeding video is more evidence of the post trib rapture.
THW: Avoid contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life

Round 2: Main body of argument. Round 3: Rebuttal and reiteration of previous arguments. No new arguments may be presented- any new arguments presented in R3 should be ignored by voters. Full wording of the motion: "This house would avoid contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life". "THW": the following action should be done. "Contact": Any form of interaction. "Intelligent": Has a reasoning ability approximately the same as, or considerably higher than, that of a human. "Extraterrestrial life": Organic bodies capable of the MRS GREN processes outlined in biology which originate from planets other than Earth. I will be defending the motion, and therefore my opponent must criticise the motion. 4,000 character max per round. The winner shall be determined with a "select winner" system. Any sources used may be included within the main body of text or within the comments section, at the debater's discretion. No need to ask for permission to participate: I will debate with whoever is first to accept. Good luck and have fun!
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

My opponent claims that if sex becomes very important thing, "comparing sizes" would become an issue. That is good argument for having sex with less persons. But it is also good counter-argument for making people wait until 18. Because that way they would think of sex as something much more important. If teenagers can have it whenever they want, they will not think of it as something important. It is better if young girls are "comparing sizes", so they can get tired of it before it is time for them to become mothers. If mothers were searching for men who are good in bed, they would lose much time for raising kids.
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

My opponent wants to talk about my comparison with driving a car. You've pointed out a very good example why my comparison isn't good! It's true that while driving a car you may hurt other people. But you also point out that by having sex, you can do emotional damage to other people. Both those who have sex with, as you say it "complete bastards" or who have sex wile drunk or had a bad day. These are good examples of how sex can still hurt people. These people not only hurt themselves, but sometimes others too. That's why sex still is comparable to driving: children most likely don't know what they're doing yet. Your second issue is that girls are attracted to guys that want sex. That is indeed unfortunate. But, because these guys are ALLOWED to have sex and these girls find it normal, there are a lot of consequences. A) Guys who do not want sex, but want romance/being nice and are probably the best to have your first time with, will be out of question for girls. Conclusion? Jerks get it all, nice guys get nothing! B) Girls will have sex with every one of their boyfriends. They WILL compare their sizes and capabilities in bed. If sex becomes such an important thing, it will always lead to dissapointment as in the world, some guys are better in bed than others.
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

There is one major difference between driving car and having sex. If 14 years old would be driving cars, other people would be hurt. Whole concept of protecting people from themselves is wrong. It is in essence, reducing their freedom. Maybe your ex now regrets having sex with you, but I can tell you are a nice guy. She could possibly lose her virginity with complete bastard, because she was drunk or she simply had a really bad day. There is another issue I would like to address. I observed that girls are much more attracted to guys who want to have sex. Probably because they subconsciously interpret it as confidence and bravery.
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

You are right that some people are smarter than others. The thing is, by setting the age of 18 as a border, it will exclude a majority of people not yet wise enough! It is too difficult to determine for each individual if he/she is ready. That is why we have to use age as an alternative. If we were to allow everyone to do it, that would result in the already mentioned problems above. If we allowed nobody to do it, that would result in only a select few actually going so far as having sex. Another thing is that alot of people are convinced that they are wise enough and make the right decision, while in fact they aren't ready yet. My best example would be my ex-girlfriend, who was convinced she would always love me. When she stopped loving me, she regretted having done "the deed". She's not stupid, but she just thinks she's wise enough to make big choices while in fact at the age of 16 she did not fully grasp the situation/decision. You hate waiting. Alot of people will concede in that. Again I must bring up car fanatics who'd hate waiting to drive a car. The question is, would it be good to let these 14 year olds drive on the road? Even though a few would be capable to do so, a general ban is best to avoid all failures. That's why it would be the same for sex. That relationships shouldn't last is obvious in our current society. But most couples don't split because they've both had enough, no: in most cases, one side stops loving. Love in unequally distributed and one side will always love less than the other. But that is not your argument; you say that while they are happy in a relationship they could have sex no matter what age. Thing is, the person you give your virginity to will always be someone special. Adults are wise enough to see when someone truly loves them, or can choose to give sex away freely. Children are not aware of this and cannot possibly determine how serious their relationship really is. Again, like my ex, you might completely misinterpret the situation and end up regretting it.
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

In Serbia, if she was 16 and he was 18, she wouldn't be able to charge him. For under 16, there are some complex laws, but they are not available to the public. Not even lawyers in Serbia know all laws, they just know laws in their area. Some people are much wiser then other people at the same age. If people should not have sex for not being wise, then it shouldn't be up the age. I don't think jealousy should mitigated by taking away goods from people. I think we can all agree we want love, but I don't think we can all agree we want romance. I hate waiting. And I don't find anything good about it. Even if sex would be more joyful after waiting, which I doubt; Pain from waiting would still be greater, and waiting would not be profitable. I don't regard masturbation as an alternative for sex. It may help a little as a stress reliever, but it does not bring that kind of satisfaction. During sex, feeling of love and being loved is enlarged to the maximum. I don't regard relationship as something meant to last until death. I don't like idea of people in relationship owning each other. They should be in relationship only as long as they enjoy it. As for marriage, I regard it as contract to mutually raise kids, but it is not for necessary for kid to have it's parents having sex with each other. They can be just friends.