BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jahar is innocent. Whoever debates this watch this one hour long documentary.

I don't want to insult anyone. I'm not starting this debate to make anyone mad or upset. I have family in Boston and I was very saddened at what happened last year but I believe that Jahar is innocent. He didn't bomb the Boston marathon. His brother Tam did not bomb the Boston marathon. They're both innocent. They were setup. Whoever debates this with me has to WATCH this DOCUMENTARY on YouTube. The documentary is called "marathon day: Boston 15.4.13 "operation Paul Revere infowars.com contest" the documentary is by "BraveArcherfilms" (YouTube account/username). Please watch the whole movie and pay very close attention to it. If you don't want to watch this film than please don't accept this debate. It's an hour long so I'm sure someone on DDO has time to watch it. Thank you.
Male Evolution Versus Female Evolution (I believe Female Evolution needs more attention).

An assumption? Preposterous. If you think this Universe is all accidental and cold towards our emotion, intelligence, responsibility and integrity, then you really should just forfeit this debate, because you are debating with someone that's broken down everything to the cosmic roots; all that's left is the branches and leaves I have yet to touch. We are the Universe, experiencing itself - there's no ifs, ands or buts - to say otherwise is sheer stupidity. This Universe is becoming through us, and our entire existence is based on the evolution pattern from bacteria to fungi to plant to bug to mammal to person - our observation is based on photo receptors which formed billions of years ago before stars were even born. Humans are not subjected to anything except the Universe. There's nothing else that needs to be said about this, unless you want to resort to more blatant ignorance towards the design of the Universe. This is you: "I'm a human being with limited knowledge of what is grander than myself, because I don't spend my time thinking about the Universe on a level that is beyond Man, so I just do things that make myself feel good and think anything I say is an argument because I base everything off of what I feel and not the facts which govern the Universe". This is me: "I am not a human being, but a mind that is becoming through the thick and thin of space and time, for I am not anymore than information; and such identities which proceed this information are the stimulation of what I have created through my experiences; I do not declare anymore than what already is, or what could be, or what used to been." I am well aware of the Darwin talk - it's regression. There's no ifs ands or buts. Everything you say applies to the brain-dead society - nothing you say applies to the handful of geniuses. I am aware of your position - you specifically do not understand this Universe and base everything off of Science and how you feel with no deeper analysis on what "is" - especially the part with how human experience is shaped by the Universe experiencing itself through us, via its chemicals, its laws and its formulas. There's nothing about us that is strictly "esoteric" - we are vessels contained of the cosmic sea, within the cosmic sea itself, like air pockets in a grand sea.
Male Evolution Versus Female Evolution (I believe Female Evolution needs more attention).

Well, first of all, you make the assumption that the universe created the human race with a purpose. There is no evidence to suggest that we were "created" with a purpose. Such propositions only exist to ease the psyche of humans, and not drawn from direct evidence. In fact, i can sense a religious undertone to your argument. Science does not deal with ontology. Ontology, is extremely metaphysical, and therefore, for all intents and purposes scientifically, it is a moot point. To say that "humans are not biologically commanded anymore like animals" is an expression of extreme hubris. Humans are subject to the results of millions of years of evolution just like all creatures. I refer to human brain as "caveman brains" because we essentially do have caveman brains. Our subconscious, our deeper reasons behind how we act, or as Sigmund Freud would describe it as the "Id", is deeply rooted in our caveman evolutionary roots. Remember that as a specie, homo sapiens have existed for nearly 100,000 years. Modern "man-like" primates such as Homo Erectus and Cro-Magnum have existed for nearly two million years. Civilization, on the other hand, existed for only around 6000 years. The length of civilization is tiny compared to our time as uncivilized brutes, having to hunt food and gather wild berries to survive. Evolutionary psychology, a valid branch of science unlike ontology, is based on the idea that human behavior has deep roots in our evolutionary past. Are we intelligent beings capable of consciously shedding our evolutionary past and mindset? of course. But one would have to do it consciously, and keenly aware of the reasons behind one's animistic instincts. Still not convinced? The emotion you profess to be of great importance is the result of our caveman brain. Love exists within the limbic system, a portion of the brain that is deeper and older than our prefrontal cortex, which would be required to break free from our animist instincts. Yet you favor love over hatred, even though they are governed by the same portion of the brain, that have evolved in around the same time period. The point i am trying to make is that while humans, and lesser animals (we are animals too), operate on a very similar level. That's why psychologists like B.F. Skinner studied rats in order to gain a deeper understanding of human behavior. However, we are also more intelligent, which means we are capable of breaking free of our instincts. Just because we are capable, doesn't mean society will do so en-mass, and therefore relegating our caveman brain into the past. Whether you like it or not, the mere fact that you experience emotion indicates that there are portions of your brain still governed by instincts. Note that i never denied that women are not being kicked down by males. I have acknowledged multiple times that we live in a male dominated society. I don't justify the behaviors of men with biology and psychology. It is merely the underlying cause behind it. And in order to change that, you must understand where the behavior comes from.
Male Evolution Versus Female Evolution (I believe Female Evolution needs more attention).

Males can afford to be more violent, even though the entire human race was created by this Universe specifically to crawl out of its natural gutter it had created, but could not be content with, thus creating love, intelligence, feeling, emotion, morals, mutual understanding and problem solving out of what was originally a primitive, dark and dreary Universe of death, death and death? Okay Darwin; just because you have win in your name doesn't mean you are able to win by making rash generalizations about the human race, while completely ignoring the stages of which the human race rose from as to say "hey, we are a human being; we came after the animal; we are more advanced than the animal; we are growing out of our primitive nature, while demonstrating that we are able to regress back into it when we only fear and cause failure - thus saying that the primitive state for a human being is a regressed state, therefore no arguments can be made to rationalize a state of nature that is now old, and replaced by a greater state of nature that is practiced and potently described by geniuses and great minds alike. Humans are not biologically commanded anymore like animals, on an experiential level - they are only structured by it. That is why ontology is important to consider as the next-level definition for the human condition. Biology places us in a box for merely animals, with no concern for the intent of expanding and advancing through the old varieties of nature. That's why we have stupid, lazy and cowering people - knowing that does not mean that biology is stronger than ontology - it means ontology requires far more effort than biology. Those that say humans can be biologically described like animals clearly have never attempted to get to know a genius that had long since gone beyond their primitive state. Your way of thinking does not only cause females to not expand with the males - it causes everything else to be held back in fear and failure. Caveman brain? We don't live in a cave anymore because we are not in that state anymore. Lick your fingers, and turn the page to the next chapter in life. There is no such thing as "equally", as females are far more suppressed than males (females had to fight for their right; they still did not get much of it). You are clearly suppressing them with your old logic that would have worked back in the days when people were stupid and ignorant in a way that nothing could get by, in that denial wasn't even in existence - just death. In the end, females are boxed in with this biology argument, even though the biology argument is solely behind on the new Universe's traits and customs. I can tell you right now, that as I type this, there are many females being kicked down by males. While the male is demonstrating weakness and failure, while the female is demonstrating strength and evolution.
Male Evolution Versus Female Evolution (I believe Female Evolution needs more attention).

Back in the stone age, the primitive side of the brain was influencing the people over the practical side of the brain. The males created wars, excuses, power and control to get what they wanted, while the females, being biologically structured to be loved, not understood, had to be loved in a terrible sense of the word by the ruling of men. As civilization reached its peak of blood and death, people slowly started waking up to a more advanced way of controlling people without blood baths - the holy book. At this time, women were still suppressed as written in this book, where men continued to reign in a Universe that is built on both the sun (male) and the moon (female). The male is the hot head, and the female is the shining orb of wonder. So as time went by, civilization continued to resort to oppression and negligence towards the other half of nature (female), and so females never truly managed to grow like males did over these decades of dark time, which in turn caused the female brain to stay in a child brain's state from as young as a little girl in this new century where they are expected to love the color pink, ponies, rainbows and other LSD things, with no awareness of male's intentions or the raw jungle this society is towards indifference. The very reason why women are still in a child's state is because of all the negligence and ignorance of men towards their counter-part, in a Universe that's designed to have opposites compliment each other, not defeat each other. There's more animus, than anima today as much as yesterday - it simply doesn't seem apparent because females and males both were convinced that females are now in power, when they are not, as they are clearly intellectually challenged because 1) Females do not have the freedom to treat everything about them better for themselves, rather than for men, and 2) When a female manages to escape from this male society's influences, instead of finally building a path for women that needs to be built, they resort to the same riots and hateful fights that get nowhere throughout the world (feminism), thus causing females to forever repeat this vicious cycle between the evolution of female and the evolution of male.
Obama's plan for Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

Thank you for a response in this matter. I would like to back up my argument with the following contentions. 1. The additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan would help to secure the Afghanistan Pakistan border. Currently, Al qaeda and Taliban operatives can easily transport troops, weapons, drugs, and money across this border with little to no resistance. This is why an additional troop count is in the best interest for the United States and Afghanistan and surrounding areas. Reducing the crossover of this border is this nation's highest priority, considering the capabilities already provided to them. An additional 5,000 troops from the 30,000 have already been directly stationed at this focal point, decreasing the physical movement of insurgents across this border. An additional 10,000 troops are on their way to do the same. Isolating the Taliban and Al qaeda operatives is of prime importance, and this plan allows for the centralization of said insurgents in the best way possible leading to the eventual culmination of this war. 2. More troops would maintain security for the troops already stationed there. The United States has 70,000 + troops already stationed in Afghanistan, without the additional 30,000. These troops are spread across the 3,000 mile expanse of Afghanistan already, in other words, spread thin. General McChrystal, head of US forces in Afghanistan, says that this troops surge would allow for increased security by expansion, and would allow for direct targeting of Al qaeda and Taliban troops by sheer numbers. Furthermore, several thousand of these troops would be specifically dedicated to training the Afghan militia, and doubling their numbers from the current 200,000. This increase would include an additional 97,000 foot soldiers, and 95,000 additional militia members. By increasing the armed forces, we ensure success in the long run, even post US pull-out.
Obama's plan for Afghanistan is in the United States' best interest

I cannot think of any reasons why continuing this war would benefit the United States of America. When we first went into Iraq/ Afghanistan it was to eliminate Osama Bin Laden who at this time is believed to be hiding in Pakistan. But we got sidetracked. We felt that it was our duty to "liberate" the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. SO we sent in more troops to fight his army. After we had eliminated him we had almost caused as much damage to their country as Saddam had. With our rocket strikes we cilled thousands of people be they militants or civilians. Destroyed thousands of square miles total with our artillery and so on. After we finished blowing up everything that moved, we felt bad about all the damage and decided to stay on for a while and help clean up the rest of the terrorist organizations (most of which are not in Iraq and Afghanistan but rather in surrounding countries. Now we do alot of traing the new Iraqi army and police force. A great number of which are there to gather Intel for terrorist. THese terrorists who seem to come from everywhere. To put it simply these terrorist groups are like cockroaches no matter what you do to them they still seem to survive somehow. Next point. the United States CANNOT afford to keep this war running. In 2004 we were 7 seven trillion dollars in debt. .. THat was 6 years ago. DUe to this we are suffering the biggest economical clump since the great depression. That money being putt towards this "war" could be used to help get the economy back up on its feet. But according to the government we don't have the money to do it. And yet we can pull about 100 million out of thin air to help Haiti. Its time the United states stopped looking out at global affairs and began looking inward at our own problems.
Gay Marriage should be allowed under our current Constitutional and judicial standards.

The Unites States of America is founded upon the principles of Libery, Freedom, personal choice, and most of all we are suppose to be a land of equal opportunity. The First ammendment is designed to protect us from any type of theocratical law. The 14th ammendment is there to make sure everyone is guarranteed dual process and that everyone is treated the same under the law. So why then does the US government only recognize a marriage between heterosexual couples and not homosexuals as well. Also court rulings such as Loving vs. Virginia and Lawrence vs. Texas in my mind has laid a foundation for a judicial approach to this problem, should it be left up to the judiciary to end this form of governemnt discrimination.
Russians were created before the earth

There have been references in the Bible and Quran that the earth was created before the russians. On the 3rd page of the bible it is mentioned "russians are wAcK BrOO" which is translated to "russians are wack bro" (Bible, 20BCE) and in the Quran on the last page it mentions "الذين هم الروس. كانت رائحة غريبة" which translates to "who are the russians they smell weird". Again your whole "russians are strong" argument doesn't even mean nuthin. how did they breathe out in space. where's roofus
Trolling is bad for the community.

The basics of debating don't particularly necesitate writing an essay. Instead, it's simply constructing arguments in an orderly and coherent manner to refute an opponent's arguments and bring up unique and effective points to support your side as well. These paragraphs don't formulate an essay, as each essay must be formatted in a certain way. The California State University, Northridge, confirms this notion, explaining the basics of essay writing. Common essays entail six areas: Overview, Introduction, The Model, Body, Concluding Paragraph, and Final Comments. [1] Though this doesn't particularly relate to the debate, I must effectively counter any point my opponent brings up. Therefore, clarification of the juxtaposition of a debate essay and a normative debate must be given.Please read my explanation in the last round carefully, the one pertaining to thesis statements. If you recall, my opponent did not explicitly state his postion, it was left empty. Implied position may be true, but I did state my position, where I said "Troll is not bad" in the first round. That said, there is no logical or permissible reason to assume that I did not give a thesis, as my opponent has termed it, when I was the only one to state my position in the first round. Furthermore, stating it in the second round is NOT late. Allow me to explain. My opponent did not state his position in the first round, or give any arguments. His first statement was in the second round, whereas mine was in the first round. Even if I hadn't stated it in the first round, I would have done just as well as my opponent in this area.He calls my example an "ignorant" one, yet it successfully exemplified the action of a troll, and was NOT harmful or embarrassing to anyone, as it was not directed as an insult to anyone, nor in any fashion. He appeals to emotions by saying my troll was embarrassing. But, because it was not directed towards any particular person or party, the troll cannot be, in and of itself, offensive or embarrassing. It is for these reasons that I respectfully urge for a vote in negation. :) thank youSources:[1] http://www.csun.edu...[2]
Trolling is bad for the community.

I didn't have a criteria but I said it should be obvious because having a thesis is part of the process on a debate essay. On round 1 you gave an example without a thesis statement. Thesis Statements state your point and adds a clear claim. In fact I have a thesis statement and it's, "I believe that Internet trolling (more specifically on the troll videos on Youtube) (is bad)." I forgot to add "is bad" in the first round but I'm Pro into the topic. So you should figure out what I'm trying to say as my thesis statement. Also, I said before you only give me a type of an example of trolling that isn't necessary to do that. Have a scientific support is better than a physical support because it is less convincing, more hurtful, and might cause a big emotional fight between the debaters. As in conclusion, you didn't argue correctly and I won the round because of you using a unnecessary support that could have cause emotional arguing and you violating the basic criteria of a debating speech on any round. Now back to the topic. I basically said that the study of laughing that benefits our health (which was a very good support) is easily weaken by another study and the choice of humor. The study shown that this humor is created by the people who are increasingly being more disrespectful to others on real life and communication on the Internet. The humor part of the study doesn't really make trolling good because there are other humor creations that harm innocent people that makes society laugh and trolling is cause more threats than humor because it affects other people's social life at a young and old age and adds a threat to people in their mature state in which they are close of having a career. There are many storys of people who lost a job interview because of social networks and pictures and video of the person applying for the job. I would like to point out about the basics of trolling videos. 1. All trolling videos have people on the Internet talking or raging to some idiot who decide to use a camera or recording device on a game console. 2. The Internet is BIG! Anyone can watch the trolling video and laugh at a innocent person who didn't deserve to be laughed at and be negativity popularized. A depression attack is struck on a person or group of people that can cause suicide like bullying does. 3. Speaking of Bullying, it's already proved that trolling is bullying because both the troll and the bully want a funny reaction. Both entertain people around them. Trolling is worse because this type of bullying is being posted on the Internet where it's BIG!! Although that trolling videos actually help our moods and health, it causes much more harm such as the fact it's ruining our society by destroying the current life and maybe that future of innocent children, teens, and young adults and causing a more serious factor of disrespect and violence. Citations: The study of the personality of trolls: http://www.slate.com... Social Media affecting careers: http://www.theaggie.org...